/sci/ - Science & Math

>economist

Why do they assume that the poor performance of black scientists is due to racial discrimination? Is this what is implied? In all likelihood, it's due to runaway affirmative action giving degrees to blacks who cannot fit the bill.

correlation does not imply causation

>>3660738
Dr Ginther and her colleagues analysed grants awarded by the NIH between 2000 and 2006, and correlated this information with the self-reported race of more than 40,000 applicants. Their results show that the chance of a black scientist receiving a grant was 17%. For Asians, Hispanics and whites the number was between 26% and 29%. Even when these figures were adjusted to take into account applicants’ prior education, awards, employment history and publications, a gap of ten percentage points remained.

This bias appears to arise in the NIH’s peer-review mechanism. Each application is reviewed by a panel of experts. These panels assign scores to about half the applications they receive (the others are rejected outright). Scored applications are then considered for grants by the various institutes that make up the NIH. The race of the applicant is not divulged to the panel. However, Dr Ginther found that applications from black scientists were less likely to be awarded a score than those from similarly qualified scientists of other races, and when they were awarded a score, that score was lower than the scores given to applicants of other races.

I bet that nigger scientist is biologist

>>3660718
>2011
>Constanzaing

The Economist is a solid publication, good sir/madam.

>One possible explanation is that review panels are inferring applicants’ ethnic origins from their names, or the institutions they attended as students.

Oh jeezus xD

>>3660746
>The race of the applicant is not divulged to the panel.
"dr tyrone wants to research the deliciousness of fried chicken again, i say give him a million dollars"

>>3660757
after his genious work on the succulency of watermelons, I say do it.

>>3660767
his monograph "new paradigms in the appropriation of the electrical goods of one's caucasian neighbours" was ground breaking

Dr. Jamal wants to research the bigiliciousness of muy dick.

Bahahha

>>3660672

Did they even bother to check the lab productivity and such? Maybe the black scientists aren't having such great results.

>>3660903

That sounds promising. Especially considering how revolutionary his research on where da white wimmins at was.

>particularly American science,
>American science
>American
>colour-blind.

Well no.

we just reclassify Sikhs as 'black' Problem solved.
Where is my Nobel Prize?

>>3660903
>>3660947

Dr. Maggie Aderin-Pocock Ph.D., MBE
black
a space scientist
worked on Gemini and JWST

a thousand times the scientist you'll ever be and she's an engineer.

You know the worst thing is all these black vs white studies just ramp up the discrimination.

If we want to live in as unracist society as is possible the issue of race has to be completely ignored, starting with the media.

>>3660949

Yea this guy is a tard. I'm American and I can see colors just fine.

>>3660982
wrong, these things have to be looked into. for example because race is on the census form it was possible to find out that even in 2010 a school district was still segregating kids.

>>3660982
> ignoring it will solve the problem

oh look my mom has an opinion

>>3660982
>unracist society
Why the fuck would we want to?
That's like saying if a computer runs worse we should get rid of benchmarks so no one knows beforehand.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873#navDiv=4

>>3660972
>she is an engineer

BLACK DYKES IN SPACE!!! OHH NO

>>3660972

Now if more blacks could be like her...

>>3661011
>black

she's barely a quadroon

>>3660991

The problem is, in many cases, serious study into racial differences is a cover for bigotry. And even when it isn't, any findings will be used as an excuse or justification for bigotry.

You and I may know that the salient information about a prospective student or employee is their academic or career history, their qualifications and so on, but many, maybe even most, people still judge based on apparent race. So that ideally, even if we found strong correlations between race and intelligence, we'd just judge on intelligence and not on race.

What do I mean? Just because yellow people are smarter than white people doesn't mean THIS yellow person is smarter than THIS white person. And while intelligence may be all important for this job, and yellow tends toward intelligence and white tends away from intelligence, you'd behoove yourself to look at the relevant traits than the external cues.

>>3660995

because discrimination is unfair and humans are natural discriminators, it's practically impossible for us not to. If we want to send the message that for individuals should be judged on their own merits and not the average merits of their race, then we could do worse than not talk about it ALL THE FUCKING TIME as if an individual's race is the most important thing in the world.

>>3660992
he is kinda right though. racism wont be an issue anymore once we stop seeing race. and riling on over small injustices wont help that.

also, the article at least includes a good bit of guesswork. the "possibilities" of why black proposals get graded lower or refused state that it might be because of "predominantly black universities". maybe whites and asians just go to better schools and the board is biased towards ivy leaguers. this wouldnt suggest a racial bias but a whole different one.

