/sci/ - Science & Math

He probably doesn't give a shit about this.

>>11160166

>>11160163
That science is simply wrong and isn't actually science, that's why you get ostracized for pushing it. Same thing would happen to any physicist that started pushing the flat earth.

You do realize that in every age always without exception if you ever dare go against the authorities you are in for a world of hurt and your only change to salvage your life somehow is win out in the end by becoming the new authorities?

Do as you are told and behave as expected of you.

The alternatives provide slim chance for better outcome.

>>11160188
It isn't the same thing. This is a dishonest arguement.

>>11160189
>scientists confirmed authoritarian brown nosers

>>11160190
Both are wrong and based on shoddy science/reasoning, so yes.

>>11160192
>believing something demonstrably false is the same as providing a possible and highly probable part solution for a discrepancy that isn't fully understood
ok retard

>>11160197
Your views will never be taken seriously by scientists, /pol/tard. They will always stay in the pseudo-science pit, along with phrenology (another idea deeply connected with yours). Stay in your pit, pseudo-science manlet.
Here.
>>>/pol/

>>11160189
It's funny how every time the older generation of scientists die, science moves forward

Like Max Planck said: Science advances one funeral at a time

>>11160203
> your views will stay in the pit, Copernicus
This is you, nigger.

>>11160212
>one guy who turned out to be right was ignored 500 years ago
>therefore every time somebody calls me stupid that means I'm right
this is you, /pol/tard.

>>11160212
Copernicus was proven right, you were proven wrong. Retard.

>>11160216
> Alfred Wegener
> Albert Einstein
> Michael Servetus
On and on. You idiotic, nigger fellating, weak-willed bootlicker.

>>11160220
“I” wasn’t proven wrong and absolutely NO ONE “proved” Watson wrong. You don’t feel the need to silence people who have been “proven” wrong. Only fanatics with an agenda that crumbles when challenged do that.

>>11160188
It's not an entirely untrue statement given the fact that Africans are generally of low intelligence even when put in better environments in other countries this even seems to hold true for the Africans in america as mongrelised as they are

>>11160220
When has it been proven false that Africans are of low intelligence with exceptions being in the case of F1 hybrids between Africans and other racial groupings

>>11160237
It hasn’t. Notice how none of these people are pushing to go to any sub-saharan African nations? They should have no problems there, since everyone should have at the very LEAST equal intelligence, right?

It’s okay to claim that blacks have genes for curly hair, dark skin, and sickle cell anemia.

But the brains of black people must be exactly the same as all other races because brains are magic and all races and both sexes have identical brains.

>>11160163
I am telling you, black cheats on the tests and this hyperintelligent dude can't tell. He should read more Dawkins.

>>11160188
Otto Warburg never got stripped of his nobel for arguing that oxygen was the key to killing cancer in the and that hydrogen peroxide injected or ingested could cure cancer.(to this day tards still drink hydrogen peroxide in an attempt to cure cancer, also just for fun, Rachel Carson made extensive use of Warburg)

He was completely wrong and actually advised a dangerous treatment.

There are certain types of "wrong science" that are ostracized and it's all side based.

>>11160233
>>11160235
>>11160237
There is not a shred of credible science supporting your views. Back to your manlet pit
>>>/pol/

>>11160244
I would easily rather go to Rwanda than Moldova. Things vary country to country, and change over time.

>What makes Dr. Watson’s and Mr. Wade’s statements so insidious is that they start with the accurate observation that many academics are implausibly denying the possibility of average genetic differences among human populations, and then end with a claim — backed by no evidence — that they know what those differences are and that they correspond to racist stereotypes. They use the reluctance of the academic community to openly discuss these fraught issues to provide rhetorical cover for hateful ideas and old racist canards.
- David Reich

Oh my!

>>11160255
The high heredity of intelligence and the low intelligence of Africans within civilised nations are indicative of the statement of >>11160235
>There is not a shred of credible science supporting your views. Back to your manlet pit
Is not a retort about a question as seen in >>11160237

>>11160255
yes there is, not that it's even needed since all you need to do is walk outside and talk to a nigger to realise his IQ is abysmally low

>your views are not taken seriously
You libcucks are in for a very rude awekening when China will inevitable take over as the world hegemon.

>>11160206
Was Ted K just building on his work?

>>11160273
You could walk up to me and say "Hello" and I could reply with "benis :DDDD" and you would think my IQ is abysmally low, but that wouldn't mean you have sufficient proof that my IQ is abysmally low.

