/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9898449

Yes there is a biological category called race. It doesn't apply to humans , since our genetic variation is to minicule compared to that of e.g. two dog races. If we defined it so losely it applied to humans we'd have HUNDREDS more dog races alone ;) E.g. compare a chihuhaha and a great dane. Find ANY pair of human "races" that is comparably different. What people mean by race being constructed is not the word itself of course, they mean that these categories are constructed even though they are not varanted biologically and have, quite often in the history, not even had to do anything with biology at all ( e.g. hitler called jews and bolschewiks "races")

>>9898455
So basically it's not a scientific argument at all, but rather a semantic one? Don't all biological categorizations have a certain amount of "fuzziness" around the edges definitionally though?

>>9898449
This topic is sadly impossible to have a civil conversation about because the concept of actual legitimate, non-biased, distinct classification of homo sapiens into unique species is already so badly tained with concepts as posted in your image, and on the alternative side of 18th/19th century social Darwinism. My main question about it is: would it benefit anyone to have such distinct classifications or would the ramifications outweigh the total good of such a system?

>>9898463

a little muddy maybe. Take e.g. health. We can't exactly say what health is, but we are pretty certain it has something to do with not vomiting blood all the time. Same thing here. We do not excatly know where the limit to call something race is. But we do know when it definitely doesn't fit. And that's when individual variation is greater, than group deviance^^

>>9898467
Would it not be beneficial to the public to understand the realities of race? There would likely be imperfections involved, as every situation involving judgement of ethics is imperfect, sure. Over all though, would it not be better for people to understand that certain social phenomenon are not the results of large amounts of individual failings, but improper average adaptation to current circumstances? Aren't social conventions easier to change than hereditary traits?

>>9898478
Ah, so not having a precise definition doesn't disqualify the overall categorization from being potentially legitimate? Ignoring the bit of "more generic variance within than between", (which sounds legitimate until it's thought about for more than a few seconds), what standard of precision would you consider legitimate for designation of races? Are you expecting a definition at the molecular genetics level, or is a high correlation heredity assessment with significant predictive capacity good enough?

Of course humans who have evolved in different climates will have identifiable and generalisable genetic and phenotypic differences. These differences can be classified in race.

>>9898449
Categorizing people by race is racist. It would be fairer and maybe more useful to categorize people by iq or by how much they give back to their communities.

>>9898455
I really have no say in this discussion, however I just want to point out the fact that you're cherry picking dog races to fit your argument. (Chihuahas and great danes can't even breed)
By that same logic, you can't even tell the difference between a bohemian and german shepherd at first glance, but I'm sure I can tell the difference between an asian and a black person any day of the week. I won't discuss genetics, since I majored in maths, however it sounds sketchy as well.
In pic: a bohemian or german shepherd, you guess.

>>9898555
>It would be fairer and maybe more useful to categorize people by iq or by how much they give back to their communities.
Which can be reliably predicted by race.
The problem is that these aren't even essential, race is a cultural and even spiritual issue.

>>9898479
>Aren't social conventions easier to change than hereditary traits?
They are but if there are hereditary traits existing in majority of one race it's futile and at cases even dangerous to root for individuals instead of race.

>>9898467
It would benefit 'better' races, it would prevent race mixing and killing certain's races unique or specialized traits.

>>9898571
>race is a cultural and even spiritual issue.

The very fact that we are different is enough to induce same cultural reactions in various places in the world. That itself could be enough factor to keep people separated

So you want to know if race is a biological classification?
Well where would race fit into the lineian hierarchy? Somewhere underneath species, possibly analogous to subspeicies, possibly homologous to genetic clusters population ecogeological traits .
Race is a nonscientific term, the quality this category has is resemblance, black skin, big dick, came from the same place, ect) so these resemblances are taken by a community of people who using language figure out that these like individuals should be called"black"
Now a race has been socially constructed. All it's members are black and they share there identity, parts of there culture because quality of the race, like soul food.
So a race is a social construct from shared space, culture, and Synapomorphic Ecogeological clades that vary in breadth from a single population pygmies to every African in Africa. Race constructed by meaning making,semiosis and particularly lanague allow race to devolp from social interaction, for some there nation state becomes a part of their race.
So does race have and place in systematics? I doubt it, here's why
It is constructed from unscientific concepts. Race can include many different population,the boundaries are not drawn for evolutionary relation, the are drawn based on resemblance. Systematics is based on biological relationship,. "
Race is based on fuzzy "race" has no place then the taxonmic nomenclature. Good old species, populations variant, type.
Of course the best way to figure out that relation is phylogenetic systematics, and cladistics.

Race is not a biological quality, it is contradictory to the nomenclature.

> hereditary phenotypical differences in both visible traits and behavioral patterns?
With systematics and evolution, and proper terminology
> subspecial taxonomy similar to the classifications of breeds in dogs for people?
We already had that, it's called people's, like the twa or the Apache, the problem is global capitalism is making us all the same.

>>9898449
>>9898622
Btw this picture is retarded, all these moronic " race realists" should really
Read a book. They start talking about biological classification and are way over there (little)heads.

>>9898479
>the realities of race
>realities
The left and the right are going to say the other side's definition is bollocks

>>9898455
>since our genetic variation is to minicule compared to that of e.g. two dog races
It's not that minuscule, you can tell apart members of different races physically, and they also differ in key biological aspects (for instance you can only get a bone marrow transplant from a person who shares your race).

I don't think anyone's claiming that human races differ as much as dog breeds, that's a strawman argument.

>>9898622
Sorry I wrote this on alot of ambien, you can tell

>>9898622
This is such a low IQ post I don't even know where to begin.

>>9898641
Begin at the beginning maybe?

>>9898647
What for? You just admitted you were on drugs, which frankly is not surprising.

>>9898648
Interested to see if my ideas came across at all. There are bits and pieces

>>9898655
No, it's a garbled mess.

>>9898658
RED

M
TINKro9lls down the market, hedgefub for wildlife

>>9898455
Ok. So we'll take all of the scientists who currently use the categorization tool "race" for humans and have them replace it with something else.
How about "Secar?"
We'll even have them edit all of their articles to adhere to your semantic game.
Would that make you faggots happy?

>>9898449
I asked my biologist friend this very question and he told me that, as far as he knew, there were no sets of genetic markers that could satisfactorily cluster the human population into neatly (or even not so neatly) defined groups that would correspond to the "races" we talk about.
Apparently, the human population really is pretty homogeneous genetically.

>>9898449
as i recall race is a meme that got memed by some non-scientists around a century ago based on what they pulled out of their ass. I doubt actual biological variance conforms to it.

>>9898697
>there were no sets of genetic markers that could satisfactorily cluster the human population into neatly (or even not so neatly) defined groups that would correspond to the "races" we talk about.
The problem is that the colloquial use of the term "race" is based on very shallow characteristics
For example, the US census categorizes anybody with a drop of African blood "Black."
The scientific categorization of "race" is much different, and I see no reason why they should be forced to stop using it to appease literal retards.

>>9898701
>For example, the US census categorizes anybody with a drop of African blood "Black."
Lmao, considering the genetic diversity within Africa, any classification that associated one race to africans would have to define everyone else as "others".

But yeah, no reason not to try.
Basically at the moment, there is no genetic foundation for the concept of race but there really are people looking into this

>>9898716
>Basically at the moment, there is no genetic foundation for the concept of race
No, there's no genetic foundation for the colloquial concept of race.
There are likely ~100 races that are genetically distinct for which we could make predictions based on.
The problem you run into is when you have things like social science grouping IQ by race, but not taking into account such factors.

>>9898455
Dog races are a social construct, though.
Literally, we control their breeding to maintain them.

>>9898449

A race is biological.

Its perfectly normal, healthy and logical to have prejudices and generalizations about an entire race, but that doesnt mean you cant also judge people individually. It doesnt really matter if the differences are biological or cultural because that shit will not change anytime soon. But there will always be people of any race that transcend their cultural or biological shortcomings and negative traits and put themselves into a category above that. The problem is when groups of any one race form, certain traits and behavior patterns are amplified. With western people this mostly leads to good results on the surface and the bad outcomes are more subtle and hidden in plain sight. Western people dont really condone violence of chimping out, but they find it perfectly acceptable to brainwash their own people and sell them shit that makes them sick. With blacks, almost anything in the category of group behavior leads to extremely bad outcomes, there are certainly exceptions like the church going blacks or the jazz musicians, i dont know how much of a thing it used to be but now its certainly not a thing anymore.

>>9898875
>Western people dont really condone violence of chimping out, but they find it perfectly acceptable to brainwash their own people and sell them shit that makes them sick.
By "Western People" do you mean "Das Juden?"

>>9898907
no

>>9898919
Well then you greatly mis-attribute who are the ones brainwashing

>>9898455
>>9898455
>>9898455
You know what would make a great example of this? Photos of people photoshopped to show imaginary examples of various human 'breeds', ala dog breeds.

They would all look like hideous abominations to us.

>>9898935
I'll do you one better.
Do you consider these two bears to be of the same race?

>>9898455
fixation index between north american wolf and coyote it the same as between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans

https://www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/publication/red-wolf-genetics-research-von-holdt.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index#Autosomal_genetic_distances_based_on_SNPs

>>9898455
Jesus fuck, there's about the same heterozygosity in dogs as there are in Humans, what a poor example you've chosen.

>Total heterozygosity (HT) for all the breeds was high (0.618), with a range of 0.387 to 0.758 between the breeds (Table 1)
pic related
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0f8e/20aff6e5b93904ea2223603675af284640c0.pdf

>Measured Heterozygosity in Humans

>0.776
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9214743
>0.7-0.76
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/7/3100
>0.588-0.807
https://www.nature.com/articles/368455a0

Race is very real in all the ways the average person perceives it.

>>9898697
Your friend is a fucking idiot

>>9898455
I thought dogs were less genetically diverse than humans, only their extreme selection pressures made a greater apparent difference

>>9898948
Yeah, you're making the same point, with the opposite example. But I feel mine would make a much more jarring image, and would be discussed more publicly/widely than yours.

>>9898948
No, and they might be different species in the current nomenclature.

>>9898981
Nice try. They're actually classified as different species regardless of their ability to successfully reproduce.
What you pseuds need to understand is that these categories you're trying to break down for political reasons have actual uses for scientists
Just because you're retarded doesn't mean you have to bring them down with you.

>>9898982
Correct. They're categorized as different species based on geographic isolation and phenotypic differences alone.
Now why can't a lesser categorization scheme be applied to humans again?
Oh yeah that's right. Politics.

