Dog breeds and egalitarianism

File: disgust.jpg (69KB, 484x528px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 484x528px

>it's another /pol/ thread where they'll inevitably exclaim "& humanities!"

Do you expect a civilized discussion on race, OP? Or do you expect the exact same /pol/-tier shit posting it always is without fail?

>>1618008
>muh dog breeds
I'm pretty sure dog breeds are very different to human racial groups.

dogs are cute, racism isn't

Different environments =/= domesticated for specific roles.

The closest we got was slavery, and even then I'd not warrant it lasted longer than a few generations.

Yes, political correctness skews things too much towards absolute equality, even within racial groups there's a massive variation in intelligence. Now let's all sit back and watch the same old fucking debate on IQs by race, shall we?

>>1618008
they are trying to say its not as relevent as the pyramids etc are already in our environment where as a dog has no property, thus our differences as a human species are infinitely less significant to a dog that depends solely on its genetics for survival, we have our significantly molded environment to act as causeways us as water to flow through, direct and guide us.

essentially the shoulders of giants arguement.

but there still is some variance, but its more about this notion of free will - example studying twins, one may excel and exceed becoming massively fit strong and cordially whilst the other does not, filtering out the difference or weighted value of arguement from the environment, to see what is left as a notion of self divined will.

like nature vs nurture, that nature is again split between genetics (determinant) and something.. more, or that we just don't understand or can predict yet i do that when we can will be at the same point our (likely just one persons) lifespan becomes truely infinite, omnipotent. but it hasn't happened yet, defined as my cognitive conscious awareness, but theoretically is possible (multiverse string etc) but not in any meaningful tangible practical functional way, ie reality

>>1618032
>The closest we got was slavery, and even then I'd not warrant it lasted longer than a few generations.
bullshit social strata & substrata controlled by transgenerational pooling (and holding) of resources stretches back thousands of years.

File: slightly tainted ideology.jpg (286KB, 1940x1092px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1940x1092px

>it's an "underachiever, uneducated in the pertaining sciences tries to broscience/common knowledge/it just makes sense/this obscure internet site told me to disprove general scientific concensus" episode

>>1618008
>Some breeds are more intelligent than others.
And i knew from this sentence it was gonna turn into a cliched "then why is it shameful to admit black are dumber and stronger? It's just different specialisation. Race realism!" post.

File: Chromosome_Numbers_in_Different_Species.png (26KB, 811x603px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 811x603px

>>1618008
>And yet, people somehow assert that despite humans separating into completely different environments 200,000 years ago, we somehow all evolved to be completely the same, except for perhaps a few cosmetic differences.

The primary problem with human biodiversity theories is that humans are just not very diverse.

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/07/21/063636

>>1618032
No it's not equivalent. But judging how much we were able to shape dogs using a breeding program, isn't it conceivable that the radically different environments around the earth shaped humans in different ways as well?

200,000 years is a long time, that's over 10,000 generations. We observe massive exterior differences in appearance of the various races. Asians have slanted eyes, blacks have progmatic jaws.
Seeing how dog breeds have different intelligence's associated with them, isn't it conceivable that brainpower varies between the races just as much as bodies do?

Not just raw brainpower, but specific intelligence's in certain things. Different habits and inclinations.

There isn't a mastiff on this planet that's as intelligent as a standard poodle. With dogs at least, the variation between groups is much more than the variation within the group. If the variation for humans was even 10% of this, it would still be a tremendous difference.

>>1618104
Most of that DNA isn't even accessed
I'm not sure what you're proving here

A slightly higher sunlight level was enough for skin colors between Africa and Europe to be completely different. Environment shapes human beings tremendously

>>1618032
>even within racial groups there's a massive variation in intelligence
This, this, this, this. Any policy proposal supporting white/asian/etc supremacism is just a way to make the low-IQ unfit losers in that group feel important. If we're going to rank populations, Alabama doesn't deserve to stand alongside New Jersey, while New Jersey can certainly stand alongside non-Western high-achievement regions. The Chinese peasant living in a hole in the ground is not equal to a Shangai urbanite.

File: SolarGIS-Solar-map-World-map-en.png (655KB, 1280x631px) Image search: [Google]

655KB, 1280x631px

>>1618127
>slightly higher

yes, "slightly"

>>1618115
>t. But judging how much we were able to shape dogs using a breeding program, isn't it conceivable that the radically different environments around the earth shaped humans in different ways as well?
No.
Feral and wild dogs are pretty much the same, no matter if it's Moscow, India or Australia.

Conscious breeding for tasks>>whatever adaptions a stray population may pick up.

>>1618130
And yet, the Chinese peasant living in a hole in the ground is 1/50th as likely to commit murder as an black African

>>1618145
Because he lives in a hole in the ground, can't afford or access guns, and only has his inbred cousins to shoot.

>>1618144
Of course, some adaptations like "my eyes/skin/diet/blood oxygen levels means i don't die like a dumbass from the local elements" have developed, but there isn't much more.

>>1618153
Also because he will be harvested for his organs if he commits a serious crime.

>>1618156
>>1618141
Don't you think things such as access to food and water, and the severity of the winters would have some effect on intelligence?

You can't be stupid and survive a Scandanavian winter. You also need a much higher level of social trust

>>1618008
>>1618115
Didn't the human emmigration from Africa occur relatively recently?

>>1618115
Sources please

Of course animals bred purely for a certain aesthetic will be sorta fucked up in the head. You're basically taking a few totally random genes and selecting heavily for them.

Most of the more intelligent breeds were bred for an actual purpose, like hunting or herding. These are complex tasks that require actual real-world skills, and probably the fine-tuning of a number of genes related to those skills.

The situation with humans, even in different parts of the world, is more similar to the second example. Except that we would be much more generalist than a dog bred for a specific job.
A subsistence farmer in russia needs about the same skillset as a subsistence farmer in ethiopia. More more similar than the skillset of a hunting dog compared to a herding dog.