>>11160245
>IQ intervals are 10, but start at 55 instead of 60
why

>>11160282
even if your IQ is high, you would still be a stupid fuck for saying that

>>11160282
ah yes
niggers aren't retarded
they're simply pretending to be retarded

>>11160188
idk seems like they're pretty scientific about this kind of thing. Do you have evidence stating otherwise?

>>11160273
Be honest. You've never talked to a black person in your life.

>>11160315
unfortunately not true

>>11160261
>>11160273
Manlet pit
>>>/pol/

>>11160315
be honest. Are you a negro or a cuckold?

>>11160334
>if I keep saying the earth is flat and burn anyone who says otherwise at the stake, it will be true
ok theist

>>11160334
no

>>11160274
I'm not a liberal, conservacuck.

>>11160305
Not related to IQ though

>>11160188
Morals is not a logical argument.

>>11160245
Exactly blacks have a higher amount of fast twitch muscles fibers which makes them good at sprinting, but we cannot ever know the inner mechanisms of their neurobiology for "reasons".

>>11160354
Violence is in fact related to low IQ. The majority of inmates are sub 80IQ. So tangentially it is related.

>>11160315
So if I met 5 white geniuses does that mean all whites are geniuses? No, you are making the silly argument the minority of civilized blacks you have encountered means the bulk of blacks are like them. Take a nice look at black culture it is something only a feral sociopath would come up with meaning the intelligent of the black race dont determine what is black culture thus the intelligent of blacks are not the genetic majority of blacks and never have been either. It gets even worse when you bring up african black behavior in their countries which is downright prehistoric compared to the average of all other races.

>>11160370
I can tell a nigger wrote this superfluous trash. Lol.

>>11160338
>>11160348
When will you learn, big boy?

>>11160369
All the smartest and most powerful people do violence. They just pay others to do it instead of doing it personally.

>>11160392
Then they aren't doing the violence are they. Look at it this way. You're only stupid if you get caught, and that's what jail is testing.

>>11160392
Smart people are less impulsive thats why they have better self control, and thus lower rates of violence. The high IQ of black africans commit violent crimes at human levels showing this. In Africa the gated areas with high IQ blacks tend to have very low violent crime affecting the population most crime in Africa is caused by the common feral black who is in the poor or middle class in Africa.

>>11160397
>the they aren't doing it
>except they are and don't get caught
>which means they aren't doing it
>because they didn't get caught for doing it
>so they aren't doing it
Nice

>/pol/tards still assblasted about Watson

>>11160397
I'm in the POTUS and order a drone strike on civilians, did I commit violence or did I not? Whether that violence occurs is entirely dependent on my order.

>watson thread
imagine if you spend half as much time actually studying genetics as you do fawning over some senile retard

>>11160411
They're too different arguments you retard. One was addressing the idiocy of claiming that someone ordering violence is the same as committing violence. The other was pointing out the fact that only dumb people get caught.

>>11160422
I don't understand. Look at 1950-1980 on its own. Only Asia had a population boom yet world IQ was plummeting. You sure that data is credible?

>>11160443
It might be. IQ is fucking meaningless.

>Same thing would happen to any physicist that started pushing the flat earth.
>Both are wrong and based on shoddy science/reasoning, so yes.
>They will always stay in the pseudo-science pit, along with phrenology (another idea deeply connected with yours).
>one guy who turned out to be right was ignored 500 years ago therefore every time somebody calls me stupid that means I'm right
How can people not recognize how fallacious this is? These are entirely rhetorical tricks employed by and used by midwits. So much association fallacy.

>>11160445
what the fuck are you talking about you idiotic frog
>500 years ago
????

>>11160443
>Isn't all of Asia Hong Kong, Japan, and Singapore? wtf

>>11160448
I'm quoting the moron that's been posting in this thread. If you've been following it, you would have realized that.

>>11160289
>people actually being retarded means they're pretending to be retarded
Smart people can be stupid. This anon >>11160288 seems to understand.

>>11160444
Wow just imagine saying this on a board about IQ LARPING.

>>11160449
So Asians are driving down world IQ?

>>11160445
>implying phrenology couldn't be done scientifically

>>11160494
I'm criticizing that poster you moron.

>>11160255
There is not a shred of credible science supporting the blank slate hypothesis either.

Sorry, I'm late to the thread. We're his findings proven wrong? Or on what basis do they desecrate his work?

