Why do people reject race realism? Race exists. It is scient - /pol/ - Politically Incorrect

Thread replies: 11
Thread images: 6

Anonymous
2017-03-04 12:59:56 Post No. 115143285
[Report]

File: hehehehehe.jpg (24KB, 400x300px)

Anonymous 2017-03-04 12:59:56 Post No. 115143285 [Report]

Why do people reject race realism? Race exists. It is scientific, biological fact.

>Lynn's 2006 Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis is the largest review of the global cognitive ability data. The book organises the data by nine global regions, surveying 620 published studies from around the world, with a total of 813,778 tested individuals.

>Lynn's meta-analysis lists the average IQ scores of East Asians (105), Europeans (99), Inuit (91), Southeast Asians and Amerindians each (87), Pacific Islanders ( 85), Middle Easterners (including South Asians and North Africans) (84), East and West Africans (67), Australian Aborigines (62) and Bushmen and Pygmies (54).

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn

Anonymous 2017-03-04 01:03:03 Post No.115143650
[Report]

Anonymous 2017-03-04 01:03:03 Post No.115143650 [Report]

Because facts are supposed to make me happy and prove me right. I can tell something isn't real because it makes me sad and proves me wrong.

Anonymous 2017-03-04 01:05:43 Post No.115143962
[Report] Image search: [Google]

Anonymous 2017-03-04 01:05:43 Post No.115143962 [Report]

File: race_IQ.png (45KB, 928x571px)

45KB, 928x571px

WE'RE ALL WITHIN ONE STANDARD DEVIATION WHITE BOY. #BASHTHEFASH

DON'T BE SUCH A BRAINLET

Anonymous 2017-03-04 01:12:16 Post No.115144699
[Report]

Anonymous 2017-03-04 01:12:16 Post No.115144699 [Report]

>>115143962
>WE'RE ALL WITHIN ONE STANDARD DEVIATION WHITE BOY.

In evolution that can make all the difference.

Anonymous 2017-03-04 01:16:34 Post No.115145156
[Report] Image search: [Google]

Anonymous 2017-03-04 01:16:34 Post No.115145156 [Report]

File: too_intelligent.jpg (70KB, 559x836px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 559x836px

>>115144699
>In evolution that can make all the difference.
Biological significance does not imply statistical significance; statistical significance does not imply statistical significance, moreover. Your argument is inane at best.

Anonymous 2017-03-04 01:17:30 Post No.115145246
[Report]

Anonymous 2017-03-04 01:17:30 Post No.115145246 [Report]

>>115143285
yo, get at me, Sibaday

Anonymous 2017-03-04 01:21:34 Post No.115145650
[Report] Image search: [Google]

Anonymous 2017-03-04 01:21:34 Post No.115145650 [Report]

File: 1480344517821.gif (2MB, 360x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x240px

>>115144699
Typo in >>115145156
It should be
>Biological significance does not imply statistical significance; statistical significance does not imply biological significance, moreover. Your argument is inane at best.

Also, checked.