>>3661014

>she's Nigerian

>how can you get blacker than a black person from fucking BLACKLAND

>>3661029
white colonial overlords taking the native girls

plenty white people live in blackland to this day

>>3661029
interesting factoid about maggie aderin she was recently caught up in a non-story about a tv presenter who when remarking about the bad lighting said "i can barely see you over there". that was a case of the media (daily mail) choosing to try to make it a race thing.

>>3661014
>>3661034
i'm not sure what you want here someone makes a racist statement i tryed to point out the obvious butthurt using an example of a very successful black female scientist and you retreat to dening here being black.
do you want to get out a colour chart or would a spectrometer be more fitting based on her science background.

>>3661026

Racism will be an issue though because we identify with race. Thats what is happening right here. The race of scientists isn't included in the information for the grants.

However, as with everything involving blacks, they are behind the other races. They do worst in testing, they do worst in the jobs market, their countries are all shit, their communities are all shit. When we stop looking at races all that happens is the bellcurve takes effect and they are 10% behind everybody else on average.

Then suddenly someone gets riled up and says "why are we still 10% behind, is it because everyone is racist?". It's just because thats their average performance, what the fuck are we supposed to do about it?

>>3661126

And by the way, I don't immediatley judge based on race, I judge based on merit. There are plenty of brilliant blacks and it'd be wasteful to judge all blacks and lose out on a brilliant scientist that could contribute greatly. Statistically though this isn't news, blacks are virtually always behind every other race in performance for any given subject of field. Thats just the numbers, it keeps happening.

>particularly American science
Really, Economist? Really?

That is thanks to the differences in races and the black culture in America being anti-intellectual. I would expect to see fewer black students in science and engineering, and that is what I do see. Basing things off of performance is color blind. Blacks just don't perform as well in these areas.

TLDR: The premise, without discrimination the participation between races will be proportional to the total population in the sciences, is false.

>>3661161

Black culture in America is just a kind of dysfunctional version of Southern culture. I mean, if they were white and acting just the same way, we'd call them rednecks who couldn't adapt to life in the cities. And there are obvious anti-intellectual strains of thought in the Southern culture. So if you are a downtrodden version of that culture, the tendency for the oppressed culture to be even MORE anti-intellectual and anti-education makes things worse.

>>3660757
>>3660767
>>3660782

>implying it's discrimination and not that blacks have a coincidental tendency to have shitty proposals.

>>3661126

>Then suddenly someone gets riled up and says "why are we still 10% behind, is it because everyone is racist?". It's just because thats their average performance, what the fuck are we supposed to do about it?

Ignore it. Don't try to do anything about it. Don't even measure it. The fact that people give so much importance to racial averages sends a strong message that racial averages are important, which as a society which values non-discrimination i'd like to think we want.

If we end up with a situation where the lowest-segment of society on a scale is 90% one race, who cares? That's just the way it goes.
The discriminatory circuitry in our brains needs to be supressed from our conciousness, not actively excercised.

Btw, you can still deal with specific cases of race discrimination without resorting to broad studies of averages.

>Then suddenly someone gets riled up and says "why are we still 10% behind, is it because everyone is racist?". It's just because thats their average performance, what the fuck are we supposed to do about it?

Ignore it. Don't try to do anything about it. Don't even measure it. The fact that people give so much importance to racial averages sends a strong message that racial averages are important, which as a society which values non-discrimination i'd like to think we want to avoid.

If we end up with a situation where the lowest-segment of society on a scale is 90% one race, who cares? That's just the way it goes.
The discriminatory circuitry in our brains needs to be supressed from our conciousness, not actively excercised.

Btw, you can still deal with specific cases of race discrimination without resorting to broad studies of averages.

>>3661014
You think that womans a quadroon? I think your a retard!

>prior education, awards, employment history and publications
In all of which, "diversity targets" have boosted the black scientists above where they would have been otherwise.

when affirmative action meets meritocracy, what happens will look racis. Every time.

>>3661014

So quadroons aren't niggers any more? Intredasting! What about mulattoes?

>>3661360

I agree, the prevailing attitude isn't about equality. They say it is, but it's still about equal outcome. They discriminate by looking at certain demographics and noticing deficiencies in performance relative to population sizes, then they say this is indicative of discrimination.

THEY are the ones discriminating. If we create a completely level playing field and some group happens to do worst in some area, then maybe thats just the way things are. Thats equality. They (by they of course I just mean the mainstream politically correct media or government or whoever is the source of articles like this) wouldn't be happy until everyone has the exact same outcome in everything. All whites have the exact same scores as blacks, all hispanics have the exact same wages as whites, all females have the exact same employment oppurtunities as men, etc.

