Why is this such a taboo subject in science?

>>8731490

Why do you keep asking this question?

>>8731495
Because no one ever answers it. There's a lot of shucking and jiving followed by the thread being censored

>>8731490
The only answer that is ever given is to discredit IQ test methods. The common reason given is that most IQ tests (created by people in the western world) suffer from a cultural Bias that "cannot be eliminated". Meaning that subsaharan Africans only score poorly on IQ tests because they weren't raised to understand them.

>>8731509
>Meaning that subsaharan Africans only score poorly on IQ tests because they weren't raised to understand them.
but everyone else on the planet was?

>>8731498
Looking on Scholar there's been at least 56,700 papers published on race and IQ since 2000. Considering it's "taboo", that's quite a lot of papers.

>>8731509
the criticism of iq tests is that the subject of the tests is ambiguos at best and literally "how well you can solve the type of questions presented in an iq test" at worst

i doubt cultural bias plays a big part. the chinese are perfectly capable of solving iq tests.

>>8731510
That's the flaw I found with that Argument too. It makes no sense and doesnt account for race bias in first world cultures that, in theory, shouldn't suffer from a cultural Bias.

>>8731509
except adopted blacks raised in the west still score low

>>8731490
pls go back to your conteinment board

>>8731510
Asians score best on the IQ tests developed by whites

I would also ask for an all black society that has developed relatively parallel to whites and asians

>>8731498

Alright. Here's your answer: >>8731513 Will you delete the thread now?

File: satracialgapfigure.gif (29KB, 276x315px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 276x315px

>>8731515
Even when socio-economic factors are removed, the gap remains

>>8731526
>adjust by family income
>"we've removed ALL socio-economic factors u guize"
lel
this is what brainlets think scientific evidence is

>>8731536
Can you give us a circumstance under which blacks score anything but dead last intellectually or academically?

>>8731541
Can you justify your methodology or are you just dropping random questions in order to intimidate your audience?

>>8731490
It's not a taboo. And it's objectively dumb do use race as metric for intelligence.

Evidence existing does not guarantee that the evidence is a proper description of reality or that the interpretation of the data is correct.

>>8731498
Because it's an unanswerable question.

First off, you've already heard the counter-counterargument for climate change: "We are due for cooling rather than warming according to the Milankovich cycle. We can see what our orbital eccentricity is like and we have examined various natural forcings on the climate, and none can explain the warming trend. To ignore the effect of manmade GHG emissions is to basic physics and the empirical evidence."
But you see that as a weak argument since you think we haven't explicitly linked those problems to man made causes.

I could pull the same hypocrisy you do and say that you haven't explicitly proven that intelligence depends on race, and we'd still go nowhere with that conversation. I could also bring up how each race is a collection of ethnicities and therefore cultures and because whites, asians, etc. all have work-oriented cultures and have historically helped devlop abstract subjects they tend to do better when it comes to abstract thinking and therefore are better at school, whereas blacks just didn't develop the same way due to the lack of a reason to. What I'm implying is that their culture and therefore upbringing has more to do with their intelligence than their genes or race. Also, I get the impression that you link intelligence with human worth, when productivity would seem to be a better measure according to your type of thinking. However we define human worth can be argued separately in another thread and will have a lot less name calling.

>>8731545
It's a reasonable and honest question. Blacks score dead last universally

>>8731553
>It's a reasonable and honest question.
It's not, it's a deflection from the fact that you don't seem to understand what isolating socio-economic factors mean and that you think sorting by income is enough.

>>8731541

They do pretty well in musical academies.

>>8731558
I understand that income is a factor. Poor X perform worse than wealthy X

But if there's absolutely no condition under which blacks score better than any other race on average then 'equality' becomes a meaningless term of nothing but virtue signaling

>>8731566
>I understand that income is a factor.
Good. Maybe by thinking about it a bit hard you'll understand it's only one factor.

File: HnqlM1n.png (78KB, 1306x354px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1306x354px

>>8731498
Because we are sick of /pol/ak's coming here with brain dead ass questions relating to IQ. It's become a meme at this point. If you think you are gonna "redpill" a bunch of people on /sci/ by posting shitty info graphics and lame ass questions then you better rethink your plan.

>>8731569
That's my point.

There's no condition under which blacks score better than any other race on average, ever.

>>8731573
>If you think you are going to convince us with facts and evidence, you've got another thing coming

You sound like a creationist

>>8731541

I'd like to see this DESU. Can anybody come up with an example where blacks actually tend outperform whites in an a test of the mind?

>>8731583
basketball

>>8731580
> implying shitposting about IQ is on the level of stating facts and evidence

>>8731578
>That's my point.
No it's not.
It's been 5 posts and you still can't understand a simple fucking methodologic point:
sorting by income is absolutely not enough work to isolate socio-economic factors. Anybody who has ever done any sort of demographic studies understands that.

And yes, methodology matters, this is the science board, not your favorite shithole.

>>8731583
Can you name one where whites outperform Jews and Asians?

>>8731592
The OP does not want to listen to anyone's view point. He just posted this in an attempt to "red pill" you.

>>8731573
>i'm so proud of my 3 year old post with a pic cropped from a scat fetish image that i screencapped it and repost it anytime i think it's relevant
lmao

>>>/r/eddit

>>8731600
Are you triggered? Better go back to your safe space.

>>>/pol/

File: 1480775891348.jpg (19KB, 222x293px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 222x293px

>black majority countries around the world unequivocally shit
>black majority regions within countries usually the shittiest
>score dead last in academic testing
>score dead last in IQ testing
>not much historical achievement of note

so what would you guys need to be convinced

a sky fairy to come down and proclaim it for everyone?

I'm 100% fine with admitting things like "Kenyans are superior marathon runners", reality is just reality

>>8731598
>Deflection by personal attack

Answer the question

The bottom line is that it only further divides humanity, so even though some races may perform better in some aspects than others, we don't discuss it for the sake of humanity.

>>8731604
>leftist shits don't even see the irony in their delusions
lmao

>>>/trash/

>>8731615
They'll come back with the Jared Diamond "But muh environment" shit as if the ancestors of whites just got to Europe and there was infrastructure

>>8731620
shit tier bait imqho

People who score low on IQ tests can train them selves to score higher on IQ tests with some practice. This kind of debunks the entire idea that IQ=blunt intelligence.

>>8731621

There was, anon. They arrived in Europe. Winter was actually balmy and not one of the deadliest parts of nature for man to face, aurochs and wolves walked up to them and offered to be domesticated, and arable land was plentiful and not actually covered in forest and hills.

File: DailyStruggle4.jpg (110KB, 600x908px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 600x908px

>>8731631

>>8731628

You act like researchers don't control for these factors when putting data together. You can score marginally higher but there is a hard ceiling for your ability since it's based on sheer speed and your relative ability compared to another. There will always be someone better at it than you because that is what nature dictates.

Just because you can train yourself to run a faster 100m means the 100m is a meaningless metric of speed? No. You have a cap.

>>8731619
this

>>8731619
>divides humanity

That's like saying my toilet only further divides shit from the rest of my house

Because it would be extensively used to promote racial discrimination, segregation and such.

Just like all the retards claiming blacks are "chimping out" because they are dumb, so they must be put lower than whites.

File: 1476360701484.jpg (48KB, 492x449px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 492x449px

>>8731490
>Why is this such a taboo subject in science?

its not taboo. its that there is little to be gained by it.

for the sake of argument, let say there is some form of incontrovertible evidence about the biological basis of intelligence as it pertains to race. it exists and is merely out there waiting for a researcher to obtain it.

now, imagine yourself to be a scientist. you spent at least 8 years busting your ass in school just to get the opportunity to study this stuff. then because research of this magnitude and scope is beyond the capabilities of one person you are going to need to assemble a team of guys just like you who have also spent many years in study. THEN you also have to acquire funding, because even if you could talk that team into doing it for free (lol, yeah right) you are still going to have a bunch of other costs associated with your research.

there are no patents to be had from this research. no marketable intellectual property of any kind. so the only pay off is "muh truth" and "muh knowledge". more importantly, the first thing thats going to happen when you publish your results is a bunch of ignorant faggots who haven't spent years in academia and even more years doing the research are going to claim your work and use it to justify some socio-political agenda of stripping agency from other human beings.

so why? why the fuck would anyone do that?

>>8731639

There is a significant body of work that suggests IQ tests are not an accurate tool for comparing intelligence across cultures. Here's the first thing I found with a quick search, but there's much more out there:
"Intelligence is commonly measured using intelligence quotient (IQ) tests, which are meant to be a general measure of intelligence. However, IQ tests only measure a narrow band of the broad spectrum of intelligence, excluding factors such as creativity or emotional intelligence. Some researchers have raised more serious questions about the validity of IQ tests for measuring intelligence, especially across cultures. For example, IQ tests may be inappropriate for measuring intelligence in non-industrialized communities, because they focus on modern, rational-style thinking, a type of reasoning that is common in the modern industrial West but may be alien to other cultures..."
https://www.boundless.com/sociology/education-e3dc22c5-f052-43ef-be63-b7fa6fbbce7b/the-conflict-perspective/tilting-the-tests-discrimination-by-iq/

>>8731645
There are rotten apples in most apple batches, and some batches have more rotten apples than others, that doesn't mean we have to throw them all out. We just have to pick through all the batches to choose the best apples.

>>8731654
>its not taboo. its that there is little to be gained by it.

Why do you think police departments use almost exclusively German Shepherds?

Because they're best suited for that task. They don't pretend as if toy poodles could be just as good if they try really hard

>>8731619

From what I can tell, nurturefags are already dividing the fuck out of my country. Since we can't discuss the genetic aspect of it at all, people believe it all boils down to environment and conditioning. So they begin pointing fingers. From this premise white people will be the evil oppressors hurting the black community until they magically reach parity, which will never happen. This notion fucks up politics, academics, society, in many ways.

If you take one group of people, then another, divided along easier to observe classifications, there are probably going to be other latent differences you can't easily perceive, such as group intelligence. It would make sense that one group, composed almost entirely of subjugated slaves from the West African continent, would at least be somewhat different from the other group, composed of a wild mixture of European nationals, right? This isn't even allowed to be discussed, much less researched.

>>8731490
Even if there is a difference, I don't see why one should point it out. Academic research is fine, but if people start using this data to segregate and discriminate then it starts being wrong.
There's nothing wrong with well-constructed research and empirical facts, but you can't use it as an excuse to treat people wrong.
Progress and enlightenment aren't just about knowing all of the facts, it's also about having an ethical society.

>>8731673
see
>>8731667

>>8731667
>dogs selectively bred for different tasks over the course of centuries and centuries of carefully managed breeding programs
>different groups of humans living in similar environments differing mostly just in temperature and aridity, without any sort of guided breeding program
same effects, right?

>>8731655

IQ testing is still a good measure of general intelligence and a predictor of many things including life income and happiness.

I think a comprehensive test of all facets of human cognition/intelligence ability is a fool's errand, we don't even understand half of the brain. In my mind the attempt to dismiss the IQ test on this basis is simply a means to deflect from the argument at hand.

>For example, IQ tests may be inappropriate for measuring intelligence in non-industrialized communities, because they focus on modern, rational-style thinking, a type of reasoning that is common in the modern industrial West but may be alien to other cultures...