>>11160163
It baffles me that we continue to make derivations based on a quotient of unproven relevance

>>11160163
Clown world
Chinks must be laughing their asses off

>>11160523
Not only do they dismiss his claims that IQ is reliant on genes which is reliant on race without any thought or critical analysis. They also try to destroy his other work with the same brush because if you disagree with any part of something someone says you have to disagree with it all according to liberal """academics""".

>>11160523
Nobody disparages his work on the structure of DNA. Only on his old racist grandpa takes on genetics.

>>11160498

>evolutionary psychology
>same field where a 5 inch fish proceeds dab on both the pass mirror test and cognitive tests against primates

Yeah I'm sure IQ is completely legit too anon.

>>11160544
Bullshit. If that was true they wouldn't revoke his titles for those achievements.

>another IQ thread...

>>11160552
>Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Chancellor Emeritus; Honorary Trustee; Oliver R. Grace Professor Emeritus (all revoked in 2019)[134][135]
This is the entirety of revoked titles, among several dozens, and none of them involve his Nobel Prize work.

>>11160530
IQ is pretty successful at predicting success of an individual in a techno industrial society like ours. Being economic success, rate of incarceration, divorce, chronic use of welfare, out of wedlock kid, poverty, etc...

People criticizing the IQ scale are strictly unable to come with an alternative and would rather claim intelligence doesn't exist than attempting to measure it.

The equality cult has poisoned the west so much that it ironically actively prevents the study of the most fundamental inequalities: biological ones, and so a way to reduce them.

>>11160523
>his findings
What findings?
-Watson makes controversial claim
-provides no evidence
-titles revoked
Big shock.
Btw, saying the evidence exists does not mean watson provided it

>>11160565
>the last of his titles

Just leaving this here to remind people who actually care about IQ threads that they're scientifically more likely to be white trash with lower IQs lmao
>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797611421206
>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167207307493

>>11160445
>>11160555
You frog posters are alright for once

>>11160580
>We should kill niggers because they're statistically more likely to have a lower IQ
>Ok, might as well cull anyone who's statistically low IQ
>N-no, w-wait...

>>11160573
Similarly, saying he did not provide evidence for his claims does not mean evidence has anything to do with the title revocation or reaction.

>>11160580
1.
Prejudice is not the same as discrimination. Discrimination is, in the most fundamental way, a positive attribute which allows for successful ventures. Not being able to distinguish between an ally and an enemy, or a friendly person or hostile person, or a happy person or an angry person is a sign of mental retardation and autism.
2.
>Participants' political party orientation (Republican vs. Democratic) does not moderate any of the results.
ok retard.

>>11160600
So what was the reason then and provide a source

>>11160592
B-but muh regression "to" the mean

Lol imagine talking about about IQ on the I HAS HIGH IQ the board. All of you mathfags denying this shit what is your IQ?

>>11160580

>>11160605
You are not allowed to talk about intelligence and race in mainstream academia
Source: Charles Murray

>>11160573
>Watson makes controversial claim
Genetics as the source of phenotypic difference shouldn't be a controversial claim. It's literally possible to predict education attainment at birth from genetics.
The only reason for the controversy is the 50 years of "Race is Skin Deep" conditioning everyone has received.

>>11160604
>>11160608
I think you guys misunderstood the abstracts. Trying to be pedantic and posting a figure without full context (environmental factors, "crime" being polygenic, etc.) don't really serve your arguments well.
>we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood
>aggressive and negative judgments of other people, and aggressive displays of behavior following a mild provocation.
Don't what to tell you guys, you might just be born butthurt and at the lower end up the curve unless you've got a certified IQ test to prove otherwise.

>>11160607
It's mostly one tranny spending his life on the board.
I don't really check /sci/ so often these days but you can easily spot it by his chronic samefagging and hysterical typing pattern.

>>11160606
kek

>>11160618
Anyone on this board who thinks intelligence is not mostly genetic doesnt even understand their own intelligence. Tesla for example could bave been raised in Somalia and still do better than every faggot on this board in mathematics because of his genetics. You have a high IQ because of your DNA not muh nurture YOUR FUCKING DNA. Which means you have a low IQ also because of your DNA infact low IQ being genetic should be easy to agree with since animals are dumb as shit due to their neuro DNA.

>>11160616
I'm not American or British so neither study applies to me. Have fun being a brainlet.