That isn't ever going to happen.

Well wouldn't the fact that a lower proportion of minorities graduate high school in the first place explain this? It's not the scientific communities/universities that are to blame.

>>3661407

sorry guys, confusion

i was talking this quadroon/octoon

>>3661004

>>3661464
THIS
It's because most black communities in america are poor, which creates poor schools.

>>3661464
shut uuup

>>3661464
If you looked at the article, you'd see that they controlled for way more things, least of which, the lesser number of black scientists, you fucking tard.

>>3660746
It doesn't matter if the percentage of black people who got the grant is lower. unless that 17% percent of black people are as qualified as the 29% of asians(which the study says isn't), then it is due to runaway affirmative action.

The problem with affirmative action is that it is based on the false hypothesis that different races of the same species are the same on average in intelligence. The fact of the matter is that they really aren't.
Of course that doesn't mean a good scientist would treated poorly just because they are black, that is what accepting diversity and civil rights were about.

But for some reason, people seemed to get the false idea that we trait races as the same because they are the same, when really it was just so we could treat people as individuals instead of as groups.

>>3661512
Name and ethnicity were given to the allocators.

I'd like to remind everyone that the last thread with this kind of discussion included a mod that kept deleting posts that intelligently criticized racialism.

>>3661521
Coffee Crisp makes a nice light snack.

What's your point?

>>3661512
>implying a would read a full article which is essentially "hurr durr whitey be keepin us down". I severely doubt that grant funding organisations discriminate by race.

>>3661528
I'm saying that they didn't control for knowledge of applicant race it could mean black scientists make shitty proposals, or it could mean that some people are racist.

>>3661462
They don't expect children and adults to be equal no matter what. Only when all else is equal, such as comparing the same kinds of children to other children, should they be the same.

That's why the study took education, awards, honors, employment and experience into account. The black sampling was just as qualified, capable and accomplished as the white sampling. So for all intents and purposes they should be performing equally and being treated meritocratically and equally.

>>3661527
lol, whatever mod keeps deleting those threads is only proving to the people in the thread that the racists are right. Just like they'd delete atheist threads on jeezus forums. It's fucking childish and bigoted

>>3661161

>black culture in America being anti-intellectual

Nope they are anti-establishment. The established in america during the past was hostile towards blacks.

As a way to protect themselves they became distrusting of the established.

The side effect was that the black culture lost out on a certain level of education.

The culture recognizes that education is important. But the tendicies and nature that develop during the past as a way of protection is now hindering their potential growth.

>>3661541
Nope

I mean, I'm against the censorship and all but it doesn't prove squat beyond that a single mod is sticking to the rules.

>>3661549
How is race and iq not a scientific topic?

>>3661546
Not to mention that standard-deviation-below-the-white-average IQ they've got

>>3660746
>these figures were adjusted to take into account applicants’ prior education, awards, employment history and publications

>implying those things weren't inflated by people bending over backward to seem non-racist

>>3661552
>there is only one rule
hyuk hyuk hyuk hyuk hyuk

I've been banned before for posting threads calmly refuting things like the image on the rights' usage as evidence for a genetic component to racism. If anyone should be pissed, I should. And yet, I'm not.

The issue is probably that the black people with "similarly qualified" achievements go to less prestigious universities than those of other races. As the article put it "Consciously or not, the reviewers may then be awarding less merit to those from people who were educated at universities whose students are predominantly black."

Which admittedly sounds bad at first, until you realize that universities that are predominantly black are in general not as prestigious as ones that aren't. In fact, spelman college is the best ranked historically black college, and it has a 40% acceptance rate, and it's middle 50% math SAT is from 460-550.

So It really isn't that the reviewers are racist, rather that they are basing the people not only on their qualifications, but prestige of where they got the qualifications too.

>implying qualifications are a measure of ability

This study is therefore fundamentally flawed. Just because someone has a PhD does not mean they will discover anything or perform like another person with doctorate. Nor does it imply if you group persons by race according to equal qualification that each race will perform equally or have close to equal performance bell curves.

Equality amongst humans and human populations DNE and trying to turn fairytales into reality is equivalent to jumping off the 30th story window without a parachute.

>>3661536

That is far out though, I wouldn't expect that they expect children to perform as well as adults. I don't think they'd expect retards to perform as well as mentally competent adults either. I'm talking about realistic demographic groups based on race and gender more than anything else.