And it's impossible that rational style thinking isn't a form of higher intelligence that helped foster European success? If your culture doesn't think or behave rationally it's possible that it is, well, dumber.

>>8731667
>Why do you think police departments use almost exclusively German Shepherds?

why do YOU think that? considering how wrong it is

File: slaves.jpg (370KB, 1038x539px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 1038x539px

>>8731677
>without any sort of guided breeding program

>>8731667
get it through your head that no matter how much evidence you can come up with for this topic you aren't going to be able to use that to justify stripping agency from people.

there aren't going to be any camps, there wont be some great genocide or anything else that goes against the values of an egalitarian society. stop trying to use science to justify your agenda.

>>8731673
This is the main reason. If we focused on finding genetic disparity imagine all the newspapers publishing their reports and half of the american "civilization" going

>muh fucking dumb niggers they're fucking animals

>>8731677
Europeans and Asians got the benefit of not one but two separate large scale admixturing events post-Africa while sub-Saharan Africans got none. They just sat around inbreeding

File: 1358729729032.png (103KB, 332x350px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 332x350px

>>8731677

Did these groups of humans live in "similar environments" for 60-70,000 years of divergent evolution prior to the last few centuries of modernity?

>>8731690
>you aren't going to be able to use that to justify stripping agency from people.

Mentally deficient people can be denied driver's licenses but they can't be denied the right to vote or procreate.

You say any of that as if it's a good thing

>>8731690
this

in response to the OP I would like to suggest that we test everyone for IQ, as IQ is apparently so important for society

so lets remove all the low IQ people from society
that should end /pol/ pretty quickly

>>8731710

Memes aside I doubt their average IQ is less than the general population, which is very stupid. Your average person isn't aware of internet past Facebook and BuzzFeed.

>>8731700
thats the society we live in. if you want to change that, go to /pol/. has nothing to do with science.

>>8731490

science doesn't like when it's shown to be an unreliable foundation for 'truth'. common sense > science. science is great for technological innovations but everywhere else it falls flat on it's fucking face and this bothers depraved modern nihilists who want to be able to explain everything away in order to shut themselves up in their heads and not look at reality directly.

>>8731715
I admit this thread isn't an ideal sample

>>8731718
>science doesn't like when it's shown to be an unreliable foundation for 'truth'

only the scientifically illiterate think science has anything at all to do with absolute truth. that is the domain of philosophy and religion. anyone who works in a STEM field knows that everything we do is a "good enough" approximation thats mostly founded in instrumentalism. "truth" is irrelevant.

>>8731723

Reality is deterministic

>>8731723

then stop involving yourself outside of technology.

>>8731667
This is incredibly dumb, what's even your point? If we established that blacks are statistically less fit for studies you would bar them from academia?
Universities entrance exams are done on an individual basis, we don't judge a candidate's racial of socio-economic background, but his own performances. There is nothing to be gained from considering his origins.

Otherwise we would just expel whites from universities and only accept Jews and Asians.

>>8731490
Amusing how nothing you have posted so far resembles an academic argument OP. And no, vague pub discussions like >>8731615 are in no way "scientific evidence".

>>8731763

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

Start reading. And don't try to make a pithy criticism before you make sure they haven't addressed the possibility of it.

>>8731763
>would bar them from academia?

No, it should be accomplishment based. The current system is not achievement based. Blacks can score lower while asians have to score higher than ever before to be admitted into a college

"whats the point of knowing that people are difference and that genetics matters?"

give me a break.

if the scientific community had 1 iota of integrity they'd be compiling the book on each racial and ethnic groups specific qualities and proclivities.

but they don't have one iota of integrity.

>>8731771
But Rushton and Jensen fully recognize that studying inter-group variations tells us nothing about intra-group differences?

>>8731779
In America, maybe.

>>8731784
That doesn't mean they score better anywhere else

We have a high percentage of intelligent black immigrants but that's deceiving because those immigrants are the top 1% of the country they're immigrating from

Notice the smart ones leave the first chance they get

>>8731783

Where do they say that

>>8731798
p. 239
This paper is miles away from the "hurr nigger are just dum" drivel we've heard ITT.

>>8731779
>No, it should be accomplishment based.
that's not at all what >>8731667 was implying.

>>8731779
>muh college admissions

aside from native american, there is no legal definition of race in the US. if you think that checking a different box on your application will increase your chances of getting admitted or receiving a scholarship, go for it. there is nothing stopping you. you are whatever you say you are.

>>8731654

Because different rates of achievement wouldn't always be blamed on white people. It would significantly improve race relations.

>>8731811

They didn't discount the application within a similar environment such as in the United States.

>However, within-groups evidence does imply the plausibility of the betweengroups
differences being due to the same factors, genetic or environmental. If
variations in level of education or nutrition or genes reliably predict individual
variation within Black and within White groups, then it would be reasonable to
consider these variables to explain the differences between Blacks and Whites

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

>>8731490
People already use research on the differences between sexes to fuel sexism, why the fuck would people fuel racism with research on racial differences?

People can barely wrap their heads around the substantial amount of evidence supporting global climate change. They'll cling to any study that is wrong (see literally the entire antivaxx movement) and the media will just shoehorn any sort of paper that is released.

Until anti-intellectualism dies and this era of alternative facts ends then this shit will never come to pass. Until people can tolerate each other's differences without starting a race war you will never see any aggressive push for this kind of research (which does exist and it's not as taboo as you think)

>>8731829
>muh income based comparison
>muh Minnesota TRAS
wew at least you don't lack predictability

>>8731823
maybe, at some higher social level. thats speculation and not enough of an individual incentive. i know that if i spent 8+ years in academia i wouldn't do that kind of research for free. nobody else will either. maybe when you actually have an academic career you will think about it differently.

>>8731654
Wouldn't this be valuable knowledge for gene editing?

>>8731833

That's the problem, instead of just looking at the facts, we worry what the facts will be used for.

The fact that research on sex differences, could be used to fuel sexism, doesn't mean that the facts of sex differences suddenly change.

>>8731834

There is a limited body of work with direct evidence because, as the thread's premise states, it is incredibly taboo and career suicide. Doesn't it seem a little odd to you that people would want to vehemently oppose something they already presuppose to be, well, false?

You're predictable in that I knew your method of counterargument was going to be memes and wrench throwing

>>8731836
thats putting the cart before the horse. if we already had the apparatus prior to the research, then people wouldn't even associate it with race and it would be treated as any other genetic disease.

>>8731848
>There is a limited body of work
there are literally tens of thousands of papers on the subject. Just look at the bibliography of the Rushton & Jensen paper.

I'm sorry bub but you just don't look like someone who actually researched the subject rather than someone who's just parroting the usual couple of propaganda bits.

File: bill-gates-desk-picture.jpg (115KB, 955x708px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 955x708px

>>8731853

Thanks for sharing, you never went into this looking to have your mind changed and your conclusion is already as dogmatically rooted as you probably expect mine is

>>8731490
>Retard gets told to stop ignoring science.
>Retard responds by complaining about others ignoring social science.
Yep, kill yourself.

>>8731861
Why would "my mind be changed" by someone linking to the fucking MTRAS Wikipedia article?

How many papers have you read on the topic? Did you even go as far as the bibliography of the paper you linked?
Or did you just go "sweet a paper that goes with my opinion better repost it"?

>>8731490
It interferes in the genetic pathological altruistic mental illness of Europeans, white people are absolutely fucking insane and will do anything to look like heroes no matter what even if means destroying themselves.

So the consensus is that somewhere around ~70,000 years ago, groups of humans left Africa and began migrating around the rest of the world. The major families that we know as "races" today are composed of original tribal groups of varying genetic diversity and size.

Europeans and Asians in particular are considered highly "inbred" and were exposed to population bottlenecks and pressures that sub-Saharan Africans simply weren't. Serious environmental differences that affected mode of thinking and planning included winter and cold.

We can clearly see how these differences registered, fairly significantly, on physical appearance, in an adaptation sense.

How is it even controversial that 70,000 years of divergent evolution, in wildly different environments and situations, would have the effect of different selective pressures on cognitive ability? I think the ridiculous assertion would be that it had no effect.

4-5 months of winter, barren environment, no food, deathly cold, would produce a seriously different kind of society that prioritized foresight, "investment", and rational thinking that we relate to intelligence today.

I'd like to hear the argument on how we would end up with 1:1 intelligence given these factors.

>>8731498
It gets answered all the time and the end result is that a lot of the studies are inconclusive and questionable. A main problem lying with the fact that the result of an IQ test is meant to give results for a society in a normal distribution when genetics themselves are not remotely near a normal distribution pattern and if anything there should be a near discrete step like pattern in frequency results for scores almost corresponding to bloodline distribution for a population if it is true that genetics is the utmost key factor. At the very least there should be a huge bunching at the lower end of the spectrum for all races simply due to the stupid tending to breed following k-selection patterns. Then that's when it hits you. These results statistically are bunk. If you dig deeper you find half the results for countries are based on neighboring results from nearby countries deemed to be the same ethnically. You'll find results where adults in the first world who volunteered to test are compared to illiterate third world erst that have been battling starvation and disease their entire lives. You'll find people claiming differences in scores put up by adopted children living in first world nations, while completely ignoring the question of whether or not these kids actually had proper prenatal care, when they were adopted, and what kind of social life they have in their new environment. It doesn't do a child much good to go to a top notch school if all his classmates bully and harass him and you're prodding him with a stick everyday when he comes home until 10 at night.
Now I'm not saying there isn't any validity at all in the results, but a lot of the shit and the way it's presented is statistically questionable.

Likely I feel like the end result is going to be that genetics plays an important role as the structural foundation, but it's not the end all be all. If another person is willing to work harder, they can be just as succesful.

>>8731869

meh, sure I have. Do I want to recite every detail of it on 4chan in order to play your game, not really.

>More generally, there is a need to educate the public about the true nature of
individual and group differences, genetics, and evolutionary biology. Ultimately,
the public must accept the pragmatic reality that some groups will be overrepresented
and other groups underrepresented in various socially valued outcomes.
Organizations such as the APA could play a critical role in changing the zeitgeist.
To do so will not be easy, for it requires overcoming deeply ingrained biases that
operate at several levels of the APA (Redding, 2001). The standard models of
social science from the 1930s to the present have assumed a tabula rasa perspective
that precludes any analysis of hereditary group differences.

Straight from the Rushton paper and my only stake in this argument since I'm fucking tired of nurturefags dominating 99% of the debate

exeunt me

>>8731526
The gap is shrinking and not scaling 1:1 with socioeconomic status. In fact it has shrunken by nearly a quarter. This implies that socioeconomic status has a very large role in the gap as it currently exists.

>>8731904

>whites in the under $20,000 range are still outperforming blacks in $160,000-200,000

this is a wholesale contradiction of the implication that the effect is significant

>>8731899
>meh, sure I have
then why doesn't it sound like it? It's only people who have just glanced over a subject who just link to a couple of studies and call it a day.

The paper you linked argues for a half nature half nurture approach, which isn't at all the 100% nature PoV we've been shown in the OP.