>>11160616
>I'll show how smart I am by being the least racist possible
You're confusing correlation and causation. Recognising blacks are dumber and more violent on average doesn't make you stupid, even if stupid people are more likely to speak the truth about blacks. You have to be pretty clever to dissemble before a researcher, or even to deceive yourself about reality because it's better for you socially. Smart people the world over believe that mass migration of 3rd world immigrants will have no negative consequences for their grandchildren, because that's the 'right' thing to believe in their social strata.

>>11160163
>still posting this thread years later

>>11160632
>recent news
>don't talk about it >:(

>>11160188
Do genetics play a role in cognitive and behavioral characteristics? Yes or no.
>Unfair question! But but
We'll deal with caveats when they get there. Answer the original question. Yes or no?

>>11160643
Well until you have a human who can do algebra without their frontal lobe the answer is always gonna be yes.

>>11160203
Pinker, Plomin, Harris, and even Flynn (!) now accept
>genetic influence on behavior and cognition
>general distribution highly correlated with 'racial' distribution
These are liberals.

The only good thing about Watson threads is how fast they go by. A handful of spergs bump it to death in just a few hours everytime.

>>11160628
So you're not white?

>>11160629
I think you misunderstood what I was saying again. I'm not saying being not-racist makes you smart, just that people who REEE about NIGGERS on a chinese noodle board in their free time might not be the brightest given the evidence. I'm not talking about mass immigration etc. Though claiming "smart people" think something without a citation isn't the smartest thing you can do. In fairness I'm not disagreeing with crime statistics either, however trying to assign complex behavior to something polygenic doesn't seem reasonable unless there's information I'm missing out on?

>>11160658
>it's good that they have so much attention and engagement
yes, I agree. I can't wait to make the next one.

>>11160642
This shit has been going on since for ever though. Now the faggot that is OP has more to spam up the board with. Take your zoomer man meme and go back to /b/.

>>11160667
>he admits to making watson threads
Embarrassing!

>>11160661
>the only whites are inbred Brits and mutant mutts
oh, anon.

>unless there's information I'm missing out on
I don't know anon, have you actually tried looking for the information rather than shitposting on a Kazakhstan yodeling enthusiasts board and expecting it to be fed to you?

>>11160672
>>>/pol/

>>11160574
Surprise surprise, it's a misleading headline. In the fucking subtext it says only CSHL revoked their titles. He has many many more. "The last of his titles," fucking hell.

>>11160661
>trying to assign complex behavior to something polygenic doesn't seem reasonable
Literally what? You think a monogenic explanation for complex neurological behavior is more reasonable? Or are you saying there are no genetic factors in intelligence? I'm not sure either reflect positively on you.
>I'm not saying being not-racist makes you smart, just that people who REEE about NIGGERS on a chinese noodle board in their free time might not be the brightest
What about people who REEE about people who REEE about NIGGERS? And say shit like "however trying to assign complex behavior to something polygenic doesn't seem reasonable"

>>11160661
So your point is what? Just:
>HAHAHA you poltards are dumb, only dumb people care about this topic, dumb dummies, dumb dumbs. Duuuuuuh.
Even though the fact that there is a mass of evidence confirming everything these /pol/tards believe and that the top of society, including all politicians, scientists, media, soccermoms will not admit what is before their lying eyes and it's fundamentally going to sink society? We've just got to sit back and let the same scenario play out time and time again.

>>11160658
There's 39 posters in this thread you ape. Good to know you don't even know how this board functions.

>>11160674
I was joking about the Brit thing lol, no need to get sour and dig into the wojack folder. Burden of proof my man, from what I've seen it's just cherry picking graphs out of context, unless you've got something that tackles polygenics, controls for environmental factors, etc.

>>11160681
I think you misunderstood again, I'm not saying monogenic or purely environmental is the answer, dunno where you got that. I'm saying there doesn't seem to be research that tackles polygenetic factors, race, behavior and controls for environmental factors. Again the point being made is simple: complaining about the intelligence of black people on 4chan doesn't seem very intelligent the vast majority of the time, and there's research that's shows it actually is associated with stupid people which is pretty funny. That clear everything up?

>>11160692
Don't (You) me

>>11160627
>Tesla for example could bave been raised in Somalia and still do better than every faggot on this board in mathematics because of his genetics.
Soucre: /pol/ told me.

Has there ever been a proper, modern, controlled study of the effect of genetics or race on intelligence; or is one side screeching about muh 1950s adoption study and the other side refuses to do new studies because it might be raycis?