>>1618167
Get out, that's not a thing that happens.

>>1618169
Shouldn't that lead to Eskimos being the masterrace as far as intelligence and social trust goes?

>>1618169
>it just makes sense

wonderful. publish it

>>1618169
>europeans are smart because of harsh winters
i guess that explains why eskimoes are the smartest race in the world

>>1618169
You can't be stupid to survive without modern tech in most places on Earth, mang. All brainpower past "just enough" is a drain on your caloric resources if you take the fine-tuner interpretation of evolution.

>>1618167
The crime rate in the average Chinese city is literally 1/30th the crime rate in the average African or American city

American cities with large black populations have Zimbabwe-level murder rates
Detroit was had the highest median income in the world when it was 90% white. Now 50% of people there are illiterate

>>1618176
>The buying and selling of organs is prevalent in the black market of China. The organ trade is the trade of organs for organ transplantation. There is a shortage of organs available for transplantation which fuels a thriving black market for organs. Traditionally, Chinese culture dictates that organs should be buried and cremated has led to a dearth of bodies being donated. Therefore, China has resorted to harvesting organs from the bodies of prisoners for the use of organ transplants.
>According to an organ trafficking paper written by Budiani-Saberi and Delmonico, 11,000 transplants were performed in china using the organs of executed prisoners in 2006.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China
>Chinese officials reported in 2005 that up to 95% of organ transplants are sourced from prisoners.[16] However, China does not perform enough legal executions to account for the large number of transplants that are performed, and voluntary donations are exceedingly rare (only 130 people registered as voluntary organ donors nationwide from 2003 to 2009).[5]).

>In a statement before the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Damon Noto said “the prisoners sentenced to death cannot fully account for all the transplantations that are taking place in China [...] Even if they executed 10,000 and transplanted 10,000 a year, there would still be a very large discrepancy. Why is that? It is simply impossible that those 10,000 people executed would match perfectly the 10,000 people that needed the organs.”[58] David Kilgour and David Matas similarly write that traditional sources of transplants such as executed prisoners, donors, and the brain dead "come nowhere near to explaining the total number of transplants across China." Like Noto, they point to the large number of Falun Gong practitioners in the labor camp and prison system as a likely alternative source for organs.[13]

>>1618192
Eskimos are cut off from gene flow, which is known to lead to inbreeding and low IQ's.

Australian Aboriginals were isolated from the mainland for centuries, and they have the lowest IQ's in the world. Average of about 62

File: Map_of_world_by_intentional_homicide_rate.svg.png (329KB, 2000x1027px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 2000x1027px

>>1618195
if race is such a big factor to crime, why are the regional variations so high you dummy?

File: Hibernian_a37bc1_5866691.jpg (480KB, 692x2081px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 692x2081px

>>1618169
yeah, and it's also why one of the reasons why jews are crafty, nordic socialism works better, and asians are good at tests.
So, yeah, we have reached the marvelous studies that show jews, presbyterians and chinese-americans have a couple of IQ points over the average, and some people have more historical closeness to certain ways of government.
Woopty-doo.

>>1618201
>Wait periods for organ transplants in China are significantly shorter than elsewhere in the world. According to a 2006 post on the China International Transplantation Assistance Center website, "it may take only one month to receive a liver transplantation , the maximum waiting time being two months. As for the kidney transplantation , it may take one week to find a suitable donor,the maximum time being one month...If something wrong with the donor's organ happens, the patient will have the option to be offered another organ donor and have the operation again in one week."[60] Other organ transplant centers similarly advertised average wait times of one or two weeks for liver and kidney transplants.[13][61][62] This is consistent with accounts of organ transplant recipients, who report receiving organs a matter of days or weeks.[8][63][64] By comparison, median wait times for a kidney in developed countries such as the United States, Canada and Great Britain typically range from two years to over four years, despite the fact that these countries have millions of registered organ donors and established systems of organ matching and allocation.[65][66][67]

>Researchers and medical professionals have expressed concern about the implications of the short organ transplant wait times offered by Chinese hospitals. Specifically, they say these wait times are indicative of a pool of living donors whose organs can be removed on demand.[22] This is because organs must be transplanted immediately after death, or must be taken from a living donor (kidneys must be transplanted within 24–48 hours; livers within 12 hours, and hearts within 8 hours).[68]

>>1618207
find a map of death ie murder by any definition to population percentage

rate of death to population

>>1618215
What do you think "intentional homicide rate" means?

File: Google Jewish IQ.png (69KB, 1105x827px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1105x827px

>>1618208
Screencap from Google

Jews are not even a separate race, just a separate ethnicity. Look at the massive difference

>>1618215
the murder rate, as is standard, is on that map expressed in "per 100k population" you analphabetic saliva gargler

>>1618204
by the time ur testing whats left would be the dumbest few % because regardless smart or dumb aboriginees are fierce and fight to defend their land

the rest is just mass brainwashing and biased disinformation shilling to justify whatever the fuck leads to holding this geopolitical area away from gooks, americans, and whoever the fuck else isnt british crown descendant

>>1618223
no retard thats homocide a slice of the murder (any killing) pie

>>1618204
You got any sources for the Aborginals and Eskimos being inbreed?

>>1618231
It's the other way around you mongoloid. "Murder" is a type of intentional homicide.

>>1618225
M8, the aboriginals would cut open a hole in your flesh and have sex with it. They routinely had sex with their own children, gang raping was a constant. According to accounts from early explorers, they did not even understand the connection between sex and pregnancy. They invented nothing.

Do you know how many white people have an IQ of 62? We're talking one in a million

>>1618222
so yeah, they are smarter, but tend to be autistic and likelier to get lost (seems even Old Testament stereotypes are true).