Not only that but it's impossible to argue with someone who is incapable of making a clear point and prefers to ask rhetorical questions like "can you name a field in which black people outperform whites." and changes his mind every post.
Like that guy making a parallel between dog breeds and their use in police station and then immediately retracting himself when asked if he wanted the same kind of selection in humans. It's impossible to argue with you because it's impossible to know what you mean exactly.

If you think you're gonna blow our minds away by making us consider that "eyh wow dudes maybe there are genetic factors" then you are mistaken. Has it crossed your mind that maybe the idea is already familiar to us?

>>8731909
>whites in the under $20,000 range are still outperforming blacks in $160,000-200,000
this doesn't invalidate anything in the post you quoted

>>8731909
Not reallly, firstly considering that the gap itself is closing considerably, and second considering socioeconomic status includes factors outside of base income level.

physical differences like skin colour, strenght and dick size do exist so i don't see why some slight differences in intelligence wouldn't exist. obviously it wouldn't be ground to discriminate anyone since the differences are too small

>>8731909
Not really. Contradicting evidence would be seeing the gap persisting despite income level or getting larger instead of dropping by nearly 1/4.

>>8731909
Everything is going towards a trend of evening out.

>>8731912

>The paper you linked argues for a half nature half nurture approach, which isn't at all the 100% nature PoV we've been shown in the OP.

I'm not the OP, I'm the one you accused of "pub talk" earlier. I espouse a half nurture half nature approach. Right now it is full nurture no nature and I think it's rending our society apart due to the implications of it.

>If you think you're gonna blow our minds away by making us consider that "eyh wow dudes maybe there are genetic factors" then you are mistaken. Has it crossed your mind that maybe the idea is already familiar to us?

Not you, you're a faggot with your mind fully made up, as I've already said. I don't know how you aren't even aware of it, it's tonally 100% apparent.

>>8731763
You idiot, the only reason it's a problem is because universities widely practice affirmative action.

On their merits alone, almost no blacks would be admitted into college.

>>8731930
>I'm not the OP, I'm the one you accused of "pub talk" earlier.
>I espouse a half nurture half nature approach.
Yeah no you don't. >>8731615 was an intellectually bankrupt post and clearly not coming from a "half nurture half nature approach" nor any other kind of intellectual approach. In fact you stated the reasons for your own beliefs in that post and oh surprise they have little to do with deep academic research.

>>8731932
I've heard those allegations and I've seen no evidence for them.

>>8731654
So? If niggers are inferior, there should be no problem with "stripping them of their agency".

>>8731848
>it is incredibly taboo
But it's not >>8731513 almost 57,000 papers since 2000. Over 15,000 papers since 2015.

>>8731936

It wasn't intellectually bankrupt. You just want to dictate it as such because it's inconvenient for your position and it's easier to dismiss things than address them. If you look closer you can see I'm pointing out that there is almost no tangible evidence of parity between races in almost any form of achievement, so while the premise of a genetic disparity has precedent, the premise of genetic parity has: none.

That would make your position fantasy and not science, bye.

>>8731932
I'd say that depends on the college in question to be honest. Looking at this chart
>>8731526
We see that on average most students shouldn't be getting into Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc. regardless of race or economic status, meanwhile it appears that both groups (besides their poorest) post scores good enough for entrance into state schools, which then rank potential students according to things like essays, extra cirriculars, and what you have to offer the school.

It doesn't look like there's enough of a gap there to justify a belief that a particular group has no place in academia or that one group would in theory be unable to compete on their own merit. Rather the shrinking gap suggests that one group needs a helping hand.

>>8731920
>>8731916

>not really

Yes really. A bumfuck poor white kid who can barely afford food isn't just on par with, is BEATING, a black kid from a categorically upper middle class family.

>>8731937
I wonder how you would feel when there are niggers more successful then you at STEM.

>>8731883
Yep, this. While the exact scale of the difference isn't precisely known, anybody with half a brain realizes that race influences intelligence.

>>8731945

Straight into the toilet. I've never heard this discussed in a mainstream or academic setting without negative implications of white supremacy. Do we ever regard the genetic component when talking about disparities in income and academic achievement? Never.

>>8731949
Nice little trick broski but you were not arguing for simply genetic disparity, rather for genetic determinism.

>>8731883

70,000 years isn't nearly enough time for evolutionary differences to set in. And the fact that all human beings can breed with each other proves we are the same species.

>>8731964

Genetic disparity would have a deterministic effect, yes. I have never sat here and said a black person will always be dumber than a white person because I know how population distributions work.

>>8731963
>8,000+ articles written in the past year on race and IQ
>None of them count because " I've never heard this discussed in a mainstream or academic setting"
>Therefore even though my assertion is demonstrably wrong. I'm still right.

Just out of curiosity, what position do you hold where you'd be privy to these academic discussions?

>>8731974
>I have never sat here and said a black person will always be dumber than a white person
and yet you've attributed the entirety of African history to genetic differences. Surely that was a display of epistemic modesty, wasn't it?

>>8731976

It is not demonstrably wrong. I will say it another time, genetic research is not given credence in formal and standard settings today. You can write a paper on whatever you fucking want it doesn't constitute real discourse.

>show me your authority on the subject

Fuck off and stop obfuscating what I'm clearly saying.

What's your official position on race and intelligence?

>>8731980

>the entirety

Nope. But would I say the genetic component is significant enough to register the relative disparity? Yes. We are comparing one group to another. If Africans were alone on this planet with Australian Aboriginals we would be talking about how much worse off Abbos were. It's all relative.

>>8731952
And this disproves the idea of socioeconomic status playing an important role how? Socioeconomics extends well beyond income level.
Additionally, I'm starting to have some doubts about that infographic. Why are they using mean instead of median? I feel as though some trends among rich blacks at that time may impact the validity of the study (e.g. the son of a formerly poor NFL/NBA player who was born in his dads college days being put into the already limited pool of rich blacks. He had shit prenatal care, and is raised like a poor person with access to a lot of money and no connections, instead of like an established old money family with many connections and quality schooling -- such cases would have drastic impact due to the pool itself already being incredibly limited at that income level)

>>8731983
>show me your authority on the subject
>Fuck off and stop obfuscating what I'm clearly saying.
Uh sorry buddy but when you make a statement like "I've never heard that discussed in an academic setting" all your doing is throwing your own weight into the balance in order to make a point. Don't get upset if people question it.

Also, yes, publications are what constitute most of the academic debate. I'm worried it would have to be explained on this board.

>>8731989

>And this disproves the idea of socioeconomic status playing an important role how?

I guess this is where you define "important". I said it would contradict the assertion that it is significant. I didn't say it didn't exist.

I think OP fails to realize that IQ is not the only determining factor in the success of STEM. If we envision OP's society then we would round up all the white people, since blacks are low IQ, and make them do high iq jobs while the black man does menial labor or is executed. However, just because one has an high iq does not mean he will become a successful mathematician, you have to have a passion for it and the work ethic in order to read literature relating to it.

I think a black man with 5 points lower IQ would make a better mathematician then a white guy with 5 points higher IQ if the black man was more passionate. It makes sense since most of /pol/ wants to pat themselves on the back for something they didn't work for, that is being white, and now they need validation for their so called "superiority".

>>8731833
Well then, maybe "sexism" and "racism" aren't inherently wrong you little dipshit. These are marxist terms that absolutely have no meaning to them. Oh, and don't worry, a race war will start, but it won't have anything to do with "race and IQ statistics", rather, it just has to do with the fact that multiracial societies tend to not function well. After all, our current culture of "extremist nurture" is giving us SJW, and attacks on white people for the failing of non-whites.

>>8731997
Likewise the same logic could be applied to genetics. We have contradicting evidence with the idea of it being significant due to testing distributions not matching gene distributions.

>>8731983
>It is not demonstrably wrong

Your assertion was that there isn't a large body of evidence because such work is very taboo and "career suicide". Yet that clearly isn't the case since there's, again, at least 8,000 published papers in the past year. You are demonstrably wrong.

>What's your official position on race and intelligence?

My position is that it's, currently, a pointless question since genes that code for intelligence are still largely (completely?) unknown. As such this whole argument boils down to rough and shady correlations, that are openly published, about the effects of genetics on intelligence. However to my knowledge these kinds of studies can't address differences between races.

I mean for fuck sake, the APA published a paper in the 90's called "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" where it explicitly stated that there was a 1SD difference in between whites and blacks. However they quite rightly concluded that the cause of such a difference is still unknown.

What you want, or at least what I can gather you want, doesn't exist. It doesn't exist because the knowledge and technology just isn't there to deliver it.

>>8731710
No, because humans have been built to be ethnocentric. So having high IQ isn't good enough for a functional country, only a high IQ white homogeneous country is.

>>8732001
You just spilled your /pol/ spaghetti everywhere.

>>8731998

Common societal discussions that could be approached more realistically with an angle that considers a genetic component as well:

>academic achievement
>crime and society
>income disparities

Addressing it doesn't mean you have to start advocating genocide but rather to stop tearing your hair out over what is regarded as oppression.

File: 1476242135518.png (440KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 633x758px

>>8731521
>I have no argument but this topic makes me uncomfortable and I allow my feelings to disrupt what I consider to be truth.

>>8731524
Why?

>>8731536
Then show us some evidence that these so called factors actually exist. You won't, because there isn't any. Turns out you were the brainlet all along.

>>8731545
Method of what? How is that intimidating?

>>8731546
It is taboo. Are you for real?

>>8731550
That's a long ass post that only says "it's nurture not nature." You can tell someone is on the ropes when they resort to extreme verbosity. The vast preponderance of evidence suggests it's mostly nature.

>>8731591
But there's a veritable mountain of evidence that suggests that sub-saharan African DNA is inherently bad for civilization. You just won't look at it because you're convinced everyone talking about it is a /pol/ mongoloid. I'm not sure if you're aware, but in academia that's called a ad hominem fallacy.

>>8731604
>the only board that won't delete dissenting or taboo opinions is a """"safe space"""
You think pol is a place that people go to because it attracts tards. Albeit true, a better description would be that anti-intellectuals like you force us there because there's no where on the internet to discuss these things. I'm surprised this thread is even still up.

>>8731628
And yet the vast majority don't. If people are actually doing this, the number would be so small that it wouldn't affect the overall data. You're denying that IQ is one of the strongest predictors of success?

>>8731649
There's literally nothing wrong with segregation. If you think that's appalling, name 1 actual benefit of multiculturalism that doesn't appeal to some nebulous concept of culture or feelings. Segregation benefits all parties, not just whites.

>>8731654
>It's not taboo
This statement is patently absurd.

>>8731655
>Other cultures don't understand rational thinking.
Then why are we importing them?

>>8732001
>>8732009
Well then it didn't take that long for the mask to fall off.
Nice job having scientific pretence ITT /pol/tards.

>>8732006

Which is.

>>8732012
>There's literally nothing wrong with segregation

This is a fucking ideological question, not a scientific one. Why are you asking philosophical questions on a /sci/ board?

You are not gonna like this answer but here it goes

Race is an arbitrary category and just one of many ways to categorize people. Race has never been scientifically defined and there are no contemporary biologists who claim race is a biologically determined thing. There are perfect explanations for the cultural retardation for Africa for example. Most of sub-Saharan Africa were pastoralists because it suited the climate and environment better to raise cattle over long distances, thus preventing them from creating an agriculture settled culture. These settled cultures did exist in some places in Africa and they flourished well in the ancient world (see Mali and Ethiopia).