As far as the study, I'd have to read it for myself and read its methodology. They said race was not included in any grants information so they think people with funny sounding names didn't get grants. That may be true, but the most common African American surnames are fairly white since they are based off of names given by slave owners over a century ago. The most common black surnames are names like "williams" and "smith" and "jones" and stuff like that. Not "Yoquanda". I don't know about first names. Wikipedia says the most common black name for 2010 was "Jayden" even though the names behind it are common names like "Michael", "joshua" and "justin".

>>3661536
It clearly says in the article that they didn't take where they got the degree from into account, which means that for their study, a person with a bachelors from ITT tech and a bachelors from Stanford are "similarly qualified". Thankfully, the people at the review board know they aren't.

> 2011
> thinking differences in anything is proof of discrimination

No logical person would say huuuur derp black players are more represented in basketball so that is discrimination of whites.

>>3660753

> mfw parents of blacks try their hardest to stop their kids from getting jobs by naming their kids D'Brickashaw and Queetiboomsheeka

>>3661586

Thats what I mean about the methodology of the study as well as the assumptions of causation for the grant decisions. Instead of saying they looked at universities based on the prestige of that institution, they say they looked at universities based on demographics at the university. We don't know what they looked at, even though I'd be much more inclined to think they were looking at the university based on its prestige.

I meant these aren't rednecks that make these decisions. For one thing this is the motherfucking NIH.

That is an agency of the United States federal government. The US feds are some of the most disproprtionately "diverse" employers in the country. Obama recently created the office of "diversity and inclusion" through executive order for christ's sake. So we've got the NIH, an organization made of a mixture of scientists and beaurocrats in the federal government. I have very little doubt that any scientist worth a shit will base his decisions for a grant on merit, so if he is looking at universities he is probably looking for prestige. A beaurocrat could go either way. The beaurocrats in the government are all about diversity and inclusion, but they are also about giving favours to friends and whatnot so the beaurocrats could be payed off in one way or another.

There just seems to be alot of assumptions and things unaccounted for. I'd be thoroughly surprised if the NIH is racist though. The US government is the most affirmative action pro-diversity entity in the US.

I don't know what kind of person would take information like this and think "Those review board members must be vicious racists" rather than "Black people must be worse at science". Actually, I do, and it's someone who has been indoctrinated since childhood to believe that everyone is equal.

>>3661687
I don't know what kind of person would jump to either conclusion.

>>3661692
Me either, but also I didn't jump to the conclusion that different races were different intellectually, I came to it logically.

>>3661702
They are different. There's no evidence the difference is genetic, though.

>Blacks do better in running and basket ball
>the are just better than other races at that.

>White and Asians are better at science than Blacks
>It's because racism

Same song and dance. Always. How many times do I have to hear it? When will we finally admit, that maybe black people on a whole aren't as good at some things?

>>3661718

I'm still interested in the methodology of the study. I'm interested to see why blacks as a group performed worst when the study supposedly controlled for equal qualifications even though race was never mentioned in grant information.

I'm assuming it is because of what the other anon said, that the study probably considered a Phd from ITT tech equal to a Phd from Rice University.

>>3661709
sure there is, IQ tests, SAT scores. of course if you don't believe in that (which you probably don't), there is the fact that the evolution of the human brain is getting faster and faster, and alot of evolution has happened in the past 20,000 years(about as long as races have been seperated). furthermore, blacks don't have any neanderthal DNA, as compared to europeans who have 4%.

Not only that, but it is proven that races of different species have different IQ's, such as dogs, cats, ect.
In fact, this happens so much that any logical person would start with the assumption that races are different intellectually and THEN try to prove that they were equal, rather than vice versa.

>>3661709

Iq:

asians > whites > hispanics > blacks

Crimes committed per capita:

blacks > hispanics > whites > asians

Evil conspiracy, coincidence, or something else?

>>3661752
Your assumption has massive negative consequences, mine does not. Mine is, by default, favourable

The fact that black kids score worse than white kids proves nothing. Blacks are known to be in worse socioecconomic conditions, and socioecconomic conditions are known to be a deciding factor for every racial group.

>>3661777
probably has a lot to do with their socio-economic status. Blacks, being at the bottom of that rung, Asians at the top. Related to IQ? Probably. But that isn't to say ALL blacks have low IQs. There are plenty of smart blacks who struggle with negative stereotypes unfairly cast on them because of skin color. Certainly, because they have to deal with racist teachers and such they certainly deserve some kind of positive discrimination to help them rise above that bullshit.