>>9898989
What would be your goal with this categorization? And who decides how we divide ourselves?

>>9898999
>What would be your goal with this categorization?
>Would be
It already exists. The purpose is like anything else in science: predictive capability.

>>9898987
you're totally missing my point

>>9898999
>Wat IS da point of noing doe???
What "decides" the division depends on exactly what it is you're testing and what program you're using.
https://rosenberglab.stanford.edu/papers/popstruct.pdf

>>9899012
Elaborate. Are you simply against the word?
If we changed "race" to something with less of a social stigma, would it bother you as much?
If so I think you really need to consider looking into something called "semiotics."

>>9899015
I'm saying, wouldn't it be a neat image to show pictures of humans distorted and warped by photoshop to show what various human 'breeds' would look like. It would be a good image for demonstrating that the differences between dogs is not the same as difference between human races.

>>9899019
>a good image for demonstrating that the differences between dogs is not the same as difference between human races.
But dog breeds DO have more genetic difference than humans?>>9898960

>>9899002
>It already exists
In what form? Earlier you were going on about how we weren't categorizing humans for political reasons, now you say we do. Just clarify so we are on the same page here.

Clearly we do socially, and scientists will be grouping people based on a different things, but we they don't divide us into set groups of human species/sub-species.

>>9899013
These are geographic groups.

>>9899021
What I meant to say is that humans have more genetic diversity than dogs.

>>9899025
>These are geographic groups.
Did you read it? When k=5 the clusters corresponds with geographic regions. k-means testing always ends up returning geographic regions when a stable value is reached. Who would've thunk, geographically isolated populations are genetically similar. Really groundbreaking shit 300 years ago.

>>9899033
What's your point then?

Stop straw-manning, I never denied genetic diversity(no one does), we were talking about categorization of humans remember?

>>9899049
Well when the genomes are uploaded into a computer program that is told to cluster the organisms together in groups of X, the results match geographic population clustering. The same results we'd get by eyeballing people and sorting them is what the computer returns.
>[1.3] Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure (Rosenberg 2005): Previously, we observed that without using prior information about individual sampling locations, a clustering algorithm applied to multilocus genotypes from worldwide human populations produced genetic clusters largely coincident with major geographic regions. It has been argued, however, that the degree of clustering is diminished by use of samples with greater uniformity in geographic distribution, and that the clusters we identified were a consequence of uneven sampling along genetic clines. Expanding our earlier dataset from 377 to 993 markers, we systematically examine the influence of several study design variables—sample size, number of loci, number of clusters, assumptions about correlations in allele frequencies across populations, and the geographic dispersion of the sample—on the “clusteredness” of individuals. With all other variables held constant, geographic dispersion is seen to have comparatively little effect on the degree of clustering.

>>9899065
>Examination of the relationship between genetic and geographic distance supports a view in which the clusters arise not as an artifact of the sampling scheme, but from small discontinuous jumps in genetic distance for most population pairs on opposite sides of geographic barriers, in comparison with genetic distance for pairs on the same side. Thus, analysis of the 993-locus dataset corroborates our earlier results: if enough markers are used with a sufficiently large worldwide sample, individuals can be partitioned into genetic clusters that match major geographic subdivisions of the globe, with some individuals from intermediate geographic locations having mixed membership in the clusters that correspond to neighboring regions.
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070

>>9899065
This is nothing new or unexpected, as you said yourself.

Genetic clusters between groups of people which are geographically decided would be expected. Now the discussion is about if we should be categorizing groups of genetic diversity into species/sub-species. Which seems to be unnecessary considering how scientist seems to be getting by just fine with the current use of geographic groupings.

>race doesn’t exist!

>>9899097
>should be categorizing groups of genetic diversity into species/sub-species
This has no relevance on the biological manifestations that arise from allele variation in humans, but humans have a high enough heterozygosity for subspeciation and speciation if you were ok with isolating particular African populations. You can see the comparison of subspeciation in different organisms with similar heterozygosity in pic related in the paper linked. Calling a banana an apple doesn't make it so, call people whatever makes you comfortable.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19695787
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Is-Homo-sapiens-polytypic%3F-Human-taxonomic-and-its-Woodley/5ca5e457c2d19fc5eea9439a58d9383cf40f2c0e

>>9898449
If you showed 4 white people with different faces would you still imply that they are different species?

>>9899126
>call people whatever makes you comfortable.
I'm not the one who advocating for change here. It just really makes me suspect about the motivation of someone who thinks how we categorize crows(or whatever) should determine how we do so in humans.

It usually the same people here who later goes on to say that they know the IQ gap between demographics in the US is partially explained by biology, and then goes on to advocate a separation based on skin colour(like that follows naturally.). Its basically mini-alt hype's going around parroting his ideas.

>>9899144
>It usually the same people here who later goes on to say that they know the IQ gap between demographics in the US is partially explained by biology, and then goes on to advocate a separation based on skin colour(like that follows naturally.)

it does follow naturally. people self-segregate even under extreme social and legal pressure to integrate.

>>9899144
>suspect about the motivation
I'm from /pol/ and an advocate of white nationalism, I just happened to be on /sci/ and see this laughably retarded thread. For all the /pol/ is retarded talk, this board sure doesn't have a fucking clue what it's talking about when it comes to biology. This all being said, I'm not advocating for anything here and everything I've stated is fact. Humans are no different from "crows(or whatever)", people embrace evolution and atheism until they understand the full implications, then they don't "FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE" so much anymore.

>It usually the same people here who later goes on to say that they know the IQ gap between demographics in the US is partially explained by biology
There's just an endless amount of data that suggests this is just the case, I'm sure you don't really want to hear it, and it'd fall on deaf ears because I'm honest about being a White Nationalist.
>Seperation on skin color
"race" is not just "skin color", there's more differentiation in hindbrain and neuron development than there is in pigmentation.
>Different level of population differentiation among human genes
https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-11-16
>Its basically mini-alt hype's going around parroting his ideas
Not an argument. For what it's worth, I wasn't a WN that learned the science to justify my position, it was knowing the information and coming to my political views after the fact.

>>9899157
So we should decide it for them? If not, then what is your actual position?
>people self-segregate even under extreme social and legal pressure to integrate.
I would be more interested in what causes this to happen then.

>>9899167
>Not an argument.

housing discrimination, employment discrimination, etc. are illegal. white people are not allowed to choose who they work with or live next to. we do not have freedom of association. white americans and white western europeans are the only people who are effectively deprived of that prerogative by their respective states. nobody's advocating segregation because it happens naturally under normal social conditions. cucks like the anon you were replying to are stooges who can't even understand how fucked up they are.

>>9899167
that article doesn't mention race anywhere

>>9899192
You're a fucking retard

>>9899167
>I'm from /pol/ and an advocate of white nationalism,
Shocking

>There's just an endless amount of data that suggests this is just the case, I'm sure you don't really want to hear it, and it'd fall on deaf ears because I'm honest about being a White Nationalist.
Yet the scientific consensus on the topic seems to be agnostic when it comes to this.

>"race" is not just "skin color", there's more differentiation in hindbrain and neuron development than there is in pigmentation.
I never you said it was. But it is skin color the white nationalists ultimately will judge you by, despite all this biology and IQ talk.

>Not an argument.
Great observation.

>>9899172
>So we should decide it for them?
decide what for who?

>If not, then what is your actual position?
see
>>9899183

>>9898455
>Yes there is a biological category called race
There isn't.
>since our genetic variation is to minicule compared to that of e.g. two dog races.
It isn't. It's literally the opposite.

>>9899200
>Yet the scientific consensus on the topic seems to be agnostic when it comes to this
proof?
>muh skin color
>muh baseless racism despite having data and evidence

I don't really know if this is the place to continue what this thread is about to devolve into.

>>9899197
No I'm not.
Race isn't just whatever you want it to be. Its literally not a useful concept at all. Biology is biology, racism is racism.

>>9899213
that was a nice platitude that means absolutely nothing

>>9899214
It means that that's not race used to mean. You can't take real biology and associate it with something archaic then claim you were right all along.

>>9899222
"real biology" is vindicating the "archaic" racists of the past. And no not da Nhatzes, they had a completely different racial ideology from the rest of the Western world.

>>9899210
High genetic heritability does not mean that the IQ gap is explained by biology. This just does not follow.

Since you are the one claiming you know the gap partially is explained by biology, ill just leave it to you to come up with the prof.

>>9899228
Here's an article making better arguments than you're able to come up with and each point being refuted. Sources are in the description of the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVAzPniTzmg

>>9899144
>>9899200
To be honest the skin color is one of those traits that actively and noticeably affect your life when you're living away of your natural environment. Wrong skin color on wrong latitudes literally makes you sick and kills you, only reason it is even possible for a black man to live in Canada or Scandinavia or a white man in Australia is the wealth and access to unnatural diet and health care by modern technology and global trade.
Even if it was "just skin deep" it's not just cosmetic, it has a clear evolutive advantage on your population's survival and thriving.

>>9899228
One of the most salient examples in my own opinion is SAT scores in relation to ethnicity and socioeconomic status. If you didn't know, the SAT is highly 'g' loaded, I don't know if you already know about 'g' and it's correlation with essentially any attribute that could be described as "positive".
>Despite an extensive literature, the “g” construct remains a point of debate. Different models explaining the observed relationships among cognitive tests make distinct assumptions about the role of g in relation to those tests and specific cognitive domains. Surprisingly, these different models and their corresponding assumptions are rarely tested against one another. In addition to the comparison of distinct models, a multivariate application of the twin design offers a unique opportunity to test whether there is support for g as a latent construct with its own genetic and environmental influences, or whether the relationships among cognitive tests are instead driven by independent genetic and environmental factors. Here we tested multiple distinct models of the relationships among cognitive tests utilizing data from the Vietnam Era Twin Study of Aging (VETSA), a study of middle-aged male twins. Results indicated that a hierarchical (higher-order) model with a latent g phenotype, as well as specific cognitive domains, was best supported by the data. The latent g factor was highly heritable (86%), and accounted for most, but not all, of the genetic effects in specific cognitive domains and elementary cognitive tests. By directly testing multiple competing models of the relationships among cognitive tests in a genetically-informative design, we are able to provide stronger support than in prior studies for g being a valid latent construct.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4002017/

>>9899224
But it's not.
Like, racism was originally very pseudoscientific and whatnot. You can't just change it and then claim it was right all along. Like I just said.