Europe achieved military and intellectual superiority because of multiple reasons
1. Europe was not technologically superior 'till ~1600, before that Ottomans and Mughals had best guns. After this there was constant warfare in Europe, which made necessary the development of better arms, which eventually led to the Industrial Revolution in 1800 which widened the gap between Europe and the rest in an extreme fashion. China was technologically inferior for a long time, which is why the Brits crushed them so hard in the opium wars. China had always been a without much competition from outside, which negated the necessity to develop more technology
2. Population amount and density. Because of this Europeans had to expand and adapt constantly by developing agriculture, searching for new colonies etc. The aboriginals or African niggers did not have this problem, they could live off huge tracts of land without the necessity to invent new technology to increase the yield of land (Africa is two times bigger than Russia, don't let the Mercator projection fool you)
3. Disease. Because Europe urbanized faster they were also more used to disease. Thus when Europeans came into contact with a new native people, the latter one probably died out because of lack of resistant bacteriae.

>>8731677
>different groups of humans living in similar environments

You don't know anything about humans beings. Humans being didn't live anywhere near the same environment, it's why non-Africans evolve a whole host of behavioral traits that differ them from Africans, while whites and East Asians experience huge IQ gains thanks to their environments.

>>8732020
And I could go on and on and on and on. But of course it's much nicer for insecure white young men to think there is some magical boogaloo power inside of you that makes you magically superior to the rest of the world and also makes the world a much simpler place to understand instead of all those complex historical sociological anthropological explanations. They are all marxism after all and I heard that that means something bad!

>>8731904
>This implies that socioeconomic status has a very large role in the gap as it currently exists

No, it implies that genes (IQ) is having the largest role on the gap. Race is THE strongest predictor of SAT scores.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3lZe2OTBfQ

>>8732007

>Your assertion was that there isn't a large body of evidence because such work is very taboo and "career suicide". Yet that clearly isn't the case since there's, again, at least 8,000 published papers in the past year. You are demonstrably wrong.

And I'm to assume most, or a lot of these, examine and realistically make conclusions regarding the genetic component, or take the predictable route and toeline the nurture argument? That's more than I expected but given the piss poor exposure I'll still maintain that it isn't being given the light of day in real standard academia and more importantly social sciences.

It isn't pointless. And it's observable, just like gravity. I don't consider that pointless either. If you think it's pointless then it's pointless to consider race at all in anything, but we aren't having that in modern society.

>>8732017
Exactly

>>8731972

Of course it fucking is. Enough to affect an IQ difference of 15 points. It's not like anyone is saying we're different species, Jesus.

>>8732027
Race being a strong pedictor of SAT score != Race having the largest role in the gap

>>8732033
>I didn't read any of them but I'm gonna assume they make conclusions contrary to mine which would make them invalid
this is a disaster of a post
a total, complete, wreck

>>8732014
So you got an argument, because everything I said is true. Racial diverse countries are bad at every possible aspect. There is not one single objective positive of a racially diverse country. Racially homogenous countries are objectively better, and humans are inherently ethnocentric. It's why having high IQ blacks is not good enough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTYzq42nB38

>>8732035

Right, so we're the ones who have to produce evidence, you just throw a wrench in it and call it a day.

>You think pol is a place that people go to because it attracts tards. Albeit true, a better description would be that anti-intellectuals like you force us there because there's no where on the internet to discuss these things. I'm surprised this thread is even still up.


Stormfront? Reddit? Iron March Forums? Your local neonazi group? I can keep going if you want.

>>8732046
>Racial diverse countries are bad at every possible aspect.
Singapore?

>>8732047
I mean surely if we can claim there is a difference based in the genetics of race, we can claim there is a difference based in genetics itself. Ergo, there should be a frequency distribution of scores following genetic distribution. Clear as day, even clearer than the racial distribution.

>>8732027
>genes (IQ)
How is genes and IQ the same. IQ is a man made test which has vastly changed over time, while the genes have stayed more or less the same. SAT scores are a completely arbitrary category too, these are goddamn high school exams in some shit country called the USA. It's pretty obvious that white people tend to care more about these tests because of their better socio-economic standing while black people don't give much of a fuck if you are already poor anyway. Asians tend to be very competitive and value hard work which in turn explains their high SAT scores.

Why can't you brainlets see that race is a boogeyman that does not mean anything? Socio-economic explanations are more than enough for any of these.

>>8732033
So you've now switched claims to the much harder to prove "Oh well they're probably just all toeing the same ideological line". Well fair enough anon, but there's only one ideologue here [spoiler]It's you[/spoiler].

>I'll still maintain that it isn't being given the light of day in real standard academia and more importantly social sciences.

I trust given this statement you're an active researcher in link between race and intelligence. And if you are, doesn't that run contrary to your original claim that such a field is taboo and carer suicide?

>And it's observable

Okay. Design an experiment that removes all confounding variables (or at the very least the majority of them) that would conclusively link intelligence to race, and not so some sort of socio-economic factor.

>>8732046
Russia?

>>8732012
>that only says
I talked about climate change, human worth, and intelligence, as well as the fact these conversations can never go anywhere.

>when they resort to extreme verbosity
I tend to ramble for everything.

>The vast preponderance of evidence suggests it's mostly nature.
>a large quantity of papers that suggest it's nature means its nature
Either way no discussion can come from this, since you haven't provided anything to refute or discuss.

>>8732043

No. If the social sciences have been co-opted by an agenda why would you expect their research to not be biased.

Where is the nation or state wide research on racial differences in IQ in adopted children rather than one meme in Minnesota that no one pursued further after it yielded uncomfortable results?

>>8731692
Whats your point?

>>8731710
I completely agree. You think you've checkmated the race truthers but the ultimate truth is that race is merely a good way to predict who will be an "intelligent cooperator" and who won't be. Society cares far too little about promoting the intelligence of its citizens; this is largely because of academics denying differences even exist in the first place. If we want to advance as a society, we need to start acknowledging the truth in our institutions of learning.

>>8731716
It does. The truth is not being taught in schools.

>>8731763
Why do race deniers always conflate simple acknowledging the truth with action? Isn't it possible to simply acknowledge the truth, but take no action? It's like an appeal to consequences. As for your other point,
>it's not scientific evidence unless it's in a fancy published journal with charts

>>8731918
The differences aren't small. People of pure African origin tend to have 70 IQ, which is considered mentally retarded. You have may trepidations about the validity of IQ tests, but no one with 70 IQ has ever amounted to anything.

>>8731955
I personally feel nothing at all. Individual outliers do not discount the truth of the statistical aggregate.

>>8731998
You need to understand that the truth of race and the truth of IQ are two different arguments.

>>8732024
>historical sociological anthropological

lol. You know, I have the funny feeling that you're the same race denying negro that I always spout on /sci/. Saying the same inane bullshit. But I had enough, I fucking hate all race deniers, it's time you stop talking about subject you don't anything about. Race exists. Race is biological.
Just because race is more complicated then what the average person thinks, doesn't mean it exists.

For example, race is so real, that even papers used by race denialists to "prove" that race doesn't exist also prove race exists. Witherspoon study for example.

>>8732018
Because university culture is inextricably linked with science and math. There is a severe chilling effect with regards to discussing these topics, so the culture of universities and academics in general needs to change to begin to approach the truth.

>>8732066
>Why do race deniers always conflate simple acknowledging the truth with action?
Don't play innocent you idiot.
Read the post I quoted. It was advocating for race selection.

>it's not scientific evidence unless it's in a fancy published journal with charts
Actually yes, it's not scientific if published, because it's publication that leads to other papers written in response and academic discussion. Anybody can write bullshit in his own little corner.

File: CAA5B5A91F755FCEEE7B75C46F73BC8C.jpg (153KB, 960x964px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 960x964px

>>8732069
-t white subhuman

bow down to your Asian superior.

>>8732055
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

IQ is the strongest psychometric tests created by humans, and IQ has been shown to be heritable. Hence, IQ measures a genetic construct of human cognitive ability.

>Socio-economic explanations are more than enough for any of these.

Socioeconomic explanations has little to no effect on human differences. In fact,the biggest environmental influences are genes and nonshared enviornment.

>>8732058

>I trust given this statement you're an active researcher in link between race and intelligence. And if you are, doesn't that run contrary to your original claim that such a field is taboo and carer suicide?

Let's say the "light of day" is being taught in standard curriculum. It isn't, not to any real degree. I guess you are technically free to research what you want.

>Okay. Design an experiment that removes all confounding variables (or at the very least the majority of them) that would conclusively link intelligence to race, and not so some sort of socio-economic factor.

I would like something close to this:
>>8731829

on a much wider scale and with more rigor. Do you think that would be feasible in our modern climate?

>>8732077
*if not published

>>8732069
nah I never post here because this board is retarded

>Race exists. Race is biological.
SHOW IT THEN

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE THEN

SHOW ME RECENT PEER REVIEWED BOOKS BY RESPECTED SCIENTISTS WHO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF RACE
Not some youtube videos, not some .jpeg files with quotes or dubious statistics. Hard evidence, biological evidence. Show me the consensus in the scientific community.

You can't, because there is no such thing

>>8732085
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIlNIVXpIns

>>8731490
Frankly we're getting tired of these threads OP, and you should stop posting them.

>>8732082
>Let's say the "light of day" is being taught in standard curriculum.
Why are you talking about curriculum? We're talking about research.

>>8732051
The exceptions that proves the rule. The fact that the most successful "multicult" country was a authoritarian democracy built by Han Chinese that made sure to keep racial tension and racial demographics in check is hardly proof that racial diversity is good. Singapore would be better on almost all objectives if it were homogeneous Han Chinese.

>>8731573
This so much

>>8731972
Except you forgot that 1 major group of people lacks neanderthal DNA, which has been evolving for far longer than 70,000 years.

>>8732020
>Race is an arbitrary category and just one of many ways to categorize people.
Social """"scientists"""" detected

>>8732024
Has nothing to do with wanting to feel superior. Your animosity towards "white young men" is palpable enough to ignore anything you're trying to say.

>>8732048
I meant discuss them with people who disagree.
>Reddit
Lmao you people are so delusional

>>8732062
Fair enough. I can at least commend you for seeming like you're willing to listen.

>>8732079
>Socioeconomic explanations has little to no effect on human differences.
This is the stupidest thing I have read in ages. You must have no knowledge about world history at all if you truly believe this

>>8732042
Yes it does, because race = ancestry. People of one race inherit particular genes that influence cognitive ability and behavioral traits. If race is such a strong predictor, it's probably because of genes.

Honestly, all the whites and blacks should be killed off and replaced with east asians, we will have a better society with less crime and more technological advancement.

>>8732093
>The exceptions that proves the rule.
>plural
wew how convenient is that to be unable to be proven wrong

Also, I love explaining the meaning of this phrase to brainlets: it doesn't mean "there are exceptions just ignore them", it means an exception proves a rule by negative.
For example if you go to a park and there's a sign saying "DON'T WALK ON THE GRASS" it suggests that you can walk where there is no grass. That's the meaning of "the exception that proves the rule".
It's not a joker card for mouthbreathers to get out of an argument.