>>1618239
>Do you know how many white people have an IQ of 62? We're talking one in a million
Mild intellectual disability is IQ 50–69, moderate intellectual disability is IQ 35–49. Needless to say, there are more than just a dozen retards per country.

>>1618236
no retard fuck homicide is a part of the killing pie one that can be word manipulated post a picture of per capita for nation statism that is killing of any kind from war to democide to execution to homicide

>>1618248
In fact, "The average IQ of a young adult with Down syndrome is 50" and "Down syndrome occurs in about 1 per 1000 births". And that's just one specific cause of disability, which has little to do with hereditary genetics since it's a chromosomal accident.

>>1618248
Which is the Aboriginal average, meaning half of them are below
It's totally ludicrous to assume that they have the same brain power whites do, I mean you'd really have to be some kind of academic idiot to think this.

Why did so much human advancement come from such a small section of the globe, Europe?
Why did Mexico turn into Mexico, while during the exact same time period America became a super power? The difference is, in America Europeans remained separate from the natives, in Mexico they interbred

>>1618253
What does the execution rate or warfare have to do with people being more likely to commit homicide, which is what we were discussing?
Singapore has the highest execution rate in the world, what's your fucking point?

>>1618253
>>1618236

how about you two spergs read how the rates and the map are arrived at, instead of arguing semantics?


The point from my map post still stands

>>1618257
>Why did so much human advancement come from such a small section of the globe, Europe?
In a specific slice of time. Before that is was indians, arabs, greeks, romans, while guys like germanics were still tribal.

>>1618257
IQ is not "brain power".

>Why did so much human advancement come from such a small section of the globe, Europe?
Well it certainly doesn't have anything to do with IQ because there are large regions with higher IQ than Europe. 100 IQ is the average, so the European IQ is globally average by definition (many European countries have average IQs below 100)

>>1618173
Relatively recent in comparison to the earth's creation yes, but that's just distorting perception.
Rome fell relatively recently aswell, but to say that were still recovering from it would be a bit of a stretch

Dogs were selectively and forcefully bred for specific traits.

Humans weren't, the only selective pressure on human races was environmental, such as sunlight, heat, diet, etc. Other than that everything has basically been the same, remember that civilisation is only a few thousand years old, not enough time for us to evolve beyond cosmetics, and more importantly, just a few thousand years ago all humans on earth were living the same lifestyle and all adapted that same lifestyle.

>>1618257
>Why did Mexico turn into Mexico, while during the exact same time period America became a super power?
https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/geopolitics-united-states-part-1-inevitable-empire

>>1618267
Besides, Europe was full of morons in the 18th and 19th century which is when it distinguished itself.

>>1618115
For humans outside of Africa its like 70,000 years, and they all lived in the same manner until 10k ago so why would they be dramatically different other than melanin?

>>1618267
>many European countries have average IQs below 100
Specifically the slavic ones. Remember slavs are only half-white. They are mongol rape babies, a result of mongol incursions from the East.

Countries in southern Europe have long been subject to mixing with Islamics down south. For example, in Northern Italy the people are tall, white, and look like Northern Europeans. While in southern Italy people are small and dark.

>>1618175
Fucking this.
>>1618281
and this

>>1618195
China is a highly developed actually successful communist country. Africa is not.

Are you literally retarded? Why not compare a stone age German to a Han Chinese instead? People act according to their surroundings and China and Africa are very different.

>>1618295
>They all lived in the same manner
Except this isn't true at all

Some of them fished. Some of them were farmers. Some were herdsmen.
Some of them had to deal with harsh winters, some with mountain ranges, some with deserts.

I don't understand how you can say something like this

File: 1471481723203.jpg (2KB, 106x125px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 106x125px

>>1618297

>>1618297
>They are mongol rape babies,
But Mongols have higher IQ than Europeans. Eastern Europeans should be the smartest group.

>>1618308
>Some of them were farmers. Some were herdsmen.
Not until 10k years ago.

Also, people migrated. We don't know of any population that lived in the same spot/environment before the Neolithic Revolution.

>>1618312
Maybe the Mongols from East Asia living in mongolia

But the backward savage shit-tier tribes that invaded Europe weren't

>>1618312
Als, eastern Europeans got more original hunter gather genes so they should be smarter anyway.

>>1618297
>going full /int/ memes

i'm sure the scientific community would reel at these new insights

>>1618320
>People migrated

Which is why they look completely different.
Why someone from china looks totally different from someone in Africa. Why we can determine someone's race by their skeleton

If the outside changed so much, why not the brain as well?
After all, we know brain power varies tremendously with dog breeds. Yet they are still the same species

>>1618308
>Some of them fished. Some of them were farmers. Some were herdsmen.
>Some of them had to deal with harsh winters, some with mountain ranges, some with deserts.
So from that, innuit now have diabetes from eating western food, ethiopians are good runners, and native americans have alcoholism.
Much divergence.

>>1618308
I assure you, 99% of humans pre civilisation were nomadic hunter gatherers with an extremely varied skill set.

Yes they lived in different places, deserts, forests etc, but we being humans, have big brains which have knowledge. In a sense the brain trumps evolution, we don't need to evolve to live in a forest because we can LEARN to live in a forest.

See?

>>1618333
Some learn better than others apparently. Because while Europeans were inventing calculus and setting up industrial machinery, Native Americans were sharpening sticks

File: paleo-211.jpg (50KB, 620x400px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 620x400px

>>1618321
>Maybe the Mongols from East Asia living in mongolia
Those are Mongols, or rather the pathetic remnants of what used to be Mongols.

>backward savage shit-tier tribes
You mean Mongols?

>>1618312
>>1618323


of course slavs are smarter
They managed to compete with all the old great powers and usa/capitalism under a gimped communist system, just fresh out of feudalism and a major "genocide" and for 50 years at that.

They also proved themselves to be a better race than the supermensch that are the aryans, by fucking them figuratively (and their wives literally) in the ass.