>>9899260
>>9899228
The SAT is a better predictor of success than GPA with and is correlated with the 'g' factor at r=.82. GPA only has a correlation with 'g' at r=.35
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3090148/

The racial disparities in SAT scores are actually widening in CA as the demographics continue to shift and race is the single most predictive factor in regards to performance.
https://cshe.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/publications/rops.cshe_.10.15.geiser.racesat.10.26.2015.pdf

>>9899267
k

>>9899131
No, but conveniently, all of the "white" people on Earth come from one continent. Also, all the "black" people on Earth come from one section of one continent. All the East Asians come from eastern Asia and the Pacific. All the Australian aboriginals come from Australia. I know you think it's unheard of for classifications to be done geographically, but it happens all the time.

>>9899260
Again, you are not linking the biological component of IQ to the IQ gap that we observe.

I don't deny the gap, or that heritability of IQ is probably around 70%, or the importance of IQ. What I don't belive is that we can know that the IQ gap is explained by biology.

This is a subtle point that is very important when arguing this. Its an easy logical misstep, but I wouldn't be surprised if you were deliberately ignoring this link for the sake of having a stronger argument, since you are so familiar with this topic.

>>9899172
So we should force people to be together because of your arbitrary opinions on a racial definition which may or may not be defended scientifically (and we don't really know because no one will actually run the sort of experiments that would conclusively define race) even though there is observable natural self segregation that seems to work. Got it.

>>9899284
>Again, you are not linking the biological component of IQ to the IQ gap that we observe.
Are you asking for the identification of the molecular mechanism for cognition?

>>9898449
>Is race biological?
Remember that genetics were just discovered like 60 years ago and full sequencing is very recent, scientifically. Historical application of the biological sciences was heavily driven by phenotypes.

Phenotypic variation definitely coordinates with people's perceptions of race but trying to define this genetically is a fool's errand. So biology now is trying to undo the thousands of years of phenotype categorization now that they can just look at the genes. This means they want "race" as in an unscientific cluster of phenotypes to vanish.

But "race" as a term isn't biological. Really, racists co-opted biology, or attempted to, along with other sciences (many dead ends like skull shape analysis), to explain to themselves why they were being so fucking mean to niggers. I don't mean this as a deliberate choice, it's an unconscious psychological force: you have to sleep at night and within reason your brain will do what it has to for that to happen, including explaining why you just treated that nigger like a subhuman.

>>9899292
>Really, racists co-opted biology, or attempted to, along with other sciences (many dead ends like skull shape analysis
Holy fuck, what is it with you people?
>Stephen Jay Gould, the prominent evolutionary biologist and science historian, argued that “unconscious manipulation of data may be a scientific norm” because “scientists are human beings rooted in cultural contexts, not automatons directed toward external truth” [1], a view now popular in social studies of science [2]–[4]. In support of his argument Gould presented the case of Samuel George Morton, a 19th-century physician and physical anthropologist famous for his measurements of human skulls. Morton was considered the objectivist of his era, but Gould reanalyzed Morton's data and in his prize-winning book The Mismeasure of Man [5] argued that Morton skewed his data to fit his preconceptions about human variation. Morton is now viewed as a canonical example of scientific misconduct. But did Morton really fudge his data? Are studies of human variation inevitably biased, as per Gould, or are objective accounts attainable, as Morton attempted? We investigated these questions by remeasuring Morton's skulls and reexamining both Morton's and Gould's analyses. Our results resolve this historical controversy, demonstrating that Morton did not manipulate data to support his preconceptions, contra Gould. In fact, the Morton case provides an example of how the scientific method can shield results from cultural biases
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001071#pbio.1001071-Gould2

>>9899289
Dude, the point of science is predictive capability. If you have a biological marker which corresponds with intelligence to a high degree, you don't need to understand at a fucking structural biological level all of the thousands of precise genes involved in cognition. Quit being a fucking pedant. You don't need to understand gravity waves to do kinematics you dumb fuck.

>>9899302
I understand this but what the fuck is >>9899284 looking for?

>>9899289
Not necessarily. Simply a link between the biological side of IQ, and the IQ gap.

Maybe you are confused about what genetic heritability actually is, if you think you have established this.

70% genetic heritability, does not mean that 70% of IQ your is due to genetics. I hope you get this, or we will have to go over some stuff.

>>9899300
What people do you think I am, friendo?

>>9899305
Yes I understand heritability, I still have no fucking clue what "link between the biological side of IQ" you're looking for. It sounds like you're asking for the molecular mechanism.

>>9899304
He's looking for a justification of his beliefs. There likely isn't any one scientific paper that would convince him, and any book aggregating and interpreting scientific papers he would likely call bs because it wasn't published in Nature.

>>9899318
kek, I'm about to fuck off back to /pol/

>>9899309
To put it simply, again:
There can still exist gaps between traits that are highly heritable where the gap is not due to genetic. This is what you have not established.

>>9899318
Fuck off, this is not what I'm asking for.

here you go:
>>9899326

>>9899326
Oh, you're talking about missing heritability. Just because heritability is doesn't mean it's epigenetic guy. Height was another polygenic trait that only had 20% of it's variance accounted for 10 years ago and know the gap has closed almost totally iirc.
Improvements in technology is closing the gaps (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5676235/)) and the confirmations you're looking for are starting to be published.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/02/06/106203

>>9898701
>The scientific categorization of "race" is much different,
That does not exist

>>9899342
>Oh, you're talking about missing heritability.
No.
What I'm saying is that you have not linked the observed outcome of the IQ gap to genetic's

I'll say it again. 70% heritable does not mean that 70% of the observed phenotype is due to genetics. I know you acknowledge this, but I'm starting to think you don't understand what that entails.

Alright, so I created this thread because I was getting in an argument over this on /mu/ and the guy told me to come here and have my shit all BTFO'd. What I've gotten out of this, is rather that some guy from /pol/ has more or less kicked the BTFO'd every one of you and non-arguments given in response.

>>9899362
So you ARE asking for the specific set of genes at a molecular level then? Do you really think that's an "if" question and not a "when" question?

>>9899362
>you don't know what heritability is
this is what I understand heritability as
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0T2miip8jo
>you have not linked the observed outcome of the IQ gap to genetic
So what you're specifically asking for are the alleles that differ between the black and white population?

Dog Breeds =/= Human Races

>>9899369
I don't care how you prove it, but jumping from high heritability to "IQ gap is due to genetic's" is simply not a valid line of logic.

You haven't proven anything about the cause of the IQ gap. I hope you are not being difficult on purpose here.

>>9899380
wew lad

so how does all this race realism trickle down off of 4chan? who is this message supposed to reach? is it all just research to see how the public takes the inevitable news of genetic inequality? i don't really get it.

>>9899380
You're the one who is being difficult on purpose. There is data that has been replicated over and over and over again showing an IQ gap, that is highly heritable, that persists regardless of environmental controls. What else do you need to decide that there is a large portion of the variation that is attributed to genome level differences? The obvious thing you're looking for is the specific set of genes, which is a when problem, not an if problem.

>>9899380
Turkheimer is that you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPV6Hz9iwQo

>>9899385
They're trying to convince people to join the alt right to fight globalism I think

>>9899385
Well as it stands right now, the idea preached to the public is that "race is an entirely a social construct" that racial differences are only "skin color" and that racial animosities are caused by people who are arbitrarily bigoted. When none of these things are demonstrated to be true, we as a society can actually honestly examine how we want to handle this situation. This forced racial integration bit works well for the top 10% of blacks and the bourgeois whites, but it basically fucks over every one else. The high achieving blacks that should be running the black community and providing upward selection pressure, fuck off to live with white people, and the low status whites are forced to live in a society where they are unwanted and blamed for the difficulty of blacks to integrate into white society.

>>9899292
This. Whites know they wont be the most powerful forever.

>>9899403
>The high achieving blacks that should be running the black community and providing upward selection pressure, fuck off to live with white people
not to mention the dysgenic effects due to their assortative mating and the extraction of their genes from the black genepool, assuming the high heritability of IQ is correct.

>>9899385
>who is this message supposed to reach?
EVERYONE

>>9899405
You know that literally nobody like blacks right? East Asians don't like blacks, Semites don't like blacks, Pacific Islanders don't like blacks, not even other black people like living around them. There doesn't NEED to be scientific justification of racial differences to not want to live around black people, but as it turns out, there is.

>>9899419
>There doesn't NEED to be scientific justification of racial differences to not want to live around black people, but as it turns out, there is.
kek

>>9899419
Blacks don't want to live around other racial groups either. The problem is Africa was dominated by arabs very early in their history, then they were dominated by europeans right after that and what you have now is something that is completely destroyed and dysfunctional. Blacks have nowhere to go.

But I was talking about chinese. Europeans being the most powerful is an anomaly in history, the world is ruled by chinese.

>>9899390
You can take a trait that is pretty heritable like height, but if you compare a group of malnourished people to a group of well fed people, then you will still see a difference.
To then conclude that the height difference between these two groups is due to genetics, is what you are doing.

Obviously in the IQ case we don't know the cause like we did here, but the point still stands; you absolutely have to bridge this gap, otherwise you are just speculating.

>>9899429
>but if you compare a group of malnourished people to a group of well fed people
You can't be the same guy we've been talking with, this is so fucking retarded you must've just shown up.

>>9899429
Except that adoptive twin studies have been done between black children adopted into upper middle class white households and white children adopted into upper middle class households, and the IQ gap still persists.

>>9899403
>racial animosities are caused by people who are arbitrarily bigoted
as opposed to what?

>>9899436
People who recognize that differences in behavior are real and that people of your same race are more likely to behave as you do and approach living in society as you do.

>>9899435
Twin studies have a huge problem in that they don't eliminate the prenatal and the time after, which everyone agrees will have a big impact of development.

They are also a problem in that they selecting from a small environment in them self. They are all adoptive children in adoptive families. And when looking at less variation in environments, you will have an increase in heritability, because you are literally taking away any alternative. With a small sample size on top of that.

Also nice if you link studies that show this anyway.

>>9899439
Isn't that the same as racism?
Honestly I don't have that experience myself but I'm not terribly social.

>>9899403
>"race is an entirely a social construct"
True
>that racial differences are only "skin color"
False
>that racial animosities are caused by people who are arbitrarily bigoted.
True

>>9899446
>they don't eliminate the prenatal
Except that they do by comparing monochorionic twins to dichorionic.

>>9899446
I have to go to a funeral but you should watch the full length of>>9899393

>>9899460
also stop by /pol/ later if you want to continue the conversation

>>9899448
>Isn't that the same as racism?
It will be called that, but no.
Racism is animosity towards another due to their race.
Tolerance was something that was taught back when I went to school.
That and freedom of association.
Now you conform or get exiled.