>>8732079
Then why don't population IQ scores follow genetic distributions? Regardless of whether or not we have isolated the intelligence gene(s), we should see from generation to generation that IQ of a nation or group of people deviates toward the score of the most populous genes in that nation or group if in fact the key of intelligence is based in genetics. We should be seeing discrete, not continuous patterns. And we should never see results where a child from a historically dumb family tests well.

>>8732079
>Socioeconomic explanations has little to no effect on human differences.
Jesus H. Christ, the state of /pol/tards.

>>8732104
Honestly humanity should be just killed off and we should leave our planet still intact for more intelligent space faring races.

>>8732085

Of course race exists.

Well, first of all, it is more than a social construct. It's not clear, but OP is probably referring to this, which is a famous statement speaking broadly on behalf of the field of anthropology. The first thing to note is that it's almost 20 years old, which means it predates the mapping of the human genome. The science of genomics has advanced enormously in that time. The second--and more critical--thing to note is that these are anthropologists, which means they're not geneticists. Asking an anthropologist about the genetics of race is like asking Steve Jobs about coding. He might have a better understanding than the man on the street, but you've got the wrong expert; you need to ask Steve Wozniak about that. The third thing to note is that nowhere in this document does it say race is not real. The closest it comes is to say that the concept of race has had a long and sordid past which involves subjugation and all kinds of Evil Racist Things. Some of which are genuinely evil. This AAA statement has been a poisonous non-sequitur to the rational discussion of race, like advancing Aristotle as a refutation of Galileo, and has only served to prolong what should not even be a debate at all.

So, asking an anthropologist about race is like asking Jeff Gordon about internal combustion engines. He might be able to change his own oil, and he can lap you around the track, but you need to ask a mechanical engineer. So let's ask a geneticist about race. It turns out that contemporary geneticists (writing in progressive Time Magazine, no less) agree that race is real.

>>8732112
The ultimate red pill.

>>8732091

Research is conducted with the intent of revealing information that will ultimately (hopefully) be transferred to standardized knowledge and by extension curriculum. If there is no market for your work why do it. If you're going to be ignored why do it.

If the research doesn't enter the domain of mainstream knowledge it is like throwing paper at a wall.

>>8732102
Then the gap shouldn't be closing at all. The infographic posted states otherwise.

>>8732114
I'm going to skip ahead now in the post, because this is relevant to the fact of race being real:

In short: Icelanders and Ashkenazi Jews might be genetic clusters; "Caucasians", "Mongoloids", or "Negroes" are not.

Yes, and every HBD proponent would agree. Race is not simply a categorization of people into three groups. Pretty much nobody has ever said this either--as with all issues with some degree of emotional investment, straw men abound.

Back in the "racialist" 19th century, the "scientific racism" of the time made even more distinctions than the HBD proponent of today, who typically distinguishes by Y-haplogroup. So neither your reactionary great- great-grandfather, nor the girl blogging in 2017 believe that the category of race is exhausted by white, black, and yellow men. In fact I can't think of any literature in which a search will turn up more instances of the term "Ashkenazi Jew" than modern HBD literature. To think that this is what anyone seriously arguing for race realism is saying, is simply to display like a tattoo on one's forehead that one is unfamiliar with the position being criticized.

>>8732082
>I would like something close to this:
That wouldn't rule out all possible factors. In fact there's links to the criticisms in that wiki article.

>Do you think that would be feasible in our modern climate?
Yep, not only do I think it would be, here's a paper from 2016 looking at 16 adoption studies and how they relate to intelligence
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797613478618

>>8732117
Do you just say whatever goes through your head?
The point of a curriculum is not to learn a list of random facts, it's to acquire methodology.

>>8732077
I don't think it was advocating for race selection, but rather using dogs as an example of how certain desirable characteristics tend to cluster together. Obviously we can't test dogs on an individual basis like we can for humans. Taking that analogy and literally applying it to humans was clearly a bit much.

>Anybody can write bullshit in his own little corner.
So the tacit implication of this statement is that you're more willing to believe something if it came from a position of authority i.e. appeal to authority fallacy.

>>8732119
The gap stopped closing in the 90s. It seems socioeconomic factors helped increase black IQ by 3-4 points. Unfortunately, white IQ also increased too, so the gap still remains pretty similar.

>>8731636
those africans should just be eating all the diamonds they have on their continent

How much can we regard the effect of socioeconomic status anyway if it was your superior genetic intelligence that was conducive to reaching/creating it?

Smart people make money and build good societies, no?

Can anyone from /pol/ answer this. If we take your argument at face value then wouldn't the logical conclusion be to kill off whites and blacks, in order to replace them with Jews, East Asian, and Indians? (Since they score higher on the SAT)

>>8732121
Now for the real meat of the matter.

>However, modern genetic data has demonstrated the vast majority of variation (>85%) is found within populations, rather than between them (<15%).

...

The idea of large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous in-between in terms of genetic similarity — the latter being necessary to speak of distinct "races" — has no scientific basis and in fact there is evidence against it, as Witherspoon et al. concluded in their 2007 paper "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations".

These two claims are from two SJW academic papers, one of which OP linked: Lewontin (1972) and Witherspoon et al. (2007). It is very important that you understand the history of these papers, as I will demonstrate that they are examples of egregious doublethink, and evidence that academia is utterly pozzed by progressivism to the point where large swathes of social science are borderline meaningless (which anyone on the right already knows, and to which I will return later)--even in some of the relatively hard scientific disciplines such as those at issue: molecular biology and genetics. Just watch how this shakes out, and shudder to think that this is entirely normal in academia.

>>8732134
>SJW academic papers

Ace in the hole, call anything you don't like sjw and it goes into the trash.

>>8732134
arxist evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin (who freely admits to ideological bias affecting his work) published a paper in 1972 making the above claim--that >85% of genetic variation is found within populations traditionally considered racially distinct, and <15% between them. The part OP left out is that in 2003 evolutionary biologist A.W.F. Edwards published a rebuttal which is considered definitive by the scientific community, and which even gave rise to a fallacy called "Lewontin's fallacy." Without getting too technical, the problem was one of data granularity; Lewontin's dataset was simply too small. He studied far too few loci--if you expand your dataset, then you can distinguish between racial groups based purely on genetic information virtually 100% of the time, which if Lewontin were right, you wouldn't be able to do. From Edwards' paper:

>Studies of human genetic clustering have shown that people can be accurately classified into racial groups using correlations between alleles from multiple loci. For instance, a 2001 paper by Wilson et al. reported that an analysis of 39 microsatellite loci divided their sample of 354 individuals into four natural clusters, which broadly correspond to four geographical areas (Western Eurasia, Sub-Saharan Africa, China, and New Guinea).

>>8732128
>So the tacit implication of this statement is that you're more willing to believe something if it came from a position of authority i.e. appeal to authority fallacy.
Of course a schizoid brainlet would fall on that argument.
No, Cletus, the tacit implication is that I'm more willing to believe something if it has been published, reviewed and then has been subject to criticism by other scientists.
The fact that you lend no value to the process of criticism is testimony to how randomly you form your opinions. In short, your beliefs will never hold any value.

OP for the sake of argument, let's say some indisputable research comes out that proves blacks are dumber than whites, what happens next in your perfect world? We're gonna go ahead and segregate everyone based on race?

>>8732134
>SJW academic papers....as I will demonstrate that they are examples of egregious doublethink, and evidence that academia is utterly pozzed by progressivism

Oh boy I can hardly wait.

>>8732137
ah of course its muh sjw conspiracy

>>8732137
Edwards' paper sent the SJW factions of academia into a panic, but after a few years Witherspoon et al. came to the rescue of Social JusticeTM , and it is here that the story gets very unsettling indeed. Unlike the Lewontin paper, the Witherspoon paper actually had good methodology. But what's that Twain quote about statistics? Well never mind, here's a Nietzschean observation that will do even better: there are no facts, only interpretations.

Read the following excerpts from Witherspoon et al, and keep in mind that ω means the probability that individuals originating from two distinct geographical areas will be more similar to each other than to someone originating closer to them:

>A relatively large ω is found with low numbers of loci] It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero.

>With the large and diverse data sets now available, we have been able to evaluate these contrasts quantitatively. Even the pairwise relatedness measure, ω, can show clear distinctions between populations if enough polymorphic loci are used.

>Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, ω, can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is ω ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ~20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, ω ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.

Now, what do those excerpts seem to be saying?

>>8732139
Well, since asians, jews, and Indians are better than whites when socio-economic conditions are the same. The most obvious step would be to execute all whites and blacks

>>8732129
If genetics was as strong as you claim the gap should have never been closing to begin with.
>gap stopped closing in the 90s
Sauce.

>>8732133

The gap between whites and blacks is more significant than between whites and East Asians. Indians are not smarter, there are just 1.5 billion of them and overrepresented in the west due to brain drain. Jews are exceptional but a very small minority and kind of a meme racial classification.

Also I wouldn't even say 10% of race realists advocate genocide.

>>8732104
Perhaps not killed off but sterilized. Ideally we genetically engineer offspring, but until that point there's something to be said about the value, even with regards to science, to keeping cultures alive and distinct, but SEPARATE. For example, some culture might exist that values math more heavily than anything else, and produces unique results in that field.

>>8732105
How many latinos, africans, and middle easterners does singapore have? If the answer is low, that should answer your question. Obviously multiculturalism can work if the people are intelligent and not prone to violence, such as is the case with indians, whites, and asians.

>>8732144
The upshot of this paper is that if you consider a small enough number of SNPs, you can erroneously conclude that a Chinese and an English man are more similar than two Chinese men due to sheer statistical error. If you consider thousands of SNPs though, you will be able to tell them apart every time. In other words, the Witherspoon paper concludes that Edwards was right and Lewontin was wrong.

Here's the unsettling part though: as I mentioned, the Witherspoon paper was greeted with relief and acclaim by SJW Marxists in academia. How could this be? Didn't it refute them? The SJWs were receptive because the paper is peppered liberally with quotes like this:

>The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population.

>>8732148
Indians who come to America seem to score higher than whites on the SAT. India is a dirt poor country with a redic population. When I look at SAT scores in America Asians seem to outclass white Americans in every way.

How does it feel to be a subhuman?

>>8732150
>Perhaps not killed off but sterilized
You can't just take away someone's right to have children, for no other reason than his race.

>>8732153
There are interpretations under which these statements are true, but they aren't straightforward or intellectually honest interpretations. Of course most variation will be found between individuals rather than groups! But comparing individuals and groups is like comparing apples and categories. They're not even remotely the same thing--one is a thing, the other a class of things. The difference between the shortest and tallest African is obviously more than the difference between the average height of Africans and of Chinese. And of course taking only "hundreds" of loci may allow you draw erroneous conclusions, but that's the whole problem, and the only reason for a paper in the first place! The human genome contains about 3 billion base pairs, so even the thousands of loci required for ~100% accuracy is still small, to say nothing of "hundreds."

But this misleading statement has nothing whatever to do with whether traditional racial classification is valid (as Edwards proved, it is), and whether it has predictive power re: biological differences (as one would expect, it does). You know that it does, because your eyes tell you it does, and if you could look inside the brain--which you essentially can by observing behaviour--you'd see it has no less predictive power there.