:^)

>>1618339
Communism was entirely a Jewish thing

80% of the people in the USSR government were Jewish

Don't take my word for it:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bSAB5OPkwQ

>>1618337
Some learn better than others apparently. Because while middle easterners were inventing algebra and setting up agricultural machinery, Europeans were sharpening sticks

>>1618339
You are only allowed to use that sort of logic when it benefits my side you little shill.

So guys, all this talk of genes is fun but, how many of you have a PhD or at least a Msc in epigenetics?

I don't, but I know I'm right, because It just makes sense!

>>1618347
If you want to know a little bit about Communism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUMwgsy6ZD4

>>1618367
my Poe-o-meter is spiking

My modest eugenic proposal for the United States:

- Low-IQ populations such as African Americans, Latin Americans, German Americans, Dutch Americans and unhyphenated Americans should be sterilized.
- Low-achieving areas such as black-majority cities and the Bible Belt are a demographic cancer fostering dysgenic cultures, they should be turned back into pasture until they can be colonized by populations drawn from higher-achieving areas.
- Breeding should be incentivized for high-income, high-IQ, high-achievement groups in the US, such as East Asians, Jews, Iranians, Nigerians and Indians.
- The low-achieving populations that are clearly not adapted to thrive in the United States should be deported back to their ancestral environment (Subsaharan Africa, Central Europe...)

>>1618404
Why go by groups, instead of going on a case-by-case basis? Consider there are very smart blacks and very stupid whites.

File: United_States_eugenics_advocacy_poster.jpg (382KB, 901x578px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 901x578px

>>1618420
Efficiency. I mean sure, some people will get the short end of the stick, but the effect will be positive overall.

>>1618426
It would be more positive if you actually based yourself on genomes rather than phenotype. And you aren't taking into account variances across gene-expression. Genes linked to psycopahty, often present in violent offenders, are also linked to jobs like CEO, lawyer and surgeon and these are some of the groups whose breeding you would be incentivizing.

>>1618439
I was joking, anon.

>>1618420
>Why go by groups, instead of going on a case-by-case basis?

Inherent racial inferiority of the blacks and europoids

>>1618446
Pardon my autism.

>>1618337
Do you really think that argument works?

While Europeans were sharpening sticks Arabs were building cities.

>>1618211
>Specifically, they say these wait times are indicative of a pool of living donors whose organs can be removed on demand

That's horrifying. Imagine being held captive knowing you're going to have your organs removed the moment the opportunity arises.

File: fuck_and_you.jpg (1012KB, 3590x2693px) Image search: [Google]

1012KB, 3590x2693px

>>1618008
>And yet, people somehow assert that despite humans separating into completely different environments 200,000 years ago, we somehow all evolved to be completely the same, except for perhaps a few cosmetic differences.
First off, "race", is PC for "breed".

Second off, while there are undeniably some differences between our breeds, we are nonetheless the most genetically homogenous mammal on the planet, second only to the tasmanian devil (which is so genetically homogenous, different members of the species can transfer cancers to one another.)

Pic related should give you some idea at just how little variance there is in our species compared to others.

>/pol/ thread #31,837,417

File: fuck_you.jpg (35KB, 519x617px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 519x617px

>>1619147
...and of course I post the wrong pic... Though I suppose the intent is about right.

>>1618008
I do not believe that such a slight difference in brain size can affect intelligence but i do believe certain races are better at some things than others. It's simply evolution.

File: IMG_20160829_154500.jpg (1MB, 1520x2688px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1520x2688px

HOW HAS THIS THREAD EXISTED WITHOUT MY PRESENCE

Facial differences are rather weird to fixate on, and someone obsessed with them, even while ostensibly refuting a /pol/tard, is, by primordial definition, a /pol/tard.

I present actual differences by ethnicities. First, a suggestion for a variational perspective without /pol/tarded racism: whoever lands in a new region must adapt or die, and whoever lands there stems from a parent culture likely almost certainly genetically indistinct from itself but culturally distinct (because the parents still live in the homeland, while the children have not only been compelled to leave, either by invasion or a cultural predilection for exploration like polynesians, and furthermore the children have culturally diversified over their generations-long travels).

In an earlier thread...

http://desuarchive.org/his/thread/1549518/#q1549518

... we wondered if physical and cultural differences could emerge that open doors to mental diversification. Well, I don't have a mental example right now, but beyond the earlier "eskimos can't readily eat our food and we theirs" food for thought, I present the Yaghan:

https://forum.jackkruse.com/index.php?threads/yaghan-natives-of-south-america.4313/

https://jacquelinewindh.com/books/patagonia-yagan-shis/

They had really high metabolic rates. They were human radiators. They could dive into the ocean freezing winter (also had funny lung structures but i can't find links on that) to collect food for extended times, whereas 100% of us would die. As a note, the Yaghan diet was much more normal than that used by anyone in the Arctic. Sheklfish, fish, some plants etc. No gigantic slabs of blubber. No single-handedly hunting a whale by lunging off a canoe with a spear and riding and stabbing it like it was an oversized horse.

People-flow distinctions:
>native <-> civilization (99% of us)
>native [-> civilization (eskimo diet w/ pills)
>native <-] civilization (us to yaghan with insulation)

>>1618008

dogs have much sorter lifespans and larger litters, which makes breeding them quicker and more efficient. Also, dog genetics =/= human genetics, and nowhere have humans been subjected to the kind of deliberate, specialized breeding that dogs have been.

>>1618404

why not just create breeding programs where entry is based on IQ, and the smartest men get to bang hot fertile bitches all day? Much easier than forcefully sterilizing entire populations, and you won't sound like such a Nazi asshole.

>>1618358

>you gotta go to college to know things

why are leftists without exception elitists with slave morality?

Dogs were not 'bred from wolves' you mouthbreathing retard.