>>9899403
>When none of these things are demonstrated to be true, we as a society can actually honestly examine how we want to handle this situation.

they've never been demonstrated true, of course, because they aren't true. and this should be obvious to anyone without their head stuck up their ass.


>fuck off to live with white people,

this seems to be the modus operandi of most upper-class POC. it wouldn't even be so bad if they didn't constantly kvetch like entitled pricks.

What's the reasoning of you? Bringing slavery back?

>>9899474
>What's the reasoning of you? Bringing slavery back?
You people really must be trolling.
I can't think of any reason why you would make such bad arguments other than to scare away people who are middling on this topic.

>>9899456
Why don't you link this twin studie that shows the IQ gap still presist so we can talk about it.
Instead of you making claims about some amazing studie that I just have to take your word on excising and showing exactly what you say it does.

>>9899474

yup, you got me. my greatest dream is owning a 1,000 acre tobacco plantation in the south with slaves, sweet tea, and a colonel sanders costume.

>>9899480
>I can't think of any reason why you would make such bad arguments

they're probably ESL

>>9899480
No, I'm being serious.

>>9899489

then ask a serious question

>>9899493
What's your reasoning

>>9899497

for?

>>9899482
I believe he's referring to the Minnesota transracial adoption study, maybe not tho

>>9899448
Racism is a meme. All people are instinctively tribal and racist, and this has deep evolutionary roots. The idea that someone can train themselves to not be racist, is demonstrably ridiculous as even those most devoted to "anti-racism" end up racially segregating via social class as a proxy for racially informed behavioral patterns. This is a society in which Anglo-Germanic white people created the incentive structures, and those who behave most in line with those default behaviors tend to succeed.

>>9899521
There used to be all sorts of racism against Irish people and Italians and stuff. People always need someone to hate. It doesn't have to be based on the current definition of "race."

>>9899482
The Minnesota transracial adoption studies, and the three subsequent replications which have all found consistent results with the initial findings. The one in 1992 claimed that it was a "culture of taking tests" that influenced the children's IQ, but as the children aged, their IQ became closer and closer to that of their parents.

>>9899526
That's literally not true and is largely overplayed as an attempt at racial deconstruction. Harper's weekly doesn't reduce the total lack of issues integrating of Irish and Italian families, and their presence in the US even shortly after the 1790 immigration act which limited immigration to "Free white men of good moral character". Simple question will there ever be a time when Somali's are considered white in your view?

>>9899539
>Simple question will there ever be a time when Somali's are considered white in your view?
When they speak the same language and have the same accent as me

>>9898449
>subspecies
You're on a science board. Subspecies aren't a respected concept. They're a dumb meme that undergrad bio-majors jerk off to and then grow out of.

Also, human fixation index is incredibly low.

Here's an image macro to take back to /pol/ with you. Remember, dog breeds aren't subspecies. They're frequently interbreeding phenotypes.

>>9898463
No. Species is a very fine line. Here's the logic: if they can offspring and it's fertile a majority of the time, they're the same species. That's a pretty unfuzzy line. Go back to /pol/.

>>9899549
No you wouldn't.

>>9899563
I'm not from /pol/ and that's completely untrue. the fundamental fuzziness of the concept even has a name: the species problem.

>>9899578
You don't know what you're talking about. The currently commonly accepted species concept in academia is Ernst Mayr's, also known as the biological species concept.
Here it is: Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups

>>9899558
Race realists don't believe that different races constitute different species, wtf. Take that infograph, shove it up your ass, and go back to /lgbt/ you butthurt faggot.

>>9899590
The pictures of dogs are all from the same subspecies too. ;)

>>9899586
if you knew anything about real phylogeny you would understand real well that there is no universally accepted species concept right now, despite what you've been told. it is perfectly normal for species defined in your way to have large areas of interbreeding overlap, and at the long end you get a "species complex" which is just a complete fucking mess.

>>9899563
My understanding, last time Iooked, was that part of the definition of species was was that the populations DID not reproduce with each other, rather than COULD not. I always thought that was a stupid definition, but I'm a whale biologist -- I call's 'em likes I sees 'em.

>>9899558
Are you actually that out of touch with reality that you consider all subspecial taxonomy illegitimate? Nobody is saying that people aren't the same species. I was asking how one would scientifically classify the obvious genotype level differences between people who are the product of divergent selection pressures and largely isolated from one another.

>>9899598
Kek, species concepts aren't phylogeny, they're taxonomy. I didn't say it was universally accepted. I said it was commonly accepted. Nice job intentionally misrepresenting my argument so that you can feel like you won some argument that nobody was having.

>>9899613
>backpedaling
>claiming nobody's having an argument
dude you are putting down other people's statements with obviously spurious arguments and the pretense of authority. that's a shitty thing to do. you literally claimed
>Species is a very fine line
which I don't think any practicing biologist would agree with

>>9899608
You can't scientifically classify gradients. Climate is extremely fuzzy, and genotypic differences in humans is also extremely fuzzy because humans reproduce sexually, allowing them to mix genes. Humans really like fucking, so they do this often.

Kek, yeah, I'm out of touch with reality because, like plenty of biologists, I don't subscribe to the idea of subspecies. Nice job showing you know nothing about how science works while being on the science board.

>>9899563
1. That's not the way we define speciation, and there are many cases of animals of different species who can produce fertile offspring if interbred.
2. There are many cases where subspecial classifications are defined solely by phenotypical differences that came as a result of geographic separation. Polar bears are a separate subspecies than Brown bears. Their phenotypical differences are the result of genotypical differences produced by divergent selection pressures. Polar bears have different behavioral patterns than brown bears, are distinct from brown bears genetically, and biologists can easily determine by many different biological markers differences between brown bear remains and polar bear remains. However, polar bears and brown bears can mate and make fertile offspring.

The same is true for human races. Forensic anthropologists can determine with greater than 90% certainty the racial ancestry of a corpse by skeleton fragments or the molecular composition of their skin. This requires distinction on a biological level between racial groups defined most commonly by continental groups.

>>9899617
That's not backpedaling. That's refocusing you from your strawman. I said, very clearly, (>>9899586) "commonly accepted". Nothing is universally accepted in any field of science, especially a definition.

I'm not claiming nobody is having an argument. You're doing it again. I said we're not having THAT argument. You seem to latch onto keywords in my sentence and respond to those instead of responding to the entire idea portrayed by a sentence. You're the debate equivalent of a bad chatbot.

>>9899623
>That's not the way we define speciation
Yes it is. That's literally the biological species concept.
>there are many cases of animals of different species who can produce fertile offspring if interbred.
A majority of the time? No, there aren't. I'd love to see an example.
>Polar bears are a separate subspecies than Brown bears
Citation needed.

>>9899625
you're full of shit

>>9899619
So you do not accept that there are visible and predictable genetic differences between the grey wolf and chihuahua? The dog is a subspecies of the grey wolf.

The idea that humans mix, is a relatively new phenomenon. There is significant forensic anthropological evidence to suggest that nearly all human beings ever born have lived and died within 200km of their birth place. Do you think this would not eventually produce genetic differences as isolated populations were exposed to divergent selection pressures? Are you actually this dumb? We do classify gradients like climate all the time, and the purpose of a scientific classification is it's predictive capacity. Climate classifications have allowed for massive agricultural expansions and incredible increases in food production.

>>9899630
I guess I've won, huh?

>>9899629
How's nature?
https://www.nature.com/news/genome-reveals-polar-bear-s-youth-1.15188

>>9899643
There are predictable genetic differences between Americans and Canadians.
There are predictable genetic differences between Americans in Dixie, New England, and the West Coast.
Predictable genetic differences exist within anything that reproduces using DNA. That doesn't make arbitrary points on the gradient valid lines of division.

>>9899649
>ctrl-f subspecies
>0 results found
Dance, puppet.

>>9899644
You haven't "won", you've done the "god of the gaps" bit over and over and asserted things which are patently false. I work in structural biology and we source tissue from different subspecies all the time to observe differences in macromolecular structures between them. As an example, if one is working on the structure of calcium channels in the heart, one can source hearts from different subspecies of rabbit until a subspecies is found which produces consistently higher densities of that channel.

>>9899651
What do you think the genetic distance between white Americans and white Canadians is? Is it more or less than white Canadians and Black Americans?

>>9899658
If your counter argument is "ur full of shit!!!" then you don't have a counter argument, and I feel sufficiently confident in calling that a victory.

>>9899653
Nigger, fuck off. You haven't substantiated anything you've claimed, and you personally being a tactical nihilist when it comes to subspecial classifications and denying the internal conversation around species within biology brings nothing to the table. Go kill yourself.

>>9899651
>There are predictable genetic differences between Americans in Dixie, New England, and the West Coast.


I'ma call Bullshit there. Populations across the US are more mobile now than previously, but have always been sufficiently mobile to prevent that from happening.

>>9899665
You haven't argued anything! You grabbed your nose and said "na uh!" and claimed that as your sole argument.

>>9899663
It'll change based on how you define white. White Canadians are going to have large amounts of French and English sourced genes. White Americans are going to have interbred with continental Natives and also have large amounts of Irish and German genes.

>>9899666
Lol, chill out. I asked for a citation on them being different subspecies and you've failed to provide any. No reason to go flipping out over it like some kind of braindead /pol/tard.

>>9899675
Great, it depends on how people think about words. Different people think of different things with the same words, thus nothing can be known. That's your argument. Get the fuck out of here you fucking charlatan.

>>9899667
You don't agree that the average hick is going to have a significantly lower IQ than the average affluent Silicon Valley white guy?

>>9899678
That nature article literally calls them different species despite them being capable of producing fertile offspring with each other. Your idea of a "fine line" for species is totally unsupported you dumb nigger.

>>9899682
>Areas with specific industries select for different people than areas with nonspecific industries

No shit.

>>9898449
Are abbos human?

>>9899679
I gave you what the differences would be with my definition of what "White" is, but some people think the Irish aren't white. You completely ignored it and started trying to delve into a semantic argument, then flipped out. You need to take a chill pill, broseph.

>>9899684
Definitions aren't fine lines, but if you use the biological species concept, as many scientists do, you'll find that species are fine lines, and that they're actually the same species, as many biologists have concluded from these findings.

>>9899693
Some environmental pressures are man made. What is your issue with my argument?

>>9899200
Science proves white nationalists and race realists correct.

>>I'm from /pol/ and an advocate of white nationalism,
>Shocking
Yeah seems he's informed.

>>9898555
Racism is proven by science.

>>9899292
>But "race" as a term isn't biological. Really, racists co-opted biology, or attempted to, along with other sciences (many dead ends like skull shape analysis), to explain to themselves why they were being so fucking mean to niggers.
How was any of that "dead end" or false?