So it turns out that the Witherspoon paper concludes the very opposite of the meme that OP uncritically repeats. Well, it is a good meme.

Had Witherspoon et al. been straightforward rather than dressing up their findings in the cloak of political correctness, they would never have been published. Even if they managed to sneak something by the SJW gatekeepers in academia, their careers would have been ruined by political activism within the academic community. Social "science" is politicized too, and the infection of academia by Marxism and related truth-averse ideologies has allowed the rot to set in to social "science" so deeply that finally the problem has become too big to hide.

>>8732150
They have plenty of people from dirt poor countries who have accomplished nothing of significance historically.
Do those arguments only work with Africans?

>>8732148
A gap is a gap, and logically whites would be holding back the east asians. Especially since east asians have a larger population this further cements their superiority since they have more chances for bad scores but don't get them. Whites on the other hand would have more dummies and even worse down syndrome outliers brought to the table. Including whites in east asian land could be just as detrimental as letting blacks in white land.

>>8732125

How can you acquire a complete methodology if you deliberately neglect something due to politics?

>IQ and g are approx 0.5-0.8 heritable: sure
>Whites and blacks are genetically dissimilar: sure
>there is a genetic component to IQ disparity between whites and blacks: not possible

I've seen trash like "feminist-based social sciences" peddled in curriculum but James Watson gets thrown into the trash

>>8732157
We have seen only the tip of the iceberg looming on the horizon in the form of the replication crisis, and Jonathan Haidt has done some excellent work on the lack of political diversity in social psychology specifically. The reason why findings are not replicable is because of an institutional flaw in academia which allows it to become an echo-chamber. This is no different today than it was in the middle ages or in Galileo's time, but because of our progressive view of history, we seem to think that somehow the past is no longer a guide to the future.
Don't shoot the messenger

I guess I'm a racialist. Or a racist. Or a conservative. Or alt right. Or Hitler. Or whatever they're calling it this week. But the fact is, I'm barely even ethnocentrist--only, as a rule, pragmatically so. I've lived around more Muslims and for longer than probably any of you. It's not about being close-minded. It's about sensible government policy, one that reflects the facts of biology. My most basic allegiance is not to my race; it is to reality. And the reality is that ethnocentrism is a brute fact of human group psychology--you will no more eliminate it through indoctrination than you will eliminate sexual desire.

But one thing I will not stand for is people bandying about pseudoscientific nonsense as though it's fact. OP may be forgiven, because he may not know any better. But the SJW Marxist academic ought to know better. He does know better. He simply does not care. And he may never be forgiven. Ever. What makes this whole fiasco far, far more offensive than it already is, is the attempt to dress up "alternative facts" in the garb of academic respectability. And isn't the alternative to fact, after all, fiction?

>>8732161
>IQ and g are approx 0.5-0.8 heritable
I call shenanigans.

>>8732161
Fields under research are typically not taught in college.
We know too little of genetics to drop the conclusions you want to reach.

>>8732146
Uh no. Because environmental and genetics influence a trait. Is that something you IQ race deniers don't understand? The problem is that environmental nurture fags think genes have 0-10% influence on a trait, when the number is more like 60-80%.

>>8732159

Why would the "superior" Indians and East Asians be coming to white countries to learn

I don't see whites flocking to Senegal for undergrad you dumb faggot

If black people and white people and latino people were brought up in the same manner as the top performing scholars they would also conform to that scholarship. Environment breeds your future.

>>8732150
We should start with you, first. Since I'm assuming you are white. Don't start spouting bull shit about cultural values in an attempt to hide behind your Marxist academia, don't you know everything about cultural studies is complete bunk? Looking at the raw statistical data, whites and blacks should be killed off.

>>8732166
>when the number is more like 60-80%.

I'm curious, where did you get this number from if research into the topic is being suppressed?

>>8732154

Because we only let in high performing Indians, same with Asians.

Ironically enough this is a form of eugenics in a way.

>>8732167
Because whites have been enjoying economic success. If we get rid of economic factors and put IMMIGRANTS(asian) into countries like the US, they tend to outperform Whites.

>>8731490
Because people REEEE out over the fact that intelligence group differences are a result of genetics, and ignore valid science and just call you names.

It really doesn't matter, geneticists will have conclusive proof that niggers are fucking stupid because of their genes and not pathetic, disproven environmental copouts within a decade or two.

This distaste for actual science is largely restricted to white progressives the same way white conservatives ignore climate data.

"It disagrees with my world view, so it is pseudo science."

Fuck all of you faggots.

>>8732133
Ya I can answer it, but I'm not a typical pollack. You're effectively strawmanning the argument. First of all sterilization or segregation would be preferred methods to outright murder. But to answer your more important question, there is a case to be made that tests such as SAT scores and IQ scores are not the end-all way to judge people. In fact no one thinks that it is, but when the disparity is so large you know there's a problem.

For example, you would never expect someone with 60 IQ to become a scientist. We can rule them out as ever being part of society right off the bat. But a difference of 5-10 points is arguable.

One such way to measure individuals is by accomplishment. You could extrapolate this concept to entire races. By this measure whites have produced the most, and thus would naturally be foolish to exterminate all whites. What pollacks really want is not genocide, but just to have ethnically pure nations, equal but separate, working together. We believe that is to the benefit of all parties.

>>8732138
You don't need a peer reviewed journal to trust your own senses and see that Africa is a shithole. Of course I lend value to the process of peer review, but the standards you're setting for obvious truths is absurd, so absurd that it can only be regarded as a defense mechanism. If your big, smart professor told you that Africa is a shithole, would you be willing to believe it? Assuming you aren't being an intellectually disingenuous jackass, I can assume you already believe it. So if you believe it, what's the cause of it? Do you really need a peer reviewed journal to tell you that every majority black community is a shithole without exception? You fucking slack-jawed monkey.

>>8732173
Yeah, I'm sure all of those Chinese peasants are the best of the best.

>>8732179
>I'm not a typical pollack
>NIGGGERSS ARE SHIIIIIIIT
ok

>>8732166
A 60-80% influence shouldn't allow for a gap between races to close by a quarter in the presence of more income, and it furthermore should suggest that the means for all races stay locked in with wiggle room correspondent to the leftover 20-40% despite varying socioeconomic status. These numbers should be way more fixed across the board than they are.

Well, I'm out. I don't know if anything productive came about from my hour of posting ITT but I will use the push-back to make my argument more cogent in the future.

Always remember that intelligence is at least 60% genetic and similar environment can only provide a baseline.

:-)

>>8732185

You aren't looking at the high genetic overlap between white and black people. We are still the same species. IQ is going to come down to the marginal differences in frontal lobe capability.

ITT: people too dumb to understand statistics beyond face value

>>8732156
You're the one who said they should be murdered. But that aside, you don't have to. You can just give them the choice of being deported or sterilized.

>>8732158
In other words the answer is that singapore has very few africans, middle easterners, and latinos. If you really want to disprove his argument, you should provide an example of a multicultural country with large populations of these peoples and is a success.

>>8732169
But I essentially agreed with you. I just said that you can achieve the same effect without resorting to murder. Idk what you're talking about honestly my man.

>>8732192
I trust you'll be able to provide documented evidence for that claim.

>>8732194
You didn't answer the question.
Why does "your country is a shithole" argument only apply to Africans?

>>8732184
>this is the only way to classify groups of people

>>8732172
Intelligence research is actually not suppressed. If anything, it's thriving. The stuff that comes out of the intelligence field and behavioral genetics is very interest, and also extremely politically incorrect.

IQ has a heritability estimate as high as 0.75. For comparison, the heritability estimate of height is 0.90

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

>>8732143
>conspiracy

Lewotin being a marxist and sociology being a far left pozzed field are not conspiracies.

>>8732162
>>8732157
>>8732153
>bothering to post this
The pseudo-science loving darkies on /sci/ that try to pretend race isn't real are never going to reply to you.

>>8732197
talking about the second part of your post

>>8732179
>White nations have never been a shithole ever

Yeah ok

>>8732184
Hello SJWtard

>>8732196
I don't really understand your question.

>>8732137
> A.W.F. Edwards published a rebuttal which is considered definitive by the scientific community, and which even gave rise to a fallacy called "Lewontin's fallacy." Without getting too technical, the problem was one of data granularity
>>8732153
>Here's the unsettling part though: as I mentioned, the Witherspoon paper was greeted with relief and acclaim by SJW Marxists in academia. How could this be? Didn't it refute them? The SJWs were receptive because the paper is peppered liberally with quotes like this:
>>8732157
>Had Witherspoon et al. been straightforward rather than dressing up their findings in the cloak of political correctness, they would never have been published
But hadn't Edward's paper been published anyway? All you've shown is that Academia gives you a free pass on researching races and even considers the "racial realistic" Edwards' paper the definitive rebuttal.

In fact it's ironic. You're complaining about Witherspoon apparently seeing the evidence of rate but still interpreting it his own way, while you do the same - see that academia allows all kinds of papers and acknowledges them, but interpret them as being Marxists anyway.

>>8732196
Because when it comes to shitholes, African countries are in a league of their own.

>>8732201
I assume you're talking about slavic nations? You know it's kinda racist to just lump people together based on the color of their skin. That being said I don't know of any anglo-saxon nations that have ever been shitholes.

>>8732192
Even ignoring genetic overlap, if 50-80% of IQ is determined by genes then that means the mean within a race should be relatively fixed. There shouldn't be a jump of damn near 200 SAT points across social classes, or cases where where rich whites consistently outperform poor whites with significance because things should be relatively set in stone with genetics. Their numbers should be fixed with at most 20-40% wiggle room from factors outside of genetics.

>>8732207
Not really. SEA is full of awful shitholes, as well as the Indian subcontinent.

>>8732204
What don't you understand? "BUT AFRICA IS SO SHIIIIIIT OPEN OUR EYES" has been used as a final argument several times ITT.

>>8732210
It doesn't matter. Those white nations managed to be shitholes because of their circumstances despite their supposed skin-based IQ. African nations have some seriously bad circumstances.

>>8732213
It's not just Africa, it's any black community. Literally any black community on the planet is a shithole, unless there's a constant influx of outlier blacks, blacks breeding amongst themselves will regress to their unsustainably low levels of intelligence and inevitably turn their community into a shithole.

And I assume that you want to say that slavic nations are shitholes, therefore you're wrong, but "white" really is a colloquial term. If you wanted to get more specific, you could specify it even further, which would only solidify my argument and give it more credence. Furthermore, it's obvious socio-economic factors play a role. After all, korea is the best example. One is shit, the other isn't. But we're talking about differences in communities and populations within the same country.

>>8732230
So basically you're purposefully conflating slavic with white so that you can say "white countries are shitholes". If you actually got specific your argument falls apart. Also, read >>8732231
Korea is the best example that socio-economic factors exist. So many slavic nations have been tattered from attempts at communism and socialism.

Please do tell about the bad circumstances Africans had prior to European colonization that caused them to never build civilizations.

>>8731514
And the Chinese scientific community is thriving, unlike the entirety of Subsaharan Africa, so the old "IQ tests only measure ability to perform well on IQ tests" tirades are disproven. The correlation can't be denied.