>>1619834
>They had really high metabolic rates. They were human radiators. They could dive into the ocean freezing winter (also had funny lung structures but i can't find links on that) to collect food for extended times, whereas 100% of us would die.

ok so we're like for sure they're the same species as, say aboriginals?

>>1620165
If those ( >>1619150 ) are the same species - why would you even ask the question?

>>1620257

cause dog breeds are a fallacious analogy for human bio-diversity, duh.

>>1620283
Of which, compared to most mammalian species, there is almost none. Dogs being but one example of the extremes you tend to see in different breeds of other mammalian species. The two depicted aren't even different sub-species, just breeds.

You can make the argument that there are different human breeds - which is what races are - but once you start claiming different species, you're off the deep end, even by /pol/ standards.

>>1618207
Damn Greenland, you scary.

>>1620320
What about subspecies?

>>1620395

or sub-sub-species?

Is each man a kingdom onto himself?

>>1619147
>>1619150
>little variance there is in our species compared to others
Pygmies and Dutch. Or to halt >muh nutrition, Pygmies and Dinka

>>1618032
>and even then I'd not warrant it lasted longer than a few generations.

Slavery in America was 1630-1865 (and likely longer in a de-facto form).

That's 11-12 generations.

File: 51r8Ph-vcaL.jpg (37KB, 326x500px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 326x500px

Even 10000 years is an escalator ride.
Dog breeds are alike with human ones in that they arise of geographic separation. Race resembles ethnicity in genetic cluster analysis. This is very well regarded for popular ancestry purposes.

>>1620835
>Dog breeds are alike with human ones in that they arise of geographic separation.
Well, wolf breeds maybe... Dog breeds are a result of unnatural selection.

>>1618008
OP, you could not have picked a worst analogy. You chose one of the few forms of evolution that has *not* taken place naturally. Like honestly, there are plenty of other animals that have evolved naturally into many varying species. Why wouldn't you use those?

I don't know if there's major intelligence differences between races, but I know there are between individual, and you, OP, are at the fucking bottom of that. Pride in your race won't change that. The idea that the majority of your race may be smarter than average doesn't stop you from being dumb as shit.

>>1620908

>it's another race realism thread

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

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Articles/2006/10/affirmativeaction-dickens/20060619_IQ.PDF

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC_8Ro73z4w

http://www.politicalforum.com/race-relations/243092-why-race-realism-pseudoscience.html

http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21572377-african-lives-have-already-greatly-improved-over-past-decade-says-oliver-august

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIjnkV_j0yk

http://www.livescience.com/163-big-brains.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Oq4xNDBN28

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_eZO89DC-c

>>1620835
>race resembles ethnicity in gc analysis
wut.jpeg

>>1620935

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php

>>1620939
Completely, incredibly wrong.

The picture literally proves that the average black is 85, and the average whitey is around 105.

The argument is pure sophistry, and only an idiot would fall for it

>>1620426
While I'll admit the Pygmies are a special case, lineage-wise, are you really going to compare the morphological differences between them, and any other human, with that between a chihuahua and a great dane?

I mean, maybe if they were 6 inches tall, and blue, with tails, and being chased around by cats and angry old wizards...

>>1619881
>and nowhere have humans been subjected to the kind of deliberate, specialized breeding that dogs have been.

But that's wrong.

>>1620985
If the shortest pygmies were continuously bred like dogs, then yeah, you'd see a big difference.

The fact that it occurred naturally indicates something

Can this just be a doggo thread instead?

>>1620958
btw just to let you know humans are far too varied for there to be only one race

>>1620972
Still places the bulk of each population well within each other's range.

Otherwise you get into the old "half of people all people are below average intelligence" fallacy. (Though, in the end, it's more than half.)

>>1620996
It indicates they were stuck in tightly knit woods on tiny islands for thousands of generations.

Taxology doesn't always keep to hard and fast rules, but if they weren't human, no taxologist would look at a Pygmy and a Dinka, take into account they can interbreed, and call them different species. They're clearly just different breeds of the same animal.

>>1621004

>most people aren't retarded

this statement alone doesn't actually say that much

File: file.png (36KB, 358x218px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 358x218px

>>1621004
It still means that if you see a black guy and a white guy walking together the white one is statistically more likely to be smarter than the black one.

Also notice how the black IQ reaches its climax at the same place where the white one starts to rise
>>1621019
Wow it's like we're debating that races exist or something

>>1618017
>>1618027
>>1618023

>offers absolutely valid biological and evolutionary set of arguments
>/pol/!!!11 racism1!!

This is literally /tumblr/
I sincerely hope that you all fucking die

>>1621026
No, I'm not with the more extreme ends of the infograph article link-spam guy.

Race exists, but it's just another word for breed.

But we aren't different enough to claim separate *species*. The best we can claim is breeds. We're, sadly, just not that many biological steps removed from the niggers, as much as we'd all like to be, however emotionally unsatisfying that biological truth is.

I dunno why I keep bumping this obvious /pol/ thread though.

File: file.png (159KB, 370x369px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 370x369px

>>1621044
>Race exists, but it's just another word for breed.

So we agree.

Cheers

>>1621043

>invalid and outdated

FTFY

>>1620991

of course there's been eugenics, slave breeding, etc but not in the specialized and prolonged way you see for dogs.

>>1621072
Just to remind you that by all taxonomic standards races DO exist; either we're aliens or you're going to need to reclassify all the other animals from scratch

>>1618008
Egalitarianism doesn't mean you assume everyone is the same.

Egalitarianism (literally) means you assume everyone is equal.

>>1621091
If everyone isn't the same there's no way everyone's equal

>>1621080
So any specialization is negligible unless it is minimally done at the dog scale?

What about domesticated foxes?

>>1621097
politically equal

>>1621091
Even if you leave race out of it, not everyone's equal...

I suppose that's where Egalitarianism tends to go wrong though, rather than providing everyone with equal access to opportunities and rights, it sometimes gets stretched into an effort to force everyone to be equal.