>>3661778
I don't know about you, but I prefer to base my opinions off of facts, not what I want to be true. It doesn't matter if mine has more negative consequences if it is wrong, as that doesn't make it any less truthful.

Also, for your socioeconomic thing, pic related.
The evidence IS overwhelming, it is just a matter of accepting something you don't want to be true.

>>3661778

But when the studies into IQ, school and criminal statistics is adjusted for equal financial affluence blacks are still disproportionately represented as tops in the more negative attributes of each.

>>3661824

These IQ studies have been adjusted for everything. Theres even been studies into blacks who were adopted and raised by full white families, mullatoes who were raised by full white families etc.

These white families were suburban middle class ones, and the blacks always underperform relative to the white/asian/hispanics on average.

>>3661752
>evolution getting "faster"
>cats and dogs "different race"
>saying that "europeans" have neanderthal DNA

there is so much wrong with this post, i dont even...
seriously, please dont breed. I am willing to give you money if you dont.

>>3660753
>inferring applicants’ ethnic origins from their names

Asian name: Dr. Hyung Chong

Hispanic name: Dr. Jorge Martinez

White name: Dr. John Smith

Black name: Dr. John Smith

>DURR HURR, RACISM

>>3661831
>posting graph that has no reference
>overwhelming evidence for something hotly debated in academic circles

oh here he goes again... can i offer you more money for not posting? or maybe get a tripcode so i can put you on ignore? you probably are liberty in disguise...

>>3661854
notsureiftrollingorjuststupid.jpg
Everything I said is correct and has been verified. Although you seem to have misread the cat and dogs different race thing. I meant cats of different races (e.g. siamese vs tabby cat, and dogs of different races e.g. border collie vs bassett hound)
The evolution of the human brain has been getting faster since the creation of civilization, and it is widely accepted that europeans DO have some neanderthal DNA.

If only cotton picking were a science, niggers would be number one.

>>3661831

The poorest whites score higher than the poorest asians.

Racism DISPROVED!!!

>>3661854

>evolution getting faster

Don't know about that, never read anything about the speed of behavioural mutations in humans increasing so I have to agree with you there. That might be a silly claim.

>Cats dogs different races

He was saying that cats and dogs have sub-species. A Roteweiler is behaviourally different than a Poodle. He didn't mean that cats and dogs are different races of the same species

>Europeans have neanderthal dna

He is right, they do. All the races have traces of neanderthal DNA except for sub-saharan africans.

>>3661831
>family income means individual socio-ecconomic condition
Ever heard of living standards? Cost of living? The conc

You're not basing your opinions on facts, you're basing them on fear.

>>3661887
the concept of varying numbers of family members*

>>3661831
clever unsourced picture. Hold on while I draw up one refuting it.

>>3661867
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-vs-Income-Education.png

The fact of the matter is that there isn't any flaw in my logic. Just that you have been raised to believe something completely different to what I am saying without any explanation to your viewpoint, but you assume my view is wrong because it isn't yours.

It is analogous to someone being raised by a muslim family and just rejecting the idea that allah doesn't exist.
Intelligence isn't knowing things without question, it is questioning what you think you know.

>>3661881
>evolution is getting faster
See Himalayan altitude gene
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/2/1075.abstract

Just mutated in the last few thousand years.

>>3661887
Listen ive done this many times and always seem to get the same response no matter what I show. The fact of the matter is that anything I post will end up having some sort of "flaw" that makes it can be disregarded without a second thought. I mean what do you want? IQ vs race isn't good enough, SAT vs race, SAT vs race and income, race vs crime?
Nothing is good enough for you guys, so really what do you want?

>>3661887

There is never going to be enough proof that there are behavioural differences between the races. Genetically there is a significant enough distance between races to be comparable to other animals with sub-species, but it is insisted that humans are different and don't have sub-species with behavioural differences.

When there is significant evidence produced to show that humans may have behavioural differences (including genetic disparities between races) the goal posts are either shifted, or the findings are called benign.

I agree we should be skeptical, but at the moment the prevailing attitude is that everyone is completely equal. That is the attitude I am skeptical towards. I do think all things should be regarded on merit though, but if we are getting into a discussion on racial differences I'm inclined to believe there are some. Just the fact that we have significant physical differences and evolved isolated from eachother for tens of thousands of years implies to me that it would take more assumptions to presuppose we evolved identically.

>>3661831

But does that chart take into account of the teaching philosophy each child recieves?

What about the general interest the child holds and take practice in?

Or the social mentality of each child in a subjected media induced culture?

Not to mention the general health and diet of each child. Hell, what about the of the overall health and diet of the parents and their grand parents?