>>9899701
Wrong.

POLTARD IMMIGRANTS OF SCI:
If science proves you right, why is the scientific consensus against your idea?

>>9899700
That your argument is purposely baseless. If you go to a region where intelligent people are agrigated via industry or academia, you are likely to find intelligent people. If you go to an agricultural region in Canada and an agricultural region in America, you will find very little genetic distance between the white population there. Also, get the fuck out of here with this "Irish aren't white" bullshit. Nobody takes that seriously, and the logical implication of it is that other populations will be absorbed into the idea of white. Will Somalis or Bantus ever be considered white? Will Laurence Fishburne EVER be considered white?

>>9899405
It's blacks vs nonblacks. Everyone hates niggers.

>>9899711
There is no such thing as "scientific consensus", and there is significant scientific data to support race realism.

>>9899423
He's right.

>>9899711
>why is the scientific consensus against your idea?
It's not. Thats the whole point.

>>9899706
You are.

>>9899711
we're all pol here. /sci/ is pol + science.

>>9899712
You're intentionally misrepresenting what I said again. I just said that some people think the Irish aren't white. I didn't say I did. Clearly I do think they're white, since I used them as an example of variation within white populations.

You will find a lot of Irish and German white Americans in the US. You will find a lot of French and English Canadians in Canada.

Yes, the genetic difference between populations is very small. The fixation index of humans as a whole is incredibly small. Less than that of dog breeds.

>>9899427
>
Those people gave them civilization twice.

>>9899726
Top kek. There is no board that hates /pol/ as much as /sci/. We're more libtard here than /lit/. Nice job showing your newfaggotry.

>>9899723
>It's not. Thats the whole point.
So most scientists will agree with you?

>>9899727
Literally not true. It's posted above in this thread as well. The difference between Europeans and Africans is almost identical to the difference between grey wolves and labradors.

>>9899734
Forensic anthropologists and evolutionary biologists often seem to.

>>9899738
No, literally very true.The fixation index of Chinese and Italians is 0.09.
For Central and Western Chimps, it's 0.29. For people within Europe, it's almost 0.

>>9899748
The chart you've posted shows a genetic distance betwen the Yoruba and Spain (on of those countries some consider non-White) of .1460. the distance between grey wolves and labradors is .153

>>9899753
Can you link the post or the citation within it? I've got a sneaky suspicion that it's talking about the Labrador Wolf, not the Labrador Retriever.

>>9899765
I was incorrect, it's the genetic distance between the North American Grey Wolf and the Coyote.

https://www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/publication/red-wolf-genetics-research-von-holdt.pdf

>>9898955 shows the chart displaying the distance between the NAGW and the North American Coyote, >>9898960 shows the difference between different breeds of dogs and the genetic distance between them. Many differing dog breeds are closer together than different populations of humans.

>>98997820
Yes, some similar breeds have less difference than some specific races, but in general, human populations have smaller fixation indices is smaller than that of dog breeds.

Pic related, coyote and grey wolf. This is the approximate fixation index of Yorubians and Spaniards in a non-human species.
Keep in mind, these animals are on the same continent.

>>9899795
why the fixation on dog breeds? extreme artificial selection makes dog breeds the worst possible model, barring maybe fancy pigeons

>>9899806
Dog breeds are actually a great model. They're also a social construct, also created by humans, and also would become indistinguishable if they were not artificially barred from interbreeding. They also all exist within the same subspecies, just like Humans.

>>9899795
What are their differences in behavior? In hunting strategy? In mating strategy? In temperament upon human confrontation? In child rearing? By purposely juxtaposing two pictures which seem similar, you are implying these visible phenotypical differences (primarily in coat color and composition) bely smaller differences in behavior and function. There are however massive differences that underly this small deviation in physical appearance, like the ones listed above. The point of comparison to dog breeds are to show that small fixation distances can create massive functional differences, as is the case with human beings. A fixation difference of .15 as is the case between Yaruba Nigerians and Japanese, produces massive differences in average mating selection strategy, child rearing, time preference, abstract reasoning, and social organization. Are these differences not worthy of consideration, and why are they not?

>>9899810
Nobody is saying that if we homogenized the world population, we wouldn't get similarities. The argument is as it stands there is heterogeneity, and out of those divergences came different cultures and fundamentally different approaches to social organization. What purpose would we have for homogenization of peoples? What end would be achieved by artificially mixing people together?

>>9899815
Dog breeds don't behave significantly differently. Some have better average performance in some area, but in general, they're all stupid shits who are mostly useless and demand constant attention.

They're worthy of consideration, so long as you concede that these differences exist on a natural gradient and not some fine set of dividing lines.

>>9899821
No, the argument as it stands is that you can draw clear dividing lines between races based on visual phenotypes, which isn't the case.

>>9899827
Africans can literally identify like 30 different African ethnicities. It's arbitrary as fuck and just what you're used to.

>>9899829
I completely agree.
Sure, skin tanness correlates with IQ which correlates with financial success on average, but we can test for IQ and get a result, so why make skin color an additional middle man for judgement based on correlation?

>>9899823
Guy, literally nobody is saying that it's not a gradient. We are saying that race is a useful model for interacting with the vast majority of the world which is not racially ambiguous. Han Chinese are less racially ambiguous than Khazak Chinese, but Khazak Chinese are a minority within a border region. There are very obvious differences between French and Algerians ethnically and those differences create predictable results, and confusion about definitions surrounding Georgians/Armernians do not negate the visible and predictable differences between French and Algerians. No one is saying there isn't nuance, what were saying is that the bulk of people are less nuanced than the conversation leads people to believe. Even within post-WW2 "melting pot" America, most White Americans who have done Ancestry examinations are 90+% ethnically European. The existence of racially ambiguous individuals like Barack Obama, doesn't mean we can't establish predictive criteria for analyzing the behavioral tendencies of non-racially ambiguous people (again the majority of people).

>>9899832
Because when you are talking about importing Africans by the million into France, aptitude tests would be a logistically impossible thing to implement, especially in comparison to easier metrics with high correlation with IQ.

>>9899833
Why use race as a model to predict behavior when culture-fair IQ is significantly better and only takes 30 minutes to test for?

>>9899835
>importing millions of people into a country who don't even know English who will then use social services is a possibility
>a simple psychological wellness check would be too hard
',:^)

>>9899836
One, many people who argue for racial integration don't believe in "culturally fair" IQ tests (generally as a post hoc rationalization of POC doing worse on them as a whole). Secondly, why even bother when we can just accept correlating factors which are easier to implement. Surely you don't suggest implementation of IQ tests to every single person who applies for immigration to the US/EU?

>>9899839
The importation generally comes from extra-governmental NGOs who do not bear the cost of their actions. The state is not paying to import these people, they are paying to house and feed them once they get here (which they shouldn't be).

>>9899846
Pretty sure migrants have lower rates of welfare across the board. And commit less crime.

>>9899846
Pretty sure immigrants have lower rates of welfare across the board. And commit less crime.

>>9899842
I think near the extreme ends, culture-fair IQ becomes less useful, but from the range of 80-120 IQ, it's pretty useful. You're not arguing with a tumblrtard. You're arguing with a /sci/ shitposter. The fact that some people who argue for racial integration don't agree with me doesn't affect my opinion on this.

The correlations are pretty weak. 1 SD average difference on a MASSIVE bell curve. There are plenty of black people with >100 IQs, and plenty of white people with <100 IQs.

Let's argue about the practicality though. That seems pretty interesting.
Why would a 36 question test be too hard to implement? You could give it to them while you're doing typical medical checks and administering vaccines.
You could even preface it with a short online version first just to filter out a lot of the stupid people up-front.

>>9899852
Source links are in the bottom of the image.

It's hard to tell for European countries because many EU countries explicitly bar taking racial statistics for crime and entitlement usage.

>>9899852
Depends if you're talking of Chang or Raj the masters student or Jose the wetback.

If you only look at legal immigrants I'd say you're probably right. If you include illegal immigrants too I'd say you're full of shit.

>>9899857
As far as practicality is concerned, it wouldn't be difficult to implement on legal immigrants. The issues come when one looks at the proportion of immigrants who are either illegal or claiming temporary protected status. There is also the issue of establishing a criteria of "acceptable" intelligence for immigrants in a way that is politically viable. Even though on the whole it would be globally damaging to take the majority of >120IQ Ethiopians from their society, I wouldn't have an issue with an immigration standard that accepted people based on intellectual aptitude rather than race directly. If there were provisions that required specific fields of employment, intelligence testing, and restrictions on entitlement usage for a significant period of time, I would have less of an issue. I also would go back to the standard of forcing immigrants to renounce foreign citizenship if they wish to vote/hold any office.

>>9899866
Typically, African immigrants aren't slipping across the border to the US unnoticed. Most black people are here because they were brought here.
If we give people an easier means of coming to the US, such as the hopes that they can just pass a test, don't you think they'll be more likely to try that route than to risk getting themselves hurt and taken back by running across the border?

>>9899823
>Dog breeds don't behave significantly differently. Some have better average performance in some area,
Same with humans.

>>9899873
I don't disagree. Some humans have better average performance in some area. To pretend that solid dividing lines exist between races based on who can run the fastest is a bit silly though. If you want to know who runs the fastest, the best way to measure that is to have people run, not just look at skin color and make a guess.

>>9899876
>. To pretend that solid dividing lines exist between races based on who can run the fastest is a bit silly though
Races can interbreed, there is no solid dividing line, and plenty of "mixed race" populations exist showing that race is a gradient (for instance, ethiopians).

Doesn't change the fact that the average IQ difference between white and black americans is 1SD, and if you take a random white person and a random black person, statistically the white person will be smarter.

>>9899858
Your statistics include illegal immigrants.

And lol @ white immigrants having a 35% welfare rate.

>>9899731
lol imagine being this retarded. go back to your containment site

>>9899880
Statistically the white person is likely to be smarter.*
But if two people take an IQ test, the person who scored higher on the IQ test is likely to score higher on the IQ test the second time too. So why use race as a middle man for IQ when we can just test IQ?

>>9899883
>feigning laughter so you don't look mad
Classic sign of autism.

>>9899741
Looks like you never spoke to one in your life.

You can tell from a skeleton if the person was tall or short. Guess now we have to divide humans into the short race and tall race, cool.

>>9899881
Many Hispanics/Arabs/Levantines list themselves as "white" as well and there isn't much way to control for that on government statistics.