>>1621097
This, more or less: >>1621102

Egalitarianism means people are treated as equals, given the same opportunities etc.

>>1621106
>Even if you leave race out of it, not everyone's equal...
Why not? I feel like we've had this exact same discussion in another thread a few months ago.

>>1621126
But today the term has been coopted by leftists to mean "equal outcomes".

If, say, blacks don't perform the same as asians, then it's always the fault of "the system" or "the environment". They can't fathom that group differences exist.

>>1621106
>I suppose that's where Egalitarianism tends to go wrong though,
There is no such thing as an organised Egalitarian movement, there are egalitarian policies and policies that claim to be egalitarian. Our current system is manifestly not Egalitarian but is patched up with Egalitarian policies.

>rather than providing everyone with equal access to opportunities and rights, it sometimes gets stretched into an effort to force everyone to be equal.
You can't force everyone to be equal, you either treat them equally or you don't. What you're worried about is people being forced to be the same.

>>1621134
I'm assuming that you're inferring that Asians and Blacks are not academically equal, due to the popular argument that African Americans were 'bred' for physical strength and endurance due to centuries of slavery (sort of like the dog breed image you have posted), whereas Asian immigrants hail from a broad selection of people from cultures that value education. Am I correct in assuming this?

>>1621130
/pol/ posts this thread on every board every day...

...But if you mean that particular sub discussion, no, some people are taller, shorter, smarter, faster, slower, happier, sadder, more social, more anti-social, and all various levels of disabled. You can mitigate some of those to one degree or another, sometimes, but it's dangerous feigned ignorance to simply deny it.

>>1621147
>Am I correct in assuming this?
No, you'd be wrong. American blacks weren't "bred" to be dumb, in fact they're way smarter than the blacks still in Africa because they have a bit of white DNA in them.

Asians don't outperform blacks because "they value education", but because they have a higher average IQ.

>>1621154
>in fact they're way smarter than the blacks still in Africa because they are living in a rich, 1st world country, which has been proven to be correlated to IQ scores.

Fix'd that for you my deluded friend.

>>1621171
>ecause they are living in a rich, 1st world country, which has been proven to be correlated to IQ scores.
Well no shit, high IQ people tend to be better at building rich, 1st world countries than low IQ populations.

But really, the IQ difference between the average african and the average american black is roughly the same as between the average american black and the average american white.

>>1621149
Nobody (except for stupid or misinformed people) denies this. It's a common strawman for right-wingers to use against egalitarianism.

If you folks want to hold on to your money and privilege just come out and say it, acting in your own self-interest is less contemptible than pretending this has anything to do with your inherent value as a higher-IQ white person or whatever the hell you have decided to justify it with.

>>1621175
t. filthy commie

>>1621154

>a bit

it's actually a lot.

>>1621175
Well you asked...

>>1621175
>asks a question
>gets an answer
>proceeds to rant about MUH GREEDY WHITE MALES

>>1621099

what about domesticated foxes? They could just be unusually friendly genetic outliers. The specialization humans have undergone may have impacts on behavior, but the analogy used by the OP doesn't hold up

Son of Poseidon's Thousand-Pronged Sceptre of Faggotry! I had a good post going on here, then 4chan-x freaked out and I lost everything, then the mods did something to this thread and I no longer have no idea who I was responding to. Thus, the following multi-post is a blanket response to all you faggots in this thread who cannot understand the distinction between /pol/ racism and real racism.

No one here is all of the following:
>Biophysicist
>Biochemist
>Physiologist
>Psychologist
>Neuroscientist
>Computer Scientist
>Physicist
>Mathematician
>Computer Engineer
>The mysterious folks who build all your instrumentation
>The hermit who builds all his own instrumentation

Thus, we are all rather equalized in being incapable of answering, much less formally asking without redundancy, the spirit behind the question that underlies all threads like this. Here's the question posed one way:
>To what extent do genetic differences across humanity translate to differences in neurological development given the same stimuli?
Alternatively:
>If you kidnapped a random distribution of many people across the world, had someone else raise them in uniform environments for many generations with the intent of wiping-out all cultural distinctions, then studied them yourself... could you distinguish between people originally descending from different ethnic groups? If all the subjects came from white middle america or some random bumfuckistan, would you mistakenly identify ethnic distinctions?

In my next post, I provide a little story of mine to provide useful historical context. Because I was warned by mods to not discuss this unless I could concretely relate it to history, which seems like good advice. It involves suddenly freaking out and not killing yourself in the process.

>>1621315
Here's the story. Around here, in California, we have a rather dead environment in the intermediate aftermath of El Nino and immediately before it/during it. However, in its immediate aftermath, several things happen:
>All the rattlesnakes and bears wake up from hibernation.
>A billion baby rattlesnakes appear and start eating literally everything.
You are more likely to hit a black bear than a deer, and that happened several times.

So I caught myself on a trail heavily eroded by the storm and effectively on cliffside with a nice little plain off to its side. Lovely space for rattlesnakes, and what looks like their hibernation den, a giant furnace-looking cave thing, disgorges little snakes right on to the path! But they had already scattered. By the time I woke up from my retardation on this hiking trip, it was pitch-black, I was too scared to return to my car the much safer way I'd came, and I realized the trail was getting worse, the grass was filled with rattlesnake sounds, and the bush and cliff face gave me no room to maneuver in most parts.

Okay-dokey, perfectly survivable situation even without a flashlight, but I had one on me, and the highway marked an easy escape. Here is a list of things, my experience, that equipped me to not freak out:
>I'd been up this trail as a child, so I knew exactly what to expect given the degradation I'd seem thus far.
>I'd been in a hiking stint for a few months by then, so I'd done worse.
>Family members had stories of doing much much worse and under artillery fire or chemical weapons deployment, so this can't be that bad.
>The adage, "Lots of people did it before you, lots of people are doing it with you elsewhere, lots of people will successfully do this after you -- so stop being a faggot and just do it."
>The adage, "The mind is a powerful thing, and if you freak out then of course you'll fucking die you disgraceful cowardly faggot."