>>8732212
That doesn't change the influence of genes. It's why you will never ever see the gap close or see the gap reverse with blacks scoring higher then whites.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/race-gaps-in-sat-scores-highlight-inequality-and-hinder-upward-mobility/

Don't worry though, the Democrats are now arguing that SAT are obsolete and should be replaced to end this "racism".

>>8731592
So name some. And quantifiable, please, none of this nebulous mumbo-jumbo like "institutionalized oppression" or "patriarchy".

Here we go again...

This is not a taboo topic. We study genetics, intelligence, and race all the time. We just don't observe the date you like. Your only fallback is that science is a conspiracy theory and all the scientists are either lying because of jews and/or liberals. Science denial.

I want /pol/ to leave, there is nothing of value that will ever come from this thread

>>8731490
>Why is this such a taboo subject in science?
because there is nothing to gain from it except maybe ammo for people to justify their hatred for other races. and it's a worthless thing to devote your time into if you're a real scientist when there are plenty of other practical things to study

>>8732261
occupation, educational background, social class, inheritance

I mean shit son the Yale student who works part time as a bartender is at the bottom of this chart but obviously he doesn't belong in the same socio-economical group as a midwest unemployed still mill worker.

>>8732253
>I'm not saying intelligence is 100% genetic, but intelligence is 100% genetic and we should only focus on skin color because your skin is your brain

>>8732275
I would like to add that I'm genuinely amazed that the word cuck has not once been said in this thread

>>8732194
>You're the one who said they should be murdered. But that aside, you don't have to. You can just give them the choice of being deported or sterilized.
That wasn't me who said that.

File: 1486956644541.jpg (153KB, 644x644px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 644x644px

>>8731526

>>8732275
>there is nothing to gain from scientific research and knowledge except for hatred
>I want /pol/ to leave
typical science hating SJWtard ladies and gentleman.

>>8732286
>deny science, say it's all a coverup and conspiracy

>people tell you you're wrong
>typical science hating!

Let me guess, you also think university is liberal brainwashing?

>>8732279
Wouldn't educational background preselect for IQ? That at least should be useless with regard to the posed question.

>>8732242
Arabic Slave Trade, Disease, Literal Serengetti and Jungle monsters, lack of a winter season to calm down and collect your thoughts, a lack of need for certain innovations including things like coats or jackets which naturally lead to nobody considering ideas including insulation and the like, etc.


A lot of things needed for survival are already there, and the climate was harsh to anything attempting to develop with longevity in mind. It's a damaged clusterfuck out there historically precisely because of the presence of resources.

It's like dropping off a can of beans into an ebola infested trashcan among a group of 10 starving homeless people, three rabid dogs, and Dick Cheney in upper Michigan and then complaining that they all killed each other and nobody made a casserole like that nice white guy you gave beans to down in Florida that one summer.

/pol/ please go

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982205002095

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848613000460

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381.full

http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1455.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/9/4516.full

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/9/1679.full

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7571/full/nature15393.html

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tan.12165/abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2271140/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707610015

>>8732294
would it? Even among people of the same group the parent's educational level is ABSOLUTELY FREAKING MASSIVE when it comes to determining the children's performances.

>>8732242
>caused them to never build civilizations

They did have civilizations. Just never modern ones. Just like Meso-Americans before Europe took over.

>>8732273
I assume you meant to say data. Who is "we"? Are you doing the observation? Because theres already a huge amount of data thats been observed that pollacks would "like".

Are you actually trying to argue that scientists have determined theres no difference between the races?

>occupation
they're all students
>educational background
strongly correlates with income and IQ. If you are already accounting for these two factors, this is basically nothing
>social class
just another way of saying income
>inheritance
literally what

>>8732293
not at all. I hardly see any libtards in university.
You are doomed to be unemployed uneducated cancerous shitters who dye your hair pink and cry about Trump while destroying everything good about this civilization.

>>8732253
Right, but if genes have the strong influence that they do as you claim, there shouldn't be jumps in the numbers like we see. We can put the racial gap on the backburner for now, this doesn't explain the gap WITHIN races.

>>8732303
I know enough about population genetics to know how wrong you are, yes.

>>8732300
lmao did you even read these? they go against your anti-scientific shitposting you dumb SJWtard.

>>8732303
>just another way of saying income
wrong
>If you are already accounting for these two factors, this is basically nothing
Incorrect, see >>8732301
>they're all students
parents?
>literally what
it's stuff you get from your parents in case you didn't know

>>8732286
ok then, lets say we get scientific fact that that on average blacks are dumber than whites and whites are dumber than asians, what now? do we rank jobs according to races and only allow asians into jobs that require high IQs?

we'll have one more thing /pol/fags can copy paste into one of their infographs that they will spam off topic on other boards to be insufferable faggots and that's it

File: C3DJFRx.jpg (14KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 320x320px

>>8732313

>>8732317
Nope asians and jews deserve to be on top, whites in the middle and blacks/arabs/mexicans on the bottom. Sorry your tryhard stereotype isn't even consistent in any post you shit out.

>>8732328
This is what it is really about. You just have a political agenda. Even if this garbage you believe in was true, it would not be an excuse to enact violence or take away rights from minorities.

Those things are you end goal, though, so you invent any reason to be "right." It's not about scientific truth. You come here pretending you already know the answer and anything that goes against your retarded ideals is a conspiracy. It has nothing to do with finding scientific truth about race and intelligence.

>>8731509
IQ tests are universal and not culturally biased.

>>8732299
Allow me to educate you a bit. Sub-Saharan Africans have existed in their current form or very close to it for at least 50,000 years. White and other people didn't start to show up until around 30,000 years ago. When do we see the first civilizations start to crop up? About 10,000 years ago, and it wasn't in sub-saharan africa.

Why is it that Africans, being given a 20,000 head start, still failed to create civilization first? Isn't that extremely damning? That being said, let me go through your points

>Arabic slave trade
Didn't exist until the 7th century, but Africans already had several thousand millenia to make something of themselves.
>Disease
You clearly just threw this out there because you didn't know what to say. Disease is everywhere.
>Monsters
Another useless argument. Predator beasts exist everywhere, and man has already been slaying mammoths for eons.
>lack of a winter season to calm down and collect your thoughts
LMAO. Is this actually what they teach in social sciences? Lack of being able to collect your thoughts? This is so absurd, but I wont leave it without a counterargument. There's no evidence that having a season to collect your thoughts is important.
>a lack of need for certain innovations including things like coats or jackets which naturally lead to nobody considering ideas including insulation and the like, etc.
Funny because this is exactly the argument so called racists use to explain why Africans never evolved intelligence in the first place.

>>8731490
>>8731498
>>8731509
Aren't all the studies on this inconclusive? There are too many confounding factors to be accounted for, plus, you really need a large sample size.

Look at the most well-known study, known as the Minnesota Transracial adoption study. You'd have to control for nutrition, blood lead levels, prenatal care, age of adoption, and a whole host of other factors. They didn't at all in this study, yet all these factors have a proven effect on iq.

>>8732328
are you retarded? I literally said blacks<whites<asians. are you saying I'm wrong because I didn't list every singe race aswell?

>>8732334
>If you justifiy your political views with scientific facts, then science is racist and should not be practised.
And if you rape, murder, kill, steal, you will be put to jail even if you SJWtards disagree with it. But thats just the way the world is.

>>8732339
>Population A does nothing in 20 thousand years
>They move to a new place
>Civilization starts in the new place

>>8732346
Science has nothing to do with politics, and as I already said no subject is taboo in science. You just might not like the date you collect and the truth you find.

Politics is a subject of philosophy and ethics and does not fall under the realm of science.

You either didn't read what I typed, which I image is true, or you're just retarded.

>>8732302
What, like Ghana?

>>8732317
see >>8732066
>Why do race deniers always conflate simple acknowledging the truth with action? Isn't it possible to simply acknowledge the truth, but take no action?
It's like you think you have to follow up every truth with some sort of action or else it's not worth seeking the truth, better keep deluding ourselves.

>>8732345
No, it means that when graduation and employment rates go like asians > whites > blacks, crying about a hypothetical racist system is retarded no matter how much you desperately spam.

>>8732347
They didn't move you dumbass. They were already there to begin with. They mated with the Neaderthals and evolved to form entirely different people than what they used to be when they left.

>>8732350
>Science has nothing to do with politics
>its politics if science agrees with your political views.

it's like the 10th time you contradict your own autism it's not even funny.

>>8732339
>20,000 year head start
That's not how that works

what's much more interesting is: who is the happiest?

Probably nobody is going to read this, but anyway: did you ever notice, that your long time memory grabs onto things like seasons to not get lost? I recently read about people who were locked in prisons lost the sense of time; they couldn't tell if something was a year ago or five years ago. The same thing applies to people living close to the equator. Now the interesting part: since you need a memory value to plan into the future, people who are used to observing the effects of their actions in a long term are much more likely to plan ahead, e.g. get ready for the winter. This effect is proportional to the distance from the equator, it shows itself already in short disances (Germany -Italy).

So, here's what I deduce: people far away from the equator have a better skills in planning aheead and analysing their actions for purpose. But at the same time they are cursed to see a purpose in everything they do. So who's actually happier?

Other than that I think they are more stupid, obviously

>>8732355
100% scientifically wrong. Most humans, even most Africans, have some percent of DNA similarity to neanderthals. The DNA similarity is only up to 4%.

>>8732359
>because I say so. QED.

>>8732358
Science does not agree with your politics views so your point is moot.

You're just delusional and retarded. Why do you idiots always claim to care so much about intelligence, but none of you are educated? Most racists are criminals or morons with no college degree. The real problem is your insecurity. I think on some level you realized that someone who studies human genetics knows a lot more about that subject than you do, you just get emotional.

If you claim to care so much about this stuff, why not get a degree in it?

>>8732363
100% scientifically retarded. There's literally nothing in your post that contradicts mine.

>>8732355
So white just magically poofed into existence in Europe and fucked Neanderthals?

>>8732372
Different races are not "entirely different people"
educate yourself
>>8732300

>>8732371
>Science does not agree with your politics views so your point is moot.
It does, so does the graduation rates, employment rates, murder, rape, theft statistics.

>tantrum full of ad-hominems and arrogance.
ah...forgot not to take SJWtards seriously.

Sorry kid. at the end of the day more blacks will be in jail for the crimes they committed, and more asians will get jobs because they work hard at it. That's the way the world goes.

>>8732388
>It does, so does the graduation rates, employment rates, murder, rape, theft statistics.
>>8732300

>>8732373
Clearly there was some kind of fundamental change as we can observe the effects of the altered phenotypes. However much you want to attribute that to evolution versus neanderthal DNA is up to you. But clearly cro magnon is different from sub saharan africans. I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that the rest of the world was empty until some large group of Africans randomly decided to go populate the world and then suddenly realize that life is so much easier in other parts of the world that they can now make civilization? That's ridiculous.

Also I just realized. This >>8732299
post is ridiculous. It talks about how there was no civilization because it was too hard, but then tops it off by saying that it was too easy, so no one tried hard enough to make civilization.

File: xF9FgWhe.jpg (42KB, 400x333px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 400x333px

>>8732371
i'm honestly a big proponent of hamiltonian rule.

the masses shouldn't even be shown scientific data because they lack the training and the frame of reference to parse data correctly so everything has to be watered down. add a dash of sensationalism and any academic merit that a study once had is masked by the reporters agenda.

bread and circus is all they need.