>>9899885
>So why use race as a middle man for IQ when we can just test IQ?
What "usage" of race are we talking about? I wasn't talking about any usage of IQ tests, I was just stating facts.

>>9899892
Looks like "white" as a concept is pretty stupid.

>>9899894
It's outdated, it was created at a time when the only hispanic immigrants were criollos and the only "middle eastern" immigrants were jews, lebanese christians, or armenians.

>>9899893
Stupid people are stupid. You don't need race as part of the equation. Especially when there are sub-populations in Africa that outperform whites.

>>9899899
>Stupid people are stupid. You don't need race as part of the equation.
But on average some races are stupid as a whole. Again, need race as part of which equation? I don't even understand what you're trying to talk about. Immigration policy?

>Especially when there are sub-populations in Africa that outperform whites.
White south africans?

>>9899900
>But on average some races are stupid as a whole
That's not how averages or wholes work.
If you're stupid as a whole, that means every single one must be stupid. "Whole" means 100%.

>>9899889
>people laugh at me
>they must be autistic
whatever makes you feel better basedboy

>>9899899
Populations of Sub-saharan Africans that outperform whites? Perhaps in marathons/basketball, as far as in creation and promotion of civilization, I'm doubtful. Do you have a single example of one? You can point to individual Sub-saharan Africans but populations?

>>9899900
>Again, need race as part of which equation?
You're being disingenuous. If you're using a model, you're using that model to make predictions. If your model is not perfectly accurate and another one is, you use the better one to make predictions.

>>9899902
>That's not how averages or wholes work.
All right english is not my native language so I'm not going to try to argue with the meaning of "as a whole".

All I'm saying is that what you're saying (or what I'm understanding) is that it should be irrelevant to consider racial differences in average IQ since there are outliers in each group?

Well I disagree, I don't see how the fact that there are smart africans should make us "forget" the fact that africans are dumber on average. It remains an important thing to be aware of.

>>9899900
>White south africans?
No, Igbo Nigerians.

>>9899908
>You're being disingenuous
No I'm genuinely curious. You keep saying "so we shouldn't use race as a middle man" but you never said WHAT you were talking about using it for.

Predictions for what? I assume from context you mean immigration policy but I'm not sure.

>>9899914
>No, Igbo Nigerians.
I'm sorry but I'm gonna need some citation for that extraordinary claim.

>>9899121
>>9899306
>friendo
when the memes are real

>>9899919
http://www.unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/

>>9899601
This is accurate. What its serves to do is allow distinction for various outliers who have distinct morphological features and behavior.
See:
>>9898948
If you want to complete an entire subcategory to species that contains this, that really wouldn't change much aside from customs.
The fact of the matter is that it's useful for some scientists, and the discussion should end there.
People getting hung up on what this subcategory is called is the epitome of idiocracy.

>>9899935
Oh please, not chanda chisala again.

I want an actual peer reviewed IQ study of igbo nigerians (living in Nigeria) showing their average IQ to be greater than 100.

>>9899941
How about a peer reviewed study stating that our current concept of race is biologically valid.

>>9899952
What's the current concept of race? There's an entire field dedicated to race science, or as they say fancily "human population genetics".

>>9899731
You have no idea how much everyone here cringes when you say that
Science is apolitical, but fuck I'd rather talk with a /pol/lack than a reddit fag.

>>9899958
Our current concept of race: white, black, asian, amerindian.

Still waiting on a single study.

>>9899952
But nonetheless here is an interesting peer reviewed study showing that the way people categorize themselves racially according to traditional racial classifications is in accordance with human population genetics: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

> Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.

>>9898449
race are populations that have different genes among a certain species

/thread
>inb4 threading ur own post
Nah fuck you, /thread

>>9899586
wow, sounds a lot like the colloquial geographic races before mass transportation made it possible to intermingle. Really gets the noggin joggin

>>9899964
The current (scientific) current concept of race is based on human genetic clustering. Here is a PCA plot for various ethnicities, which clearly illustrate the existence of racial clusters.

>>9899970
No, but you see, that's racist :^)

>>9899619
>there's no such things as chairs, only ass tables
>RACISTS BTFO
this is literally you

>>9899965
Sorry, that depends on pre-defined racial groups. Nigerians and Ethipians will self-identity as African when given that as an option because they literally have no other choice.

>>9899975
Still waiting on that study. Link it. It had better say that race is biolocally based.

>>9899984
I don't think you understand the study. They compare the self identified group with actual genetic clusters.

The genetic clusters exist without any previous knowledge of socially constructed races. You just take the genomes of various individuals from various ethnicities, plot them together, and (surprise surprise) you find that there exists clusters of ethnicities (what we could call "races")

>>9899987
I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by "biologically based". You deny the existence of races? You deny that human tribes separated and evolved in different environments for thousands of years, causing a divergence in their phenotype?

If race is not biologically based, why is it that a swedish couple cannot give birth to a nigerian looking baby (and vice versa)?

At this point I think you're trolling.

>>9899992
>the self identified group
So are Germans identifying as Germans or as Europeans? Either way, saying that self-identification is typically accurate has nothing to do with race. You can divide it by country if you wanted and it would still be accurate and show genetic clustering.

>>9899995
>So are Germans identifying as Germans or as Europeans?
Did you even read the abstract of the study? I guess not. I guess even if I provide you with studies you'll just ignore them. It's right there:
>. Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic)

> Either way, saying that self-identification is typically accurate has nothing to do with race
How so? If it had nothing to do with race, you'd have a lot of false self-identifications.

>>9899711
>why is the scientific consensus against your idea?
Amongst who? Do you have the surveys saying they don't support us?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoUGlzqY9_I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTYzq42nB38

>>9899994
>existence of race
Sure, still waiting on the study that will say, "Therefore, race exists."

>>9899995
Do you have any actual argumentation strategy aside from semantics and tactical nihilism? Can you produce a singular set of data which would indicate otherwise?

>>9899999
Well, you could try "the origin of species" by Darwin. The fact that races exist is a consequence of the theory of evolution.

It's funny that leftists often mock right wingers for being creationists when they also indulge in creationism - for humans.

IQ of Nations

https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country

Heritability of IQ


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


Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study


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

The Existence of Race


http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/329/


Good Videos if your to lazy to read

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHB6PrpHAGI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P78Zd8265_k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVrw-IiGgLY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r7Tl0FYJ64

>>9899996
>How so? If it had nothing to do with race, you'd have a lot of false self-identifications.
Let's say you did it by country. The self-identifying Germans would consistently be... German! Let's say you did it by hair color. The blondes would consistently be actually blonde, and have the genes to confirm that too!

>>9900013
>The blondes would consistently be actually blonde, and have the genes to confirm that too!
Yes, it's almost like having blonde hair is a genetic trait. Just like race. Glad we can agree.

It's ironic that you're essentially agreeing with me by trying to be sarcastic.

>>9899999
Yeah, becuse its IMPOSIBLE that populations of Homo Sapiens have been seperated for thousands of years and thus developed fiferant charecteristics including Intelegance. right?

>>9900006
I'd much rather talk with a creationist.
At least they're consistent in this regard.

>>9900009
>Heritability of IQ
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
>Thus, even in developed nations, a high heritability of a trait does not necessarily mean that average group differences are due to genes.
>A common error is to assume that a heritability figure is necessarily unchangeable. The value of heritability can change if the impact of environment (or of genes) in the population is substantially altered.
>Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
I don't even have to go into this one, you clearly did read it.
>The Existence of Race
>http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/329/
>thealternativehypothesis
Ethno-statist that admits that race is a social construct.
>Good Videos if your to lazy to read
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHB6PrpHAGI
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P78Zd8265_k
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVrw-IiGgLY
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r7Tl0FYJ64
Nah

>>9900021
So race is literally "how you look". Glad we agree. Because like I've said, many population groups exist within continents. The European ethnicities can often be more genetically different from each other than some of them are to Asian ethnicities.

>>9900042
>So race is literally "how you look".
Physical characteristics is one (and the most obvious) ways races differ. But races also differ biologically and mentally.

> The European ethnicities can often be more genetically different from each other than some of them are to Asian ethnicities.
That's actually untrue. I don't know where you pulled that one from. European ethnicities all cluster together, see the PCA plot:>>9899975

European ethnicities cluster with other european ethnicities into a cluster which we would be able to call, in a world not ruined by political correctess, the "white" cluster.

>>9900029
>Thus, even in developed nations, a high heritability of a trait does not necessarily mean that average group differences are due to genes.
Literaly pointless statement, intelegance is mostly inhereted, END of the story
>I don't even have to go into this one, you clearly did read it.
Yes, yes i did, and its clear, that IQ is inhereted and has nothing to do with ''black culture'' or white ''culture'' its mostly about genes.
>Ethno-statist that admits that race is a social construct.
He never admited that race is a social construct.

Your bending your back just to deny the obvius, that evolution effects humans as well.

>>9900042
>European ethnicities can be more distant to each other than non-European ethnicities

Do you have an example of any Sub-Saharan African population which is closer to a European population, than the distance between any European populations?

I'm back from the funeral and it looks like the race biology denying /sci/entists are regressing in quality.

>>9900053
The french football team.

>>9900054
Race denyers are like left wing version of climate change denyers.

>>9900061
I wish this wasn't so true

>>9900060
The French football team are literally racially majority African. Only 7 of the 26 members of the team were not racially Sub-saharan African.

So, what you're telling me is you don't have a counter set of data to racial clustering matching highly with social perception of race? I figured that would be the case because it literally wouldn't make sense.

>>9900052
Oh man, you don't even know your own sources.

>Minnesota
>Loehlin (2000) reiterates the confounding problems of the study and notes that both genetic and environmental interpretations are possible. He further offers another possible explanation of the results, namely unequal prenatal factors

>TAH
>Some people say that race cannot be a valid biological concept because it is socially constructed. My response to this? Of course it is socially constructed. Like I’ve been saying this whole time, scientific categories are tools which we invent in order to predict and explain things.
That backpedaling and scrambling to save face is delicious. Can't even say it's biologically based with confidence.

>>9900083
I'm not the guy you were talking to, I was just memeing.

>>9900088
So Dog Breeds are social construct as well right?The only diferance between one dog breed and onother is in its atom placement, and we created dog breeds to mesure things, so they are socialy constructed like races right?

>>9900088
Do you actually have a counter set of data that would indicate biological categorizations of race are false? Until then, the best data we have are genome clustering data, heterozygosity examination, and heredity comparisons of racialized traits. All of which indicate that race is a function of evolutionary biology and population divergences due to isolation and differing selection pressures.

>>9900098
If you define it, you can categorize it. That applies to every single chatacteristic in existence.