>>11160696
So you're giving up, sweet, I win

>>11160709
You replied to wrong person :(

>>11160709
>doesn't reply to the right people
>think he won against someone who wasn't even in the conversation
>

>>11160701
Every single study ever conducted on the topic.

I'm not exaggerating, there has never been a single study which quantified some aspect of cognitive processing which didn't show a standard deviation between white scores and black scores.

Likewise, there is not a single school district in America where whites don't outperform blacks.

>>11160692
>I'm saying there doesn't seem to be research that tackles polygenetic factors, race, behavior and controls for environmental factors.
Crime fluctuates with time, different age profiles (crime peaks in early 20s and then declines), different levels of policing/prevention, but crime differences between blacks and whites is mostly just IQ and aggression, both of which are highly heritable. SES shows up as a correlate mostly because of IQ.

>>11160701
As far as I'm aware no, there hasn't been a study like this. Even studying intelligence outside of race has been difficult since people get very specific when defining what can be considered "intellectual" or smart and who to consistently test for with without confounding environmental factors. Lay this on top of epigenetics, multiple genes interacting, etc. It'd be a tough undertaking.

>>11160719
>As far as I'm aware no, there hasn't been a study like this.
Well then, sounds like you're completely ignorant about the subject.

>>11160701
Many modern studies exist, but the genetics of intelligence is still very much a totally mystery. The racial IQ gap is well known and not argued. We do know of many conclusive environmental factors that contribute to the gap, but we have not pinpointed any genetic factors.

>>11160163
whether or not he is right or offensive doesn't matter. having an opinion is just that, having an opinion. it shouldn't be a punishable offense. all this shit does is encourage a culture of deceit and conformity. and conformity is a one way street to stagnation. anyway have a problem with his opinion? discuss it with him and try to change his mind and be willing to change yours if his arguments are stronger.

>>11160701
Stuff like this is continually being studied, both genes and intelligence and differences in outcomes between different groups of populations. /pol/ just wants to push this narrative that it can't be studied so the can do their science denial thing they do.

The thing is, we wont be able to tell if the observed differences in IQ comes mostly form genetics or environment with our current poor understanding of how these complex traits develop. Much like we don't know if being gay is due to mostly genetics or environment.

We studie it, and we don't know.

>>11160709

>submit scientific study for peer review
>peers tell you your methods are flawed and potentially racially biased
>tell your peers they're a bunch of cucks
>how dare your peers say you're racist
>those fucking comie jews can go fucking suck a black cock
>i'm going to find new peers on /pol/ to review my findings
>I'll make what ever I want to believe into peer reviewed scientific fact


This is how the /pol/ does scientific method

>>11160724
Can you provide said studie(s) in full?

>>11160715
>>11160714
This wasn't me lol, I think you guys are just falling for someones bait.

>>11160718
Do you have the full article? I'd have to get to my office so I have regular access but I'd honestly be interested in reading this. My concern is the "self reported life-time violence" part which sounds like an environmental factor. I'd like to read the methods. I'm assuming you've got access to the whole thing proper as a PDF right?

>>11160742
fucking kek

>>11160370
So do rednecks at /pol/ determine what white culture is ?

>>11160730
>our current poor understanding of how these complex traits develop
Hmm, maybe it would help if people were allowed to study such things.

>>11160742
i'm sure a leftist, egalitarian stronghold like the modern academic establishment would never torpedo studies which have unpalatable results in the realm of race/gender for political motivations, right? Jensen sure has been proven wrong, right guys? *tugs collar nervously* The gap has certainly budged over the course of 50 years, right guys? *sweating profusely* I-I mean, F-flynn effect, right?

>>11160742
>submit Mein Kampf but replace jews with the patriarchy
>get peer reviewed
ok liberal.

>>11160752
>i'm sure a leftist, egalitarian stronghold like the modern academic establishment would never torpedo studies which have unpalatable results in the realm of race/gender for political motivations, right?

This, is called projection.

Check yourself friendo.

>>11160748
>Do you have the full article? I'd have to get to my office so I have regular access
Have you not heard of google and sci-hub?

>>11160751
>Hmm, maybe it would help if people were allowed to study such things.
We do studie it. The thing is, there isn't going to be as simple as a "gay gene" or an "intelligence gene". And every trait we observe will be a combination of genetics and environment. So when we observe a trait, it is very hard to say what contributes to the trait and how much.