>>8732390
Cool links bro. none of them have crime, education and employment statistics. We knew you just spam the same cherrypicked garbage without reading any of it but this is just embarrassing.

to recap : at the end of the day more blacks will be in jail for the crimes they committed, and more asians will get jobs because they work hard at it. That's the way the world goes.

>>8732393
You're assuming that everything is 100% due to genetic factors, and different regions of earth all have the same natural resources.

Like this entire thread, you just want to ignore environmental factors. This reveals your fundamental misunderstanding of introductory level genetics.

>>8732398
Your fallacy is that you attribute all of that solely due to genetics and pretend you can ignore any other factors, even when there evidence against you.

>>8732393
>Clearly there was some kind of fundamental change as we can observe the effects of the altered phenotypes.
We can observe different phenotypes within Africa itself.
>Are you saying that the rest of the world was empty until some large group of Africans randomly decided to go populate the world
Generally evolution has a common thing with one population diverging from somewhere and the adapting to different environments. Out of Africa explanation is pretty popular.

Vastly different environments affect everything, even actual natural selection. If we didn't have easily available coal industrial evolution wouldn't be happening for example, and therefore civilization could've easily stagnated.

>>8732406
>Your fallacy is that you attribute all of that solely due to genetics and pretend you can ignore any other factors
When did I say that you dumbfuck? Do you SJWtards like to just make up imaginary people to get triggered about?

>>8732399
Again you have yet to elucidate your point. Please tell me waht you believe. Do you believe that other parts of the world besides Africa were inhabited by homo sapiens? If so then they should have started to make civilization as soon as they left, if they were prone to it. Do you believe that the other parts of the world WEREN'T inhabited by homo sapiens until around, and a large group just randomly left and started making civilization? That would be demonstrably false. Environmental factors don't even come into play, because your argument falls flat on its face entirely from context. And to be clear, it has yet to be shown that Africa is unsuitable for the making of civilization. If anything Africa is like a paradise of resources.

>>8732415
>What is your argument!?!?
>I'm going to assume it's Out of Africa, then you my copypasta responses to try to knock down that straw man!
>hur durr environmental factors don't matter at all! Everything is 100% genetic!

>>8732408
>We can observe different phenotypes within Africa itself.
Whats your point?
>Generally evolution has a common thing with one population diverging from somewhere and the adapting to different environments. Out of Africa explanation is pretty popular.
Yes I'm aware, it's my fault for not being clear. You missed my point. Timing is critical here. WHEN did the group leave? It wasn't 30,000 years ago.

>>8732419
No you bumbling imbecile stop bringing up genetic vs environmental, that's not even relevant to the discussion. What is the TIMING? We KNOW for a fact that homo sapiens existed outside of africa prior to 30,000 years ago. The question is, if africans are suited to it, why did it take so long for them to make civilization? Why did they have to turn into white, asian, and other peoples before civilization could start to be made?

>>8732413
>using SJW unironically

>>>/rthedonald/

awaits you

>>8732426
Humans began making tools and using clothing over a million years ago. That let them overcome most environments. Without tools we probably wouldn't have left Africa.

Why do you even care about timing? The first civilizations were in the Tigris and Indus river valleys, and after that Egypt rose. That was long before the first bronze age civilizations in Europe.

>>8732419
>>8732408
Furthermore, we are supposed to take it as a coincidence that the only group of people who can't make civilizations also have virtually no neanderthal DNA? Are we supposed to take it as a coincidence that homo sapiens conveniently only started to make civilization after they evolved into whites, asians, and other peoples? We'll just add these to giant list of race denier """"coincidences"""". Nope, nothing to see here. Just more coincidences.

>>8732426
>that's not even relevant to the discussion
that highly relevant to the discussion because you cannot define a set ratio for the influence of either, meaning that neither can be quantified. you can merely speculate.

>>8732428
>SJWtard gets nervous when exposed
funny everytime

>>8732442
nigga, you don't even have an argument. just a bunch of references to crime statistics and a statement suggesting we go full "Brave New World" with some arbitrary genetic heirarchy.

learn to string together a coherent sentence.

>>8732432
>Humans began making tools and using clothing over a million years ago. That let them overcome most environments. Without tools we probably wouldn't have left Africa.
And?

>The first civilizations were in the Tigris and Indus river valleys, and after that Egypt rose. That was long before the first bronze age civilizations in Europe.
And? Are you trying to distract me from the fact that you have no actual counter-argument? I care about timing because >>8732438

The timing is just too much of a convenient coincidence that civilizations could only be formed once sub saharan africans evolved into other peoples. You might have a case if Africans never left until 30,000 years ago, and for some reason randomly decided to leave, and somehow instantly turned into other people. But Africans were in these environments that you claim were conducive to civilization already, and nothing. It wasn't until these homo sapiens turned into cro magnon and others that civilization finally got started.

>>8732441
No it's not relevant because it's not relevant. The issue is of logistics. If we assume you are correct, it still doesn't explain why civilizations didn't get started when sub saharan homo sapiens were in these superior, civilization conducive environments prior to 30,000 years ago.

>>8731963
There are millions of articles published every year that don't reach MSM, what makes these race and IQ papers so special to you?

>>8732450
>respond properly to my childish ugly shitpost
>denies official crime statistics and calls genetics science "arbitrary"
thats a fully grown SJWtard alright.

>>8732453
>>8732438
You are conflating minor changes in physical appearance to "we evolved differently!" You are ASSUMING that we must have evolved different mental traits because one or two physical traits are different, but you have no direct evidence.

I would try to explain why you are wrong, since intelligence is influenced by a large number of genes and there isn't enough genetic diversity in all humans to account for something like that, but you'll just say it's a conspiracy or shout something else stupid.

You only see a set of parameters in real life and you assume you know the cause, but you don't even listen to people trying to explain why you're wrong.

>>8732462
>>8732453
>>8732441
Let me try to put it in simple terms for you.
>Africans are in the Tigris river valley 60,000 years ago. No civilization for 30,000 years.
>Africans evolve into something else 30,000 years ago.
>30,000 years later, civilization is born.

Please tell me what the fuck environemnt vs genetics has ANYTHING to do with showing how it's not entirely obvious that the reason civilization started was because the africans "became something else" and not because they had a change in environment.

>>8732468
>genetics science
whoa there faggot. just caught you're dumb ass. crime, education, all that bullshit you were talking about is social science. IQ tests? psychology.

thats not genetics. try again.

i see a thread like this and i wonder if we can ever stop projecting our little special bubble as the actual reality for any majority.

i mean, that is the entire part of growing up that matters, you have to realize its not all about you and make your own life among millions doing the same.


But how in the fuck you can be so stupid as to think op has any relevancy irl and then IGNORE THE EVIDENCE posted in this thread by cherrypicking specific parts of comments to dismiss the entire post.

Literally fpbp (fifthpostbestpost)

>>8732470
No, Ive already explained it countless times. You still don't understand my argument. It's one of timing. Just look at this post and maybe you'll understand. >>8732473

How we evolved or how much we evolved has nothing to do with it. Whatever explanation you come up with has to explain the following phenomenon.
>Africans are in the Tigris river valley 60,000 years ago. No civilization for 30,000 years.
>Africans evolve into something else 30,000 years ago.
>30,000 years later, civilization is born.

File: 1486513913782.png (196KB, 320x303px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 320x303px

>>8732473
>what does genetics have to do with evolution

>evolution occurred in 30,000 years but it wasn't genetics at all!

Africans did not "become something else." Humans collectively learned different skills and passed those skills down via teaching and made a society.

Your brain has been so turned mush by your retarded idea that "race is everything" that you believe culture and society are direct result of melanin concentration.

>>8732473
thats conjecture. you literally can't quantify the effect of either.

.

>>8732479
>>8732473
Humans don't just pop anywhere on the globe spontaneously. First you need to have a stable population migrate somewhere, then they need to reproduce to a decent number before you can start thinking about first cities and the like, and there is no big population booms without modern medicine and stable food supply.

In fact there is nothing peculiar about the timing.

>>8732484
>melanin concentration
Do you literally believe that we think that's the cause of racial differences?

How can you say homo sapiens didn't become something else? There's clear phenotypical differences. Whether or not you want to believe that intelligence is somehow arbitrarily excluded from being one of those differences doesn't even matter. In essence, it sounds like you're saying it takes 60,000 years of saved up knowledge to create a civilization. Do you actually believe that's possible? Given the complete lack of written language? Do you think that when tribes migrated to other parts of the world, they actually kept all the information that they left behind without any form of written language? The idea itself is so absurd, but you'll believe anything if it shows that intelligence is somehow arbitrarily excluded from the list of phenotypical traits that can change from breeding with neanderthals and evolution.

>>8732497
That's incorrect. We can map approximately when people arrived to various parts of the planet. That timeline involves 60,000 years, so it sounds like youre saying it requires 60,000 years to build up the population. Another anon's excuse was that skills take 60,000 years to build up. Your argument falls flat on its face when tribe first arrive in china 25,000 years ago and then build civilization 20,000 years later. It doesn't take longer than 30,000 years to build civilizations, has evidenced by history. It is quite peculiar.

File: 1461497054521.jpg (47KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x375px

>see this thread
>enter expecting contentious scientific discourse

>nigger nigger nigger

>>8732515
So you're saying that if China took 20000 years to build civilization due to various factors it couldn't take thrice longer anywhere else? You're retarded.

>>8732545
>you're not automatically assuming that which is favorable to my position with no evidence presented? you're retarded
ok buddy

File: Abrams56.jpg (2MB, 2130x1541px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2130x1541px

>>8732545
And this is exactly what I mean when I say that you race deniers don't trust your senses and your intuition. Oh no, I just learned a new fact that suggests that a morally repugnant thesis might actually be true? I'll just assume there's some reason why it's wrong automatically and not question that assumption ever, phew, that was close.

Let's be honest here, you find that idea that sub-saharan african dna being bad at making civilizations morally repugnant. That's why you try so hard to fight it, even going as far as to assume there's always some comforting explanation for why any any evidence that supports it is wrong. It has already been shown theres bias in academia against morally repugnant hypotheses, why wouldn't it apply to you? To expand on this concept, you erroneously assume that anyone who disagrees with you must be coming from a position of moral inferiority, or else why would they have that position?

Well the answer is that the facts suggest it. No one can come up with any reasonable counter-argument to these two posts
>>8732515
>>8732501

It's time to come to terms with your own bias and the nature of the world you live in.

>>8731596
By my experience, the first people who'll say blacks tend to score lower than whites with IQ will also be the first to tell you whites tend to lose out to Asians and Ashkenazim.
If it was all some huge white supremacist conspiracy, I don't think they'd make such an admission.

>>8732545
Africa isn't the inhospitable hellhole that so many would have you believe it is.

60% of the remaining usable farmland on the planet is in Africa. It took whites going back for it to get used in the first place

>>8731523
>Asians score best on the IQ tests developed by whites

At least, the Asians they put in for those tests. When they talk about high Asian educational scores they usually mean the Shanghai or Hong Kong elite, or the Indians cherry picked to go to America and work as computer progammers, not the average rice farmer.