So I ran down the rest of the trail knowing I took a safe calculated risk.

>>1621338
Now, if I had none of those five bullet points... then what? Well, then, you get easily-triggered faggots necessitating articles like this:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

In other words, for each bullet point lost, I am slightly more screwed than I was. Let there be a point of critical screwedness (a very scientific term!). Above it, I proceed, maybe get bit and need antivenom, but ultimately wind up okay; I survive to live another day to read-up on my ethnobotany; I survive long enough to be convinced to autonomously pick-up on institutional knowledge (how the Native Americans lived here every day of their lives and didn't give a fuck). Beneath that point, and /it takes me too long to think about how to survive/. I do one of the following:
>Sprint in an uninformed manner, thus drawing many bites and subsequent death.
>Ignore my surroundings due to an uninformed/undeveloped risk-reward system within my brain for new situations like this. I fall off the cliff at any of several points and die.
>Stop moving (these rattlesnakes chase you for some reason this time of year, starving babies?), freak out, retreat because approaching rattling sounds, stop moving, freak out, etc. until a critical freaked-outedness emerges and I die anyway -- I stop moving/thinking.

It is not too hard to say that a Chumash is just fine with the environment and will only die if he suffered a major brain injury the day before. It is also not too hard to say that an urbanite raised to disdain reading will drop his spaghetti and die. No one has ever died here, but many have died farther north in California where such urbanites exist (I think across the US the number is 4000 per year who go missing, and recently an old lady died of starvation a mere 400 meters away from some SoCal trail after searching for the trail for a month -- she was an idiot).

>>1621315
>Biophysicist
>Biochemist
>Physiologist
>Psychologist
>Neuroscientist
>Computer Scientist
>Physicist
>Mathematician
>Computer Engineer
>The mysterious folks who build all your instrumentation
>The hermit who builds all his own instrumentation
nah anon, see >>1620133 you don't need to be "educated" to "know things", just think about it, it "just makes sense"

>>1621354
Now, please permit me to /interpret the meaning/ of this critical point of survival.

If I am not taught this institutional knowledge, I must learn it for myself. For example, if I wish to be a radio engineer but have no access to those mystical transistor radios everyone seems to have taken apart in youth -- or, more relevant to the thread, if the interaction I am expected to make with the radio precludes its design such that it can be sensibly studies at all as a beginner's project at reverse engineering -- then I am going to have a harder time competing with a white fellow who's uncle or teacher or whatever was a radio engineer /up to the critical point/ where I become capable of autonomously encouraging myself to study radio, at which point I, or more accurately any of several radio engineers, wildly out-compete the cookie-cutter engineer due to their own independent investigations /deriving from likely novel pathways of investigation/ (because, honestly, there are a million ways to become an engineer but 90% of everyone can be binned into just a few ways, and we have a 70% washout rate from undergraduate enrollment through to the first 5 years of employment anyway).

Sort of like this satirical back-and-forth:
>>1620133
>>1621365
You honestly don't go to college, but lacking any other role model who did things differently (for example, self-taught engineers, machine shop experience... a civil war where you go from welding to making AA weaponry to developing yourself and through study more advanced mathematics related to AA gun coordination, etc.), it's pretty gosh darn difficult to compete well enough to be allocated sufficient resources to develop.

I would call this "privilege," and it means the lifestyle you are (statistically likely to be) destined to experience will drop you straight into one of these bins of (engineering) education. So when someone describes racism properly, they refer to the allocation, by culture, of universally-extant bins.

>>1621376
This is a variational way of saying things. In other words, if you do not assimilate immediately into the culture that will judge you as a distinct race (as a group in a primary and secondary educational study, for example, the statistics of which we will get to shortly), you will only succeed in bins not yet occupied (or more generally, not as competitively occupied or overlooked).

Holy shit my left forearm is in blistering pain....

Now for stats. /pol/tarded racism says your performance is affected by you race and not really anything else. Thankfully, this world is rather complicated, so everyone, I think, is equalized before universal competition. So long as you pass the critical threshold of being willing to teach yourself, you'll be a counterexample to such imperial racism. In this part of Cali, let the white population be vanilla standard. Actually, let everyone who can speak English fluently form one clade. Let EL folks form another. EL dramatically underperform the vanilla clade in Math and reading, especially as the clade ages. I know that CA's standardized tests have issues, but I find their results to roughly to correlate with my limited experience with these kids, but don't trust me, just know a third clade I will soon define winds up with all the Stanford and Ivy League kids, and they tend not to be underperformant as far as what little tracking systems we have in place can attest to. By the way, the testing is at least better than that described here:

https://dianeravitch.net/2012/12/27/11990/

>>1621315
>>>/sci/
>>>/pol/
>>1621338
>>>/out/
>>1621354
>>>/x/
>>1621376
>>>/diy/

None of this crap, nor OP's post, belong in /his/ in any way, shape, or form. At best, you're talking about evolutionary pre-history. You're on about genetic differences, so you're not even in the realm of philosophy or religion.

The fact that the mods haven't done anything to your thread, unlike you claim, is rather disheartening, but par for the course around here.

>>1621437
Now, you can see all the legally-defined clades and stats in this next link. Study them for a few minutes. There are 7 clades and their CAASPP results are divided into the two components of English and Math.

Specific link to my region:

http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov/sb2016/ViewReport?ps=true&lstTestYear=2016&lstTestType=B&lstGroup=4&lstCounty=42&lstDistrict=69229-000&lstSchool=0000000

General link for all of California (click on "Smarter Balanced Assessments"):

http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov/sb2016/Default

(The data columns vary slowly per year, cannot readily represent it in bulk year-by-year. Tests also change. CAASPP has a temporal comparison but it feels wonky to me. It's more useful as a means to identify corruption than student performance, IMHO.)