>>11160449
>IQ matters but only when we're talking blacks though, Asians must have chated or rigged the test somehow

Indian IQ is definitely not what it should be at a genetic maximum. Kids in India get like 5 years of schooling on average.
Based on broader racial characteristics and their performance in the west I'd say they are as smart as whites.

Don't forget white average IQ was 85 50 years ago.

>>11160760

>In the first case, we gave participants a vignette about a gene variant that was discovered by a researcher that was said to explain variation in intelligence. It also said that the researcher believed the gene might explain intelligence differences between Blacks and Whites. In one condition, the vignette said Blacks outperform Whites on IQ tests, and in the other, it said that Whites outperform Blacks. Then we asked participants several questions about the vignette, including how plausible the researcher’s arguments were, which were combined into one measure called “argument credibility.” Liberals rated the results as much less credible when Whites were said to outperform Blacks than when Blacks were said to outperform Whites.

>Western participants (N = 492) were presented with a fictional popular-science article describing either a male-favoring or a female-favoring sex difference(i.e., men/women are better at drawing; women/men lie more).Both sexes reacted less positively to the male-favoring differences, judging the findings less important, less plausible, more surprising, more offensive, more harmful, and more upsetting, as well as judging the research less well-conducted and studies of that type more inherently sexist

>Muh race/IQ research isn't subverted by liberals!

>>11160674
>the only whites are Brits

>>11160771
sauce please

>>11160782
i keep trying to paste the links but it gets caught in the spam filter, glad to know all that captcha solving i do is well implemented

try this justpaste DOT it SLASH 5e0gq

>>11160771
>liberals say you're biased
>you say liberals are biased

All you've proven is that humans, in general, are biased. Which is why the scientific method was invented in the 1st place. If your study can't eliminate these biases, then it's a bad study. Period.

If you do not understand this, you shouldn't ever talk about genetics.

>>11160804
why square become criminal?

>>11160761
I'm aware of scihub lol, again "regular access" but thanks for the read. Though this stuck out to me
>To begin with, there is likely to be concern over whether self-reports of serious criminal involvement are an appropriate way to gauge the extent of criminal behavior.
To be fair they cite how it's viable for criminality. Again though I'm not auguring about crime stats, but I appreciate the read, it doesn't really dive into polygenetics but they do try their best to control for IQ with culturally neutral tests. My question then is how do you contend with with the whole "are races aren't a scientific but rather a cultural concept" debate? Also were pretty off track from the original joke post lmao

>>11160771
>>11160798
The experiment itself is done in this paper:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3175680

But also, this
>>11160803

>>11160305
>Claiming that black people are dangerous due to an allele that a whopping 5% of them possess
>With no reference to how likely such a person is to be agressive, only "more"

>>11160771
>>11160798
Lol this deserves a thread on its own.

>>11160804
recessive lol

>>11160814
>1 allele accounts for 5% of black criminals
>1000s more to come
wew

>>11160245
Isn't 100 the average IQ? 50% above, 50% below? If the highest average IQ in any nation/race was ~104, the entire concept would be flawed.

>>11160821
>trust me bro

>>11160818
This is why YOU should never be posting about genetics ever again. Until you literally read a book.

>>11160825
It's based of the average european which is why the average IQ of america is 88 once you include all blacks and mexicans.

>>11160163
>THAT SCIENCE IS ILLEGAL!!!
DOI to his paper on the topic?

>>11160821
>ignoring my point
Having a gene that makes you more likely to have a condition or behavior doesn't mean you'll do it. I was asking because this could be like 1% more likely vs 50%, I dunno, and even then it applies to 5% of the population.
Can you link the actual study instead of a highlighted picture?

>>11160730
>We studied it, and we don't know
Then it seems rather unfair to unperson people for taking a side on the debate. If the science isn't settled, both sides should be expressible.

>>11160804

>>11160397
>Then they aren't doing the violence are they.
I'm pretty sure it's illegal to hire a hitman

>>11160825
You can set the average IQ for the whole world and then measure each country against that individually.
Alternatively, what has been done here, is you measure any western country, take that as 100, and then measure everybody else against that. Which explains why the best countries are barely above 100, while the worst countries are very far below that.

>>11160828
>>11160828
You don't have to be so mad

>>11160836
Forget about sides. There's the facts and the lies, that's all.

>>11160833
I wasn't the one who posted it but all the information you need to find it is right in the cap. Just look up the authors or the abstract. It's not hard.