>>9900096
Sorry, it's hard to tell "legitimate" race denial arguments from memeing, race denial arguments are literally that retarded.

>>9900088
>Of course it is socially constructed
>Can't even say it's biologically based with confidence
That doesn't mean what you think it means. Algebra is a social construct. An inch, the metric system, and tool for measurement is a social construct. This is a level of abstraction you probably aren't used to operating at. We can describe reality in a multitude of different ways, use different systems for measurements, view it from different points of conception, but the fundamental nature of reality DOESN'T change regardless. Just because we don't recognize the infinite distance between two points, doesn't mean it's not there.
Humans being defined as separate species, subspecies, or categorized as the same doesn't change the persistent characteristics and nature of the expression of those particular genes.

>>9900104
It aplies to everything, even fucking atoms are just colections of strings, in large quantities, so what do we now call Atom a social construct?

Stop bending your fucking back and just aknowlage existance of pathalogical diferances between populations of homo sapiens.

>>9900088
Again, the actual argument you are making is that definitions are arbitrary and non-objective thus nothing can be known. Literally you are resorting to nihilism as your argumentation strategy. Your position is not supported by any data and can just as easily be dismissed as it is articulated.

>>9900103
Science says that race is a social construct that only has a correlation with real genetic ancestry.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human

>>9900123
Get out of here you dumb nigger. I can't believe I actually wasted my time talking to you for you to only have nihilism and semantics as argumentation strategies.

>Hurr Science says race is a social construct even though I can't produce a single set of data that would indicate poor predictive capacity of race and socially understood racial characteristics. Here's a dictionary

Fucking kill yourself

>>9900123
I don't know if this is sarcastic or not

>>9900134
>>9900135
Educate ypurselves
https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1998.100.3.632
https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm200306193482521
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/

>>9900141
>Evoltuion is not real
The post

>>9900135
Let's be fair, he put up a fight. Now he's going in crisis meltdown mode.

>>9900141
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/
>https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1998.100.3.632
> Human "races" are below the thresholds used in other species, so valid traditional subspecies do not exist in humans.
Already demonstrated to be false here>>9899126
The rest of the abstract is literally saying speciation is impossible because clines exist. I can't even believe this is publis-
>Anthropology
>172 citations
oh
>https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm200306193482521
this has literally nothing to do with what we're talking about and doesn't support your argument at all (even if I tried to make your argument for you I have no idea why you linked that paragraph)
>http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
>it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups
The visible light spectrum is continuous so purple and green don't exist
>most physical variation, about 94%, lies within
google Lewontin's fallacy
>race is just an ancient racist ideology
lmao

>>9900171
Even though it's an impossible position to defend, I didn't expect them to be this retarded, but I suspect most of them are niggers, kek

>>9900175
>I didn't expect them to be this retarded, but I suspect most of them are niggers, kek
Yeah I'm pretty that one in particular was, since he claimed that Igbos were smarter than whites. He must be some kind of igbo nationalist.

>>9900180
>Igbos
Ah, the "jews of Africa"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Cyu9SD8Lk

>>9900180
>>9900182
The numbers are wrong?

>>9900188
>The numbers are wrong?
What numbers?

>>9900189

>>9900188
The GSCE data

>>9898455
>since our genetic variation is to minicule
wrong grammar/spelling and wrong setence, coming form a retard

>>9900189
The GSCE data

>>9898449
you coul'd picked a real blonde tho

>>9900141
Okay, lets look at the methods (where applicable) and assumptions used for each of these.
>Templeton 2008
The main method of "analysis" if one can even call it that is to look at the amount of genome level diversity, and the number of known genetic traits which can be identified as "racial". There are quite a few issues with this approach. Firstly, it relies on currently understood genetic traits, which are very few in comparison to the entire genome. The ultimate furthest distance between any two racial groups found was at 15.6% (between northern europeans and aboriginal australians if you are interested). It then compares this to genetic diversity among other large bodied mammals (none of which have the civilization mechanism of artificial selection which more rapidly homogenizes a population than "natural selection"). Even in this case they found that there are large bodied mammals who have further distance of currently recognized subspecies (In this study two distinct populations of water buffalo and two distinct populations of african buffalo). Their conclusion from this is that because there is less genetic diversity between existing human populations undergoing artificial selection than other recognized subspecies, that subspecial classification in humans is false. Their argumentation doesn't actually follow and this specific paper has been challenged. Nicholas Wade in his book A Troublesome Inheritance specifically discusses this argument and line of thinking as well as provides examples of distinct subspecies with less average genetic distance than humans.
>Biological Race in Humans, Also Templeton 2013
In this he retreads his 2008 article quite a lot. The main basis of his argument is that because there is not a clearly delineated definition of race, that race as a concept cannot be understood scientifically. This is an epistemological argument, and not a scientific one.

>>9900198
>>9900201
Drop a link to the GCSE data so I can take a look at it please

>>9900141
>http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
Okay, so this is a statement that was made by an executive review board in 1998, (before genome sequencing and clustering was really a thing), and it says directly in the disclaimer that "It does not reflect a consensus of all members of the AAA, as individuals vary in their approaches to the study of "race." Their major tenets which they believe disprove the concept of race are the idea that any person can learn any cultural mode of living (which doesn't at all address the likelihood of success or failure within those cultural modes, and their correlation with racial differences), and that race primarily existed previously as a social convention. Neither of these concepts are scientific claims, and neither one is an effective repudiation of data showing racial cluster divergences and the predictive capacity of racial modeling.

>>9900201
Is this an accurate description of the GCSE?
start at 6:14
https://youtu.be/UA0XGVjQtQM?t=6m14s

>>9899916
You claimed it was a model. All models are used to make predictions.
Predictions about what? About IQ.
In your cause, predictions that lead to eugenics or immigration policy.

>>9899963
/pol/ is inherently anti-science. You're showing yourself to be a newfag. Cut it out, newfag.

>>9900254
In what way is /pol/ anti-science? They are largely anti-"scientism" as a branch of liberalism, but anti-science as a whole I'm not so sure.

>>9899002
Pseudo science influenced by alt right politics

>>9900254
So is reddit.
The difference is pollacks actually cite their sources, while reddit fags will ban you and call you names as if that does anything other than further radicalize the other side.

>>9900264
The alt right wasn't a thing when those studies were being done.
Must be nice to have the brain of a goldfish though.

>>9900264
>Anything that i don't like is a pseudo science
Yeah, calling something a ''pseudo science'' is an average talking point of sub intelectual, like you.

>>9900253
Predictions about behavioral patterns which will effect the success of social/political policies. If you create a policy which requires low time preference and high IQ to succeed, and then apply it to a population of nearly entirely sub-saharan africans, you will see the policy failing by and large. If you make a policy which will only succeed in the case of a population tending towards high time preference and spontaneity, and then apply it to a population of Europeans or East Asians, you will see that policy either fail or be replaced fairly quickly.

>>9900253
>We must not discuss truth because it may hurt muh brown people
Imagine if we aplied the same retarded thinking to climate change, because some people may lose their jobes, we must be silant about man made climate change.

>>9900264
Just curious, which side of this argument has provided the most data and sourcing in your view? As far as substantiation of race denial, I've seen 3 articles and one editorial comment, two of those articles by the same person separated by a 5 year period and sharing most of their methodology and theoretical definitions.

>>9900254
>/pol/ is inherently anti-science
why don't you go back and read the thread faggot. I think it's clear who came out on top today.

>>9900292
Honesly, rockwell made more sence than Hitler ever did, Hitler never explained things, and worked more on emotions, while rockwell was very logical.

>>9900292
>Race is real
Said no study posted so far

>>9900298
This is the lowest possible IQ take in the entire thread, I'm not even being hyperbolic.
>>9900297
What could've been

>>9900302
Show it to me

>>9900304
Even though this is a pointless and idiotic standard, you're still wrong and it's been met
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19695787

>>9900298
>Race is not real
Said the person who ignores all evidence pointing towards genetic origins of racial trait differences posted, and uses epistemological nihilism about the definition of race, and the use of incorrect definitions of race in the past, to defend their position.

>People were wrong before about race thus people now cannot possibly be right hurr durr
>Race as a word means different things to different people, thus no scientific definition can be made hurr durr

>>9900298
its shocking there are people this fucking dumb

>>9900264
>alt right
literally doesn't exist. Meme ideology made up by the shill Richard Spencer

>>9900321
Come on guy, seriously? The alt-right as a loose group of ideas exists. What else would you describe guys like TRS, Arktos, Counter-Currents, Altright.com etc. as if not for that?

Remember that time three or four /pol/acks decided to stick around in a b8 thread on /sci/ and BTFO everybody on their own board?

>>9900328
Hey man, when I made this thread it wasn't intended as bait. Some guy on /mu/ told me /sci/ would btfo me after I showed he had no idea what he was talking about when it came to race.

>>9900331
>Some guy on /mu/ told me /sci/ would btfo me after I showed he had no idea what he was talking about when it came to race.
I'm glad I ended up here today, it was fun

>>9900328
>when /pol/tards get utterly decimated and are so buttblasted that they try to pretend they won to soothe their anger
baka lol
>>9900285
Nobody said that. You use models to make predictions. If another model is more accurate, you use that one. Face it. IQ is a superior model and race is the old and deprecated one. You've lost.
>>9900281
One generation of IQ based eugenics and even the dumbest population on the planet can be smart.
>>9900270
/pol/tards site unrelated sources, making them worse than ledditors. I'd rather see my opponent has no source and isn't lying about it than click a source and see the word "subspecies" is mentioned zero times.

>>9900277
>>9900278
>>9900286
>>9900321
alt right fragility

>>9900327
controlled opposition

>>9900360
>spends last two years in the streets screaming and crying about Drumpf
>"fragile alt-right"

>>9900328
The libshits called, us stupid, and retarded for years, they acted like Science is on their side, now they say no such thing they are scared shitless because they know that Science is on our side, if Science is than nothing can stop us, they will feel the full wrath of logic and reson.

>>9900358
>poltards
>pretending they've won
That's actually basically every entitled american ever. left wing right wight or otherwise

>>9900360
I hope you didn't expect /pol/tards to be emotionally mature. I mean, just look at these assblasted responses to a blatant shitposter:
>>9899590
>>9899630
>>9899672
>>9899666
>>9899679
>>9899693
>>9899684

>>9900364
>still thinking in terms of my side and their side
How's that independent thinking thing going?
Surely you're not a victim to groupthink and right wing virtue signaling?

>>9900358
>Face it. IQ is a superior model and race is the old and deprecated one
Race is real, and IQ is real, what is your point?