Does it take into account the SAT scores of the parents?

>>3661881
sorry about the species/race thing. misread that.

as for evolution getting faster, thats total BS. evolution has no "speed" or direction or whatever you want to have it to fit your normative ideas.

lastly, neanderthal DNA is found in all humans except africans. to call "all humans except africans" europeans speaks to your personal bias.
then, all your claims being verified is a whole different discussion. just dont say that to a scientist or he will laugh you out of the room.

>hurr equal outcomes durr hurrr

Fucking retarded.

>implying environment plays a bigger role in intelligence than genetics.

Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/mp201185a.html
>General intelligence is an important human quantitative trait that accounts for much of the variation in diverse cognitive abilities. Individual differences in intelligence are strongly associated with many important life outcomes, including educational and occupational attainments, income, health and lifespan. Data from twin and family studies are consistent with a high heritability of intelligence, but this inference has been controversial. We conducted a genome-wide analysis of 3511 unrelated adults with data on 549 692 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and detailed phenotypes on cognitive traits. We estimate that 40% of the variation in crystallized-type intelligence and 51% of the variation in fluid-type intelligence between individuals is accounted for by linkage disequilibrium between genotyped common SNP markers and unknown causal variants. These estimates provide lower bounds for the narrow-sense heritability of the traits. We partitioned genetic variation on individual chromosomes and found that, on average, longer chromosomes explain more variation. Finally, using just SNP data we predicted ~1% of the variance of crystallized and fluid cognitive phenotypes in an independent sample (P=0.009 and 0.028, respectively). Our results unequivocally confirm that a substantial proportion of individual differences in human intelligence is due to genetic variation, and are consistent with many genes of small effects underlying the additive genetic influences on intelligence.

Now look at the IQs stratified by race and socioeconomics and connect the dots. No race has evolved the identical intelligence over the last 100,000 years of human evolution.

>>3661936
if you look at this link, there is another one that is based on parental eduation and SAT score vs race.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-vs-Income-Education.png

feel free to try to find one based on parental SAT score, but that might be very hard to find, or simply not exist.

>>3661941
>evolution has no speed
Rates of mutation vary on environmental pressure.

>>3661941
http://www.hhmi.org/news/lahn3.html
This accelerated rate of evolution is consistent with the presence of selective forces in the human lineage that strongly favored larger and more complex brains. “The human lineage appears to have been subjected to very different selective regimes compared to most other lineages,” said Lahn. “Selection for greater intelligence and hence larger and more complex brains is far more intense during human evolution than during the evolution of other mammals.”

>>3661941

I wasn't the one who made the post you answered too, I was just addressing the misunderstandings. I wasn't saying all humans are europeans, I was just filling in the gaps of what he said with what I've read. All the other races have some amounts of Neaderthal DNA except for sub-saharans. I am not referring to Europeans. The other guy posted an article about whatever he was referring to with the speed of evolution, I haven't read it yet so I can't verify it.

I think when he is referring to the "speed" of evolution he may just mean there are more mutations occuring in a shorter span of time than before. Evolution itself isn't an entity or a thing obviously, its an umbrella term referring to the process by which species emerge and change. It's certainly possible in my mind for there to be variances in the rate of change for species at different times. Evolution as a whole doesn't speed up, but maybe humans are going through a period of rapid change for one reason or another. The most reasonable explanation would be the extreme change in our environment that has occured in only the last 100 years. But again, I haven't read whatever he posted, I don't know what he is referring too.

>>3661959

I can see why you cut that other off.

> mfw the highest SAT scores by black children with parents having graduate degrees is almost equal with white children whose parents have less than a high school diploma

>>3661899
It is also analogous to someone being raised in a pro-gravity family and just rejecting the idea that gravity exists

>>3661951

It's easier to comprehend how humans differences may have occurred if you understand just how isolated populations have been. before a little over 2000 years ago.

When the human population was very small and untechnologically advanced for many many thousands of years they were largely isolated from eachother. Relatively speaking it is only recently that we have interacted so much with eachother.

>>3661976
Not to mention the Sahara acted as a barrier to gene flow after the migration Out of Africa 100,000 years ago which explains why sub-Saharans have such large genetic distances from everyone else.

>>3661899
i can tell you the same. you are brought up to be a racist buttmonkey and will pull out half-knowledge out of your ass to rationalize it.
fact is, academia is divided about this with consensus being that environment is more predictive of intelligence than race. we dont have the perfect natural experiments to prove it either way with r>0.05 so fuck off with your HAS BEEN VERIFIED IS ALL FACT I KNOW IT YOU ARE NOT THINKING CRITICALLY GOVERNMENT WAAGH

>>3661920
every human individual has 4 stable mutations. one got discovered that is fairly recent (2000 years ago) makes evolution go faster? thats your bias speaking.
evolution has no speed. just selective pressure.