>>11160842
Pretty sure paying someone money isn't violence.

>>11160730
based and reasonable-pilled

I wonder which allele cause black people's scores on IQ tests to live in your head rent free

>>11160866
Why aren't we doing real science and real research like this bros?

>>11160840
You're just bad at genetics.
Every basedboy popsci kid knows about muh recessive and dominant.
the image I posted isn't about that. It's still very simple but you have to know a bit of genetics to be able to figure it out.

Also it doesn't matter how big you make your shitty tree, it's still trivial knowledge lol

>>11160812
>"are races aren't a scientific but rather a cultural concept"
It's a semantic argument that's irrelevent to the discussion. There ARE genetic differences between individual humans, there ARE average genetic differences between groups of common geographic origin, or self-identified race. There are genetic and phenotypic differences between almost any group (e.g. Lawyers v. Farmers) except the most assiduously randomly sorted artificial groups.
Whether or not you can label parts of continuous or semi-continuous spectrums (like the electro-magnetic spectrum, which people have no issue with naming conventions) is just a philosophical debate. The only reason why it's so important in society is because one group claims a certain 'race' is lagging on almost every metric because of discrimination, whilst another says they're just different genetically. Remove the race category from everyones minds and absolutely nothing changes except our ability to track these differences.

>>11160877
>yet another unbiased computer clusters europeans with arabs based on fst
polfags will never truly accept race

never

>>11160873
What are you trying to prove?

>>11160866
ok I laughed

>>11160885
>Results show a generally low rate of replication: over 87% of the 2,335 included SNPs were reported only once, and only 4 of the 17 studies included follow-up testing in a replication sample. Of these 4, none found any replicable genome-wide significant hits. The literature was also found to be severely lacking in diversity: all study samples in which ancestry was described were of European and/or British ancestry. Additionally, evidence of a "winner's curse" was found:among the minority of SNPs reported more than once, theassociatedp-value tended to be higher in subsequent studies than in the study in which it was originally reported, corresponding to weaker SNP-intelligence associations in later studies.
https://www.authorea.com/users/225424/articles/365729-genome-wide-association-studies-of-intelligence-a-review-of-the-literature

>>11160884
19th century 'racist' anthropologists were clustering arabs and indians into 'caucasian'.

>>11160886
>trying
That nobody on this board has ANY clue about genetics and they're just posting elaborate memes from blogs.

>>11160894
And do you know why? They used skulls.

It takes a lot of genes to form your skull, so it's a good proxy for the entire genome.
Meanwhile eye, hair and skin color are pretty much monogenic - ie. 3 genes in total, out of 25000. Not a very good proxy in comparison to a skull.

But now we have the genomes and guess what, 21 century computers do the same if you ask them. Like in >>11160877

Of course it's not EXACTLY the same population, but it's pretty close. As you'll notice European sardinians aren't exactly the same either. Regardless the larger continental cluster is so obvious.
IF you truly believed in races and not clines, then it's literally impossible to not view arabs and europeans as the same race.

>>11160891
>he thinks the current weakness of studies to correlate SNPs with intelligence somehow disproves genetic heritability
Absolute brainlet, I bet you are going to have to google "SNP" to even craft your next cope-reply.
Food for thought: SNPs are so bad at predicting height, that most SNP horoscope sites like 23andme don't even try to pretend they know how tall you are anymore. Please try to argue that height isn't heritable next.

>>11160911
Explain this >>11160804 genetics professor, and you might earn the right to make those posts.

>>11160894
>19th century 'racist' anthropologists were clustering arabs and indians into 'caucasian'.

And rightly so. The issue with Arabs is not that they are not white, it is that they have the highest inbreeding rates in the world. They are degenerated whites.

>>11160929

It's been an hour, and you guys still fail to find the right answer to >>11160804
on google, wtf is going on??? Did the online IQ test lie???

>>11160916
>>11160932
based homework poster

>>11160906
>IF you truly believed in races and not clines
I don't think it has to be a case for either or. There's clearly a cline from Europe to India, there's clearly sharp divides across the Saharah, the Pacific and the Himalayas with not much admixture occuring. This makes sense with the history of humanity spreading out across the planet, and then specific groups of hunter gatherers making the transition to agriculture and undergoing large population expansions to their geographic limits, mixing with the local populations, like ink drops in water.

include the link with the screencap you brainlet phoneposter. this is supposed to be smart person board but you phoneniggers still manage to fuck this up every time

>>11160929
>>11160931
I definitely see your point.
However inbreeding is fixed very quickly within a generation or two. You just gotta stir the pot so to speak and literally stop marrying your cousin.