If you would have an ability to chose in which country you would live in, mayority black or mayority white?

Lets look at americas (new world) why are white countries rich when compeared to non white ones?

>>9900368
>Individualism as virtue in 2018
Surely you jest. Go wash your penis somewhere else Jordan Peterson

>>9900368
>How's that independent thinking thing going?
>he said to the guy who adheres to the most unpopular ideology in the world

>>9900364
>the libshits called, us stupid
[Gruns and drools]
libshit call on fone
they want tu know about muh opinyun
[Slurps drool back into his gaping maw]
i tell him go away
us stupid

>>9900368
>muh induviualism
Sorry to disapoint you but humans naturaly asign themselves to groups, its called ''group survival mechanism'' blue birds fly with blue birds, red birfds fly with red birds, there is a reson why multicutlral states have NEVER worked in human history

>>9900370
Race doesn't exist outside of the mind. You can't pick up and hold a concept like race.

>>9900376
351 posts and still no counter to any of the presented evidence.
>/pOl\ b dum

>>9900380
How many strings does atom need to be considered atom?

>>9900380
>Consent doesn't exist outside of the mind. You can't pick up and hold a concept like language

>>9900366
>Hey guys, I was just pretending to be retarded, why did you call me a retard when I was just pretending?

>>9900382
Except all your pretty pictures get btfo by this one meme.

>>9900386
I don't disagree with either of those ideas. They're both functionally useful ideas though. Race isn't because we have better models. The moment your model is not the best model, it gets tossed out. Welcome to science. I know it hurts. You'll get used to it.

>>9900392
No one says human subspecies (which we call races) are seperate species, Races are just subspecies of homo-sapiens.

>>9900392

>>9900392
>if I make your arguments for you I can win

>>9900387
I wasn't pretending. I was making low-effort counter arguments which completely btfo'd /pol/tards because they weren't intelligent enough to bring up actual counter-arguments and instead just yelled emotional shit at me, kek. Could they have brought up things like asexually reproductive species and gave me a much harder argument to win? Yes, but they weren't smart enough to think of that.

>>9900395
>Race isn't because we have better models. The moment your model is not the best model, it gets tossed out.
What a naive view you have, maybe you'll experience the politics of the peer review process one day.

>>9900400
>Could they have brought up things like asexually reproductive species

>>9900400

Can any /pol/faggot actually explain what "genetic distance" even means? Are you now trying to say that genes are linked with distances on a fucking landmass?

>>9900400
Stop emberasing yourself, you know your wrong, and in this thread Science won the day, you posted few sources while race realists have given you ton of evidance, you lost, get over it, evolution is real.

EDUCATE YOURSELF!

>>9900396
>races are subspecies
HAHAHAHA
Humans have subspecies. All modern humans fall under the same one. Homo sapiens sapiens (that's two sapiens). All the other ones, like neanderthal, have gone extinct. Give me one paper where races are seriously considered seperate subspecies and I'll post nudes of my 7 inch colossal caucasian dick.

>>9900414
>evidance
Sorry, but you've been thoroughly btfo. Superglue your butthole shut for me, will ya?

>>9900415
I'm pretty sure abos are older than the divide of homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens.

>>9900414
What's with the cringy Serbians who can't speak fucking English trying to debate on the internet?

>>9900413
>genetic distance
In a sence how much genes you do or do not share with other organism.

>a thread full of data and sources
>just isn't enough for the big brains here

How skeptical and wise this board is!

(2001) Thompson et al., conclude in their own words that, "A genetic continuum was detected in which brain structure was increasingly similar in subjects with increasing genetic affinity. Genetic factors significantly influenced cortical structure in Broca's and Wernicke's language areas, as well as frontal brain regions," and, "Preliminary correlations were performed suggesting that frontal gray matter differences may be linked to Spearman's g, which measures successful test performance across multiple cognitive domains (p < 0.05). These genetic brain maps reveal how genes determine individual differences, and may shed light on the heritability of cognitive and linguistic skills, as well as genetic liability for diseases that affect the human cortex."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11694885

This further suggests that brain structure, size, and cognitive performance are all heritable and genetic.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3079384/

(2011) Joshi et al., study twins to conclude that there is a highly significant genetic contribution to cortical thickness and volume. This is believed to have a significant effect on the neurotubule number and density in individuals and thus a highly significant effect on IQ.

In their own words, "The results showed detailed pointwise genetic and environmental contributions on the whole cortex. Several areas in the parietal and frontal lobes were observed to be genetically influenced."

The environmental factors are believed to be heavily genetically influenced due to how genetics define interaction and determine developmental reactions in the brain.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22713927

>>9900413
>Are you now trying to say that genes are linked with distances on a fucking landmass?
On (((icebergs))) to be exact

>>9900419
I'm pretty sure you being pretty sure about something isn't going to get me to waste time arguing about it.

>>9900415
you could try reading the thread faggot

>>9900426
Or I could not waste my time and continue to btfo you.

(2012) Rushton concludes that there has been no narrowing in the mean Black-White IQ difference predicted by heritable g.

Rushton also invalidates research by Nisbett, Dickens, and Flynn that show black gains in IQ by evaluating their lack of data and use of specious arguments. He shows that the little data they had to prove these points obscured the topic by invoking alleged age and social class interactions and adoption studies of very young children. Their data was based on ideas, not observations. In his own words on the twin studies cited: "There is no evidence of any special cultural influence, such as extreme deprivation or being raised as a visible minority, that operates in one group and not in others."

He shows using a meta-analysis that there has been no reduction in the mean racial differences between Blacks and Whites and that all claims of, "systemic issues," are spurious and unsupported by factual evidence. The credence given to researchers saying that society is to blame for the failures of adopted Blacks comes from a cursory glance at a specious statement - they have no evidence.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000917

>>9900428
see>>9899126

>>9900424
Lmao

>>9900415
The point is that there are pathalogical diferances between populations of homo sapiens which are resoult of isolation of those populations in deferant enviroments, you can call them subspecies, races or like dogs ''breds'' the point is the same.

>>9900432
What does that have to do with what I said though?

>>9900420
>your grammar is bad so anything you say is untrue
Pic related is you

>>9900438
>show me a paper that deals with subspeciation in humanity!
>why are you showing me this!?
this board is fucking reddit cancer

(2006) Templer & Arikawa analyze populations by temperature, skin color, per capita income, and IQ and find stark correlations between all of them.

They were able to accurately predict individual IQ by skin color (0,92), mean high Winter temperature of their race (0,76), mean low Winter temperature of their race (0,66), and per capita income (0,63). These findings provide strong support for the idea that colder climates caused selection for higher IQs over an evolutionary epoch.

This helps to explain why groups from hotter climates like those found in Africa are less intelligent and thus earn lower incomes.

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/babies-prefer-individuals-who-harm-those-that-arent-like-them.html

(2013) Karen Wynn shows that infants as young as nine months old prefer individuals who are nice to people of their race and dislike people mean to their race. In addition to this they also like people that are mean to others races and dislike people that are nice to other races.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/309/5741/1720

(2005) Mekel-Bobrov et al., conclude that the gene ASPM is a specific regulator of brain size, and its evolution in the lineage leading to Homo sapiens was driven by strong positive selection. They show that one genetic variant of ASPM in humans arose merely about 5.800 years ago in Eurasia and has since swept to high frequency across Eurasia under strong positivel selection.

The gene is almost non-existent in Sub-Saharan Africa.
https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0019793890&origin=inward&txGid=0

>>9900437
>resoult
>deferant
The populations aren't isolated though.

>>9900447
>The populations aren't isolated though.
Because Australian aboriginals and native Americans where making offspring with each other a lot am i right?

>>9900450
Dude, seriously, proofread your posts. I'm on your side in this one and you are making yourself look inarticulate.

>>9900450
So what you're saying is there are two races: abbos and the other people who all interbreed frequently? All Americans are the same race because they interbreed?

>>9900456
No, races almost never interbred before, only recently, most of them didn't even know, about existence of others, they where isolated, for the most part.

>>9900456
Here's a nice big list of hybrids between two different species of mammals, knock yourself out.
http://messybeast.com/genetics/hybrid-cats.htm

What a tedious chore this always ends up becoming

>>9900461
You're very unstable. Come back and debate me once your opinions are more solid.
>>9900469
Looks like they're all infertile. Guess I'm right and you're wrong. Dance, puppet.

>>9900474
>Dance, puppet
Oh you're the retard from earlier. Google introgression big guy, if you can manage it.

>>9900308
>morphological diversity
Wow it's fucking nothing

/pol/tard high schoolers have been so expertly btfo'd in this thread by /sci/ that they may as well just quit posting forever.
Summer is almost over, brainlets. Go play outside.

>>9900478
I N F E R T I L E
You're on my strings and I'm making you say stupid shit.

Woah....it's almost....almost like you have no clue what you're talking about

>Species can be defined as populations that are diagnosably distinct, reproductively isolated, cohesive, or exclusive groups of organisms. Boundaries between species in sympatry are maintained by intrinsic barriers to gene exchange; these boundaries may not be uniform in space, in time, or across the genome. Here, we explore the nature of the species boundary, defined as the phenotypes/genes/genome regions that remain differentiated in the face of potential hybridization and introgression. We emphasize that species boundaries are semipermeable, with permeability (gene exchange) being a function of genome region. The early evidence for semipermeable species boundaries came from data on differential introgression in hybrid zones. This “genic view” of species was common in the hybrid zone literature even when few molecular markers were available to characterize genome-wide patterns of variation. Now, molecular tools allow detailed characterization of differentiation between diverging lineages and patterns of variation across natural hybrid zones, but the questions being asked by evolutionary biologists have remained much the same. Recent data (from DNA sequences and genotypes) reinforce earlier conclusions about the semipermeable nature of most species boundaries. However, debate persists over the nature and extent of genome divergence that accompanies speciation.
https://academic.oup.com/jhered/article/105/S1/795/2961884

What sort of brown are you, you seem really emotionally invested in getting thrashed by all of us, kek

>>9900479
>>9900487
4 U>>9900488

>>9900474
>You're very unstable. Come back and debate me once your opinions are more solid.
Said a guy who denyes evolution

>>9900479
I've learned from this thread that debating the actual issues with /pol/tards doesn't matter, because no matter how much better your arguments are, they'll just shift the goalpost, lie, and site studies they haven't read that have nothing to do with their point.
It's far more effective to just make fun of them until they're all riled up and then degrade them until they can't take it anymore and are forced to spend all day thinking about their opinion on their own.

>>9898555
racism is ok