>>3661985
No, it's well documented that rates of mutation vary and certain environmental pressures tend to accelerate or decelerate this process.

>>3661959
>>3661971
>Source
>Made in Excel by User:Rikurzhen (no longer a user )from this source:
>http://lagriffedulion.f2s.com/

>File links
>No pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file. (Pages on other projects are not counted.)

No citations on the source listed. This isn't very compelling.

Because niggers keep stealing the lab equipment and using it to make crack

>In all likelihood, it's due to runaway affirmative action giving degrees to blacks who cannot fit the bill.

Do you not understand how affirmative action works in college? The work in the college doesn't change depending on your race.

>Claim the story is biased and there is no racism involved
>Justify yourself by saying all blacks are poor scientists, dumb, and don't deserve the funding

If anything this thread helps prove the authors point

>>3662094
You may want to watch this to know how aa works in college.
http://vimeo.com/5104173

>>3662104
>implying 4chan is NIH

>>3660672
Oh sure, they must be racist, because we know a priori that Blacks and Whites are absolutely equal, and there's simply NO WAY that Blacks are just not good at science! No no no, we are so sure of that, nobody even bothered checking! That's how sure we are.

You give idiot kids degrees based on their skin color, and then you're surprised this shit happens? Come on now, murrika. I ain't even racist.

>>3662353

Why do you hate Freedom?

>>3662353
Degrees aren't handed out to anyone, you do the work and you get the degree. AA helps people get into college but it doesn't give them the degree.

Black people often have good ideas and show potential, but rarely can they sustain any kind of discourse on anything.

I have yet to see something impressive from a black person. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the company of certain African persons, I think they have a fascinating culture and I would love to travel there and maybe even stay, but scientifically they're not too awesome. Even with technology...

Americans see a lot of potential in black people, which is a bit due to their regrets in slavery and the segregation. Personally I think that black people should merge with white people and asians more often.

I had a friend who was a negroid/caucasian hybrid, there's coworkers who are negroid/caucasian hybrids. They're intelligent and fit. I even see black people swimming sometimes and a hybrid is even on the national water polo team here.

IMO races will merge, rather than evolve separately or become extinct.

>>3661985
exactly, as I said earlier, the human brain is evolving faster and faster. I never said anything about humans as a whole. The reason being that selective pressures are making the brain evolution be much more preferable than before the creation of civilization.

FYI I was raised liberal and taught to think that all races are the same. Then I actually gave it some thought. So yes, I know how you feel. In your mind, it is that smarter people tend to be more liberal(which means they "apparently" must think all races are the same), and the only people who think races are different are hillbilly rednecks or white supremacist.
And the worst part is, is that you are taught so assertively that it is a fact, that you aren't even willing to question it.

I can assure you that I am not a white supremacist, a ignorant redneck. All I am asking is for you to be willing to question things that are asserted as fact if they don't have evidence to back it up. If you have evidence that would suggest there are no inherent differences in race, then I would be perfectly willing to look at it unbiasedly. Hell, if the evidence is reliable enough and convincing, I would be more than willing to change my mind about this and agree with you. All I seek is the truth, nothing more.

>>3662904
>black people
>culture
Surely you're joking? They have no culture whatever to speak of. No high forms of art, architecture, civilization, literature etc.

Riddle me this:
If Europeans (the white man) were years ahead of the tribes in Africa (the black man) when the two races met, why would they be equal now?

>>3662904
You do realize if everyone was to hybridize we'd lose genetically distinct populations minimizing human biodiversity which is not favorable. The resulting population would be a single cluster rather than the many identifiable clusters that we have today. We could even lose beneficial alleles in this process because Hardy Weinberg does not apply with gene flow and recessive beneficial alleles would not be expressed in these hybrids minimizing selection which could lead to their extinction. It's better to have these distinct clusters intact as well as hybrids to have a net increase in biodiversity for the species. Also if everyone was to hybridize over a few generation new races, subspecies, clines, or clades would appear anyway because of different global environmental pressures however what would've been lost in that process would never be regained.

It's wrong to discriminate people based on skin color

I heard on discovery or some shit that we've compiled and sequenced Neanderthal DNA, how hard would it be to fertilize a normal human egg and pop out a 'thal?