>>11160661
>I'm not saying being not-racist makes you smart, just that people who REEE about NIGGERS on a chinese noodle board in their free time might not be the brightest given the evidence.
Complete retard-tier understanding of statistics on display here. What you have presented us is P(racism|stupidity) being high and you argue that it implies that P(stupidity|racism) is high when in reality one does not imply the other at all. Look up the prosecutor's fallacy.

>>11160188
you being a nigger is wrong

>>11160945
Good luck convincing them to abandon Islam

>>11160163
>another IQ thread

Anyways isn't this the guy who didn't actually release his research or whatever?

>>11160203
Agreed. They also need to stay in their containment board.

>>11160934
ok this is a bit complicated
I cannot quite understand how their fst in prticular was calculated and how it 'magically' takes into account substructure

regardless, the plots are interesting

>>11160305
Don't asians have this gene the most anyways?

>>11160383
What?

>>11160769
How can we know what the IQ was 50 years ago?

>>11161100
>Studies have found differences in the frequency distribution of variants of the MAOA gene between ethnic groups:[10][11] of the participants, 59% of Black men, 54% of Chinese men, 56% of Maori men, and 34% of Caucasian men carried the 3R allele, while 5.5% of Black men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men carried the 2R allele.

>>11160163
How people can deny the existence of races, and that races will differ in traits (including intellectual ones) absolutely astounds me.

Do you deniers also don't believe in the theory of evolution. Are you all creationists? That would be consistent at least.

>>11161113
>>11161100

Not him but where are you getting those numbers? Here's the original article.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/code-rage-the-warrior-gene-makes-me-mad-whether-i-have-it-or-not/

>The researchers' racial profiling was based on a study of 46 men, who needed to have only one Maori parent to be defined as Maori. Lea and Chambers reported that MAOA-L was less common among Caucasians (34 percent) and Hispanics (29 percent) but even more common among Africans (59 percent) and Chinese (77 percent).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6466626_Monoamine_Oxidase_Addiction_and_the_Warrior_Gene_Hypothesis

>>11161157
Why are you fixating on the 3R? 2R is the variant of primary concern, yes? The one typically discussed in this conversation and correlated to the most worrisome behavior, as seen at the beginning of this conversation >>11160305

>>11160690
None of what you said exactly contradicts his statement.

>>11161170

No fixation, you just posted green text without referring to the prior post in question nor a link to the original source. That exact text source looks to be based on wikipedia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A

In a good board threads like these would get a first class ticket to page 10
but this is not a good board.

>>11161278
Why do you science deniers even come here? Just go back to r/ifuckinglovescience where you belong. You'll be much happier there.

>>11160856
So do you dispute this?
>>11160730

>>11160163
Still not right to judge black person black on behalf of being black.

>>11161318
I mean...

Not all blacks are bad.

>>11161310
I don't dispute it at all. You're stuck on the whole two diametrically opposed viewpoints narrative. Science knows what it knows. To claim things beyond that, is lies. When Watson says, "it's genetic," that is a lie, especially from someone who is supposed to be the voice of science. To claim it is 100% caused by the environment and that we are all mentally identical, is also lies.

>>11161341
>making claims beyond what's been proven is LIES
How exactly do you plan to do science once you've outlawed making hypotheses?

>>11161350
Oh you got me!

>>11160730
Take a group of white people and a group of black people that had similar environments growing up and test the IQ. What's so hard about it?

>but but we don't understand everything! they won't have exactly the same environment
This is just cope. Science always worked like this and you can never control for all variables.

>>11161341
Mental is a lot created by the enviroment...

Your newspaper isn't genetic mother***** when the fu**** you get that.

>>11161341
>To claim it is 100% caused by the environment and that we are all mentally identical, is also lies.
The difference is he wouldn't be a pariah if he had said that. He'd be held up as an authority against all those nasty racists and they'd be told "Even the inventor of DNA disagrees with you, and he would know."
Watson doesn't have anything interesting to bring to the table because he's an old man who has been an administrator rather than investigator for most of his life. It's just interesting how such a titan can be torn down for transgressing society's most holy lie.

>>11160163
>honorary titles
>science
Anon pls

>>11160188
You're a retard, see here >>11160445