We also have things like dual-way immersion, deriving from thinking formalized in, for example, Prop 227 (1998):

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_227,_the_%22English_in_Public_Schools%22_Initiative_(1998)

These all help to culturally very substantially overcome simple neural (linguistic) barriers without impinging on the general population's educational resources very much.

At the end of the day, please observe -- don't trust my words -- how the EL clade not only performs worse with age, but shrinks. There is a Reclassified EL clade that wildly outperforms every other clade. I think, if you are a migrant child and had a supportive family environment, you learn to learn. If you had a crap family environment, you can still improve, but your odds are worse. Vanillas are in-between.

>>1621443
Well, I've just started posting data, and I don't really have much more that the layman will bother with. I really wish I could scrap all 8000 bytes of my posts so far and show you all the data I can possibly comprehend in a nice little frequency distribution table like what you see with sound represented in a fourier graph. But guess what! You're not doing that shit either. Fuck off.

>>1621458
Here's the last bit. All I've been aiming to show is that most discussion on race comes from people utterly uninformed with reality. You really should just trust the anecdotes of the people around you who do go out and explore the world, OR, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, you can scrutinize aggregate data provided by the state or research institutions.

The other point is that law and institutional knowledge and all that shit are just culture. No matter what background you come from, so long as you can successfully adapt to the culture, you will do well enough to, in the subsequent generation, have a fair shot at improving over your accomplishments with your children and the other community kids you're supposed to help educate through volunteer or professional labor.

Okay. Now we get to fucking history. I fucking hate (nearly) every one of you for always, /always/, ///always/// reverting to black-white racism in these threads. I hope whoever has bothered to read through all my shit won't act like an uneducated racist.

Here is the Russian fox experiment for >>1621250 and present this not as a be-all end-all for the layman but as a storied collection of hooks into more in-depth investigations:

https://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/1999/2/early-canid-domestication-the-farm-fox-experiment/1

Here's a smattering of random articles on it if the above link bores you:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=domesticated+fox&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

>>1621043
> offers absolutely valid biological and evolutionary set of arguments
Then take it to /sci/ you cunt.

>>1621504
With the foxes, people start pondering metabolic pathways /affected/ by domestication /in turn affecting/ neurological development. It is too early to say how this affects humans. The lack of scientific development in this domain, however, has not stopped humans from trying, over the course of a handful of generations, from making rather pitiful attempts at human breeding. I leave these as exercises for you, but I refer to specific examples where some fellow in the background says, "I really want to breed humans to have measurable intellectual results" or something along those lines, usually more toward a eugenics meant to breed docile humans than one meant to breed curious humans -- although the foxes exhibit docility development couples with inquisitiveness, a result I found particularly interesting.

Now I'll end with the most important part, which is guided thought on how to look for human evolution trending toward "docility," "trainability," "obedience," "absence of critical thinking" and so on. You could probably study things like anti-authoritarian personalities, but here I'll go off in a different direction. Unfortunately, I no longer have useful data or graphics to show you folks, so this is just a fun mind game to send you off on google searches for the next while.

The research on magnesium-based cements derives from some origin. God knows where. Google it and find out, Sci-Hub is there to help you. After a certain time period, research emerges dominated by Americans. After the 1980s or so, research quantity is dominated by Chinese (not quality). Our board's scope ends in the 90s. Whatever, you don't need to go far. Define a metric comparing the distribution of research. One can, for example, observe "nowadays, most mg concrete is in Chinese construction, so they must have planned this early on", then think about relating flows in the constituents of concrete manufacture to research origins/IP holdings. Repeat in other tech domains and analyze.

>>1621518
Most of the historians I've met studied computer science have benefited from cooperation with scientists.

For example, when I bring up the probably-fuck-out-of-nowhere-from-most-peoples'-perspectives metric in >>1621526 I'm trying to point out that reading all the primary sources in the world is eventually going to mean you'll need to read a metric fuck-ton of data and simplify it for your own human consumption at some point. Chipworks does this with IP and no one denies their analyses are useful, with their public press releases being, from my perspective, more enlightening than endless rounds of pseudo-news. Promoting fine skill with data management also immunizes potential historians with the folly proponents of cyclic theories of civilization commonly fall victim to.

Here are some Chipworks blog posts studying IP distrigbution, just for if you deny the value of graphics synthesized from vast quantities of data. You can find more /his/-related examples in GIS applies to disease throughout history, the Atlantic slave trade, and so on amongst the various domains of the Internet.

The posts:

https://www.chipworks.com/about-chipworks/overview/blog/force-touch-technology-intellectual-property-perspective

https://www.chipworks.com/about-chipworks/overview/blog/broadcom-wireless-iot-business-ip

The blog:

https://www.chipworks.com/about-chipworks/overview/blog

My point here is that, given an objective, perhaps identifying an individual's geneology, you might run into an issue with, after a certain point back in history, having too many Catholic Church's records to search through. (I wonder if they are digitized now? This is just a toy illustration though.) You can narrow down where to look, maybe the ancestor in question absolutely positively lived in Brazil -- vaguely -- in the 1600s. You can graph-out things about the person and try to construct a filter to operate on the list of all Catholic Church geneological databases in Brazil.

I'm the giant-sphaghetti poster, and here is Stanford's history and GIS project:

http://web.stanford.edu/group/spatialhistory/cgi-bin/site/project.php?id=999

While it won't help the thread directly, I personally find it easier to understand ethnographic things in a, well, ethnogeographic context. Geography goes with GIS, obviously, so if anyone is looking for some other maps made in the past, here are a few ideas. IE if you are at a loss for how to visualize a bunch of data you're collecting in response to this thread, check out these examples:

http://web.stanford.edu/group/spatialhistory/cgi-bin/site/project.php?id=999