All indications seem that they're a smarter, stronger, less efficient human. Which in this time of crises of plenty and rampant fatassery, seems exceptionally well suited.

>>3663093
Yes, it wouldn't be difficult considering hybridization and mass migration of H. sap out of Africa was the cause of their extinction in the first place.

Here's the journal for the genome sequence:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.full
Here's the journal that found Neanderthal DNA in non-Africans on the X chromosome:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/7/1957
And here's the journal detailing their extinction:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6042/623.abstract

>>3662999
>only knows one definition of culture

>>3663153
Fascinating... Also...

>dat comic... Hahahahahaha

Seems like a neat idea for when we get custom genome writing down. Still a few decades away from that, maybe.

>>3663204
Yeah, I'd even go as far as to say I think we owe it to the Neanderthals to bring them back.

>>3663211
I just want to bring em back for shits and giggles.

>>3663037
nail on the head

>>3663211
>>3663225
Op of the idea here... I agree with both of these... For fun! For science! For chasing them out of existence...

ITT: Liberal creationists derping and not realizing intelligence is genetic.

and on a science board for fuck sakes

Lawdy

>>3663326
you do realize that most of the crap being flooded would have been declared hazardous and destroyed if it wasn't taken.

Therefore, the black people are actually smarter by not wasting shit.

>>3663395
If they didn't go on rape sprees one would agree.

>>3663326
>ITT: Liberal creationists derping and not realizing intelligence is genetic.

>and on a science board for fuck sakes

Strawman. Of course intelligence is genetic. Of course there are trends among the various races. Not every black man IS the average black man, is the thing. You have to treat individuals as individuals.

>>3663409
Well, it's the end of the world, they needed to get as many babies out there as possible, just in case.

Any more plausible stories?

>>3663421
of course, I don't think anyone on this thread would disagree with that. However, there seems to be alot of people who think that it is true because they think the average intelligence of all races are the same. Which it isn't.

>>3663442
Its just not statistically significant.

ie, theres more variation in taking the test than the outcome, and theres more variation in the culture than in the race.

>>3663453
too much emphasis it put on culture as a reason for difference. The culture forms from the race average, not the race average from the culture.
Furthermore, you can tell if a kid is smart at a very young age. Long before culture has really any effect.
Anyone who says black culture is the cause of their situation has no knowledge of world history or other countries...

The amount of derp in this thread is truly outstanding.

8/10, would rage again

>>3661023

This is the most reasonable post in this thread

>>3663037

I don't know enough about genetics, really.

>>3661023
And there have been studies and books (like Jared Diamond or Stephen Gould) lauded simply to provide cover for Politically Correct, egalitarian nonsense.

>>3663602
Alot of that is under the assumption that humans and animals are equally affected by the same changes.
E.G. like if a virus would have the same effect in a human population as an animal one. Of course, that's why most of the "be as diverse as possible in order to survive" is flawed, because humans have alot more control over their environment than other species.

>>3663714
That's a good point but I never said individuals should be as diverse as possible or an individual population in order to survive a viral epidemic. In fact I said the opposite, I said a species should have as many distinct populations some separate and some hybridized. There are many examples in other animals which show that populations that have too much admixture from another population in their species are undergoing outbreeding depression such as the Ibex. What I did point out was that for the species as a whole it's better to have various populations which are distinct because in the case of a viral epidemic while a few population may be susceptible a few will survive conferring a survivability advantage to the species as a whole, if there was only one hybridized population this would not be the case. Though lets not forget while man is able to have some control over the environment we are still animals and I understand it's romantic to think we rose above this but really we're just in another trophic level.

>>3661824
Asian's aren't richer then whites. They're second to whites.

Jews are the richest, are they also the smartest overall? Not even trolling, lots of scientists are jewish.

>>3663642
You lost me at "High School Musical".

>>3661160
yeah that seemed out of place, I've never really thought of America as being particularly un-racist

The amount of dark energy in this thread is overwhelming. Please keep it up. The demons are pleased.

>>3663982

Yes. Actually the wikipedia article is quite good and has several links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_intelligence

Including this full paper:

>http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/ashkiq.webpub.pdf

>>3661831

all of these people had SAT's under 1100.... why do we care about the skin color of Retarded people?

Is any jew here?
Or just white people accepting jewish superiority?

>>3666354

'white' person with jewish ancestors here.

>>3666354
I'm about a quarter jewish, half german. Both have good genes for intelligence.

>>3666876
What;s the rest of you?

>>3666354

If you equate superiority with intelligence.....which is a strange thing to do....­

>>3666894
a mix of russian, irish, and latvian.