How do "same in the brain" types approach this problem?

>>2199213
What exactly is problem here?

File: 1478638052777.png (87KB, 1000x600px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1000x600px

>>2199213
Wait, this means our definition of race is wrong.
We have to base it around these markers instead, which basically means we'll be able to filter out the smarts and the non-smarts in a much more accurate scientific way than basing it on skin color, which is a heuristic at best. There is no reason to use a heuristic when you can be deterministically accurate.
As you can see from the numbers, depending on how the genes are, Africans have quite the decent chance of being smart too, if you look at the numbers without having a racial agenda.
But oh wait if you do the math you'll find Asians are far more likely to have positive IQ markers than whites.
Unfortunately, you can't really do much math with the frequencies as we don't know if carrying one marker makes it more likely to carry another one - so you don't have the probabilities.
Yet another problem is the fact that any of those account for about 1% of the difference in IQ between people. Not very significant, as the correlation is so low.
I could poke more holes, but this should be enough.

All we know for sure is Asians have higher IQ's on average. Take a look at the rightmost tail of these curves.

What kind of bullshit is this?

According to the Genetic Home Reference, after extensive studying, there has not been any Genes that underlies differences in intelligence

Plus, the picture offers no source.

>>2199216

The fact that brains aren't the same?

what do you do with high IQ niggers?

oh that's right you just hate niggers and want to genocide them all the same because they're niggers xD

>>2199380
>Wait, this means our definition of race is wrong.
Only if you insist on using intelligence as a marker for race. A normal human bean will see this and see intelligence a marker for your intelligence.

>>2199634
There are genes that determine how long your legs are, what color your skins are, what color your hair will be, what type of disease you'll be susceptible to, how much oxygen you can exchange in your lungs, how dense your bone could be, how tall you could be, how short you could be, the shape of your skull, the shape of your gender, etc.

Its not so beyond the concept of rational thought that there might be a gene or genes that regulates the difference in intelligence. Brain size for example would be a key differential aspect. Another aspect would be the thickness of gray matters. The papers don't have to put race into the context, just do a neutral brain size/gray matter to intelligence correlations. After that we can cross examine and find out where each of the participant's race are and chart it along and see if there's any pattern.

>>2199742
Except the difference are so negligable that it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that differences in intelligence between genetically healthy adults is a result of upbringing and environment. Just because a peasant living in the 12th century couldn't read and write didn't make him more "genetically" stupid, though they'd undoubtedly flunk out on an IQ test, and the same is true with an African or Aborigine that lives in a shithole were ignorance is the norm. Rational thinking is something people learn.

>>2199758
The difference between a human and a chimp is around 1%. Should we then say Chimps are humans because the difference is negligible? Is the enviornmental and upbringing factor the cause why Chimps are not humans?

Stop being so intellectually dishonest. Everyone is already invested emotionally, lets not bring your shit into this.

>>2199758

Bait?
What about Arthur Jensen, Hans Eysenck, Murray & Hernstein? That's just the beginning of a long list of people far smarter than you.


I agree that to people with just half a brain it is not obvious that the basis of human intelligence is rooted in many thousands of SNPs with varying frequencies and only to a minor extent does upbringing have anything to do with it.

>>2199769
Except that 1% genetic difference is a fucking LOT. Humans are much closer towards each other than that.

>>2199789
>only to a minor extent does upbringing have anything to do with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
Considering that, in modern society, stupid people have more offspring than smart people, it should be clear that the only reason for the increase in intelligence is that environmental factors have a HUGE influence on how intelligent you are.

>>2199806

The causes of Flynn effect aren't fully understood.
At the end of the day IQ is still a matter of having the right genetics. Blank slate theory has no evidence, empirical or otherwise backing it up.

>>2199817
Yes, genetics are very important, but 20 points due to environmental factors is more than "minor extent".

>>2199837
>>2199797
You're contradicting yourself.

Does genetic play a very important role or is it a negligible role?

Make up your mind, or atleast get your emotions in check before making posts.

>>2199837

We don't know if these Flynn effect factors are entirely environmental or if for example partially or primarily caused by epigenetics.
We simply don't know.

File: 000069 --- 2017-01-09 12_49_47.png (2KB, 194x54px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 194x54px

>>2199845
Hurrrrrr....

>>2199845
You're quoting two different posters, anon. I don't think anyone (except maybe >>2199758 ) is claiming that genetics don't play an important role, but environmental factors are important as well even if they aren't quite as important as genetics.