no pol itt

[Anonymous No.8432236]

best books for/against racism

politics not allowed

want : intelligent arguments from fields of metaethics, psychology, neurosciences, no-homo-sociology
do not want: pathos, political rhetoric of any kind, blind acceptance of current year yolo values

kant and socratos were racist against niggers despite strong nigger cultures at the time.

(antisemitism not interesting too much memetic influence imo)

I want the truth!

[Anonymous No.8432254]

just read herrnstein & murray and decide for yourself

[Anonymous No.8432275]

>>8432254
ok

[Anonymous No.8432279]

>>8432236

[Anonymous No.8432597]

bump

[Anonymous No.8432672]

>>8432279

So very many holes in that chart

[Anonymous No.8432707]

>>8432672
Yes?

[Anonymous No.8432758]

>>8432707

Yes, like what kind of testing went into it; how skewed was it by cultural factors such as access to education, use of culturally-specific language or examples, etc.; who exactly is that agency in the first place and why have I never heard of it otherwise; what are the demographics of those surveyed; what was the sample size; by what criteria exactly were people grouped as Black or White; the age of the survey; ...

[Anonymous No.8432776]

>>8432758
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

[Anonymous No.8432780]

>>8432279
Oh gee, I wonder how

[Anonymous No.8432788]

>>8432776
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

That's a completely different study of course. It looks like a more compelling study than whatever went into >>8432279, and it makes exactly the opposite conclusion:
>One of the studies' findings was the IQs of adopted black children reared by white families did not differ significantly from that of black children raised by their biological parents

[Anonymous No.8432796]

>>8432788
That study was skewed by the preconceptions of the authors subtly seeping into and biasing the methodology.

[Anonymous No.8432819]

>>8432796

Plenty of that to be had on either side of so many issues and so-called 'scientific' studies

[Anonymous No.8432877]

>>8432788
it says blacks are dumb regardless of the environment

[Anonymous No.8433029]

[Anonymous No.8433169]

>>8432758
>by what criteria exactly were people grouped as Black or White
Are you by any chance a retard?

[Anonymous No.8433182]

>>8432776
SAVAGE
A
V
A
G
E

[Anonymous No.8433212]

>>8433029
i don't understand this chart

[Anonymous No.8433241]

>>8433169

Here's something to get you maybe caught up to the 20th century
The child in the image here is the child of the adults in the image
This happens all the time; has happened for centuries through every imaginable combination
The child in the image is properly speaking neither Black nor White
He's the President of the United States by the way

[Anonymous No.8433258]

>>8433212
It means that the idea of race is a shibboleth but some people need simple no-fuss idea to make the world around them as simple as they are. Also known as "spooks".

[Anonymous No.8433261]

>>8433241
when 70% of blacks are intellectually inferior, we perceive the rest as also intellectually inferior. It's evolution.

[Anonymous No.8433271]

>>8433258
no one mentioned anything about any race being pure, it's irrelevant

[Anonymous No.8433272]

>>8433261
Literally kill yourself. By reading books. /pol/ isn't lit.

This is where you cry about my /pol/ boogeyman and giggle about your shitposting and how you baited /lit/.

[Anonymous No.8433276]

>>8433212
Each of the boxes represent nationalities. Each color represents a different geographic genetic marker.

The point, and very relevant to OP, is that there is no concensus definition of race. What is considered black in the United States would be thought of differently in various African countries, and even though everyone in Africa could be labeled as white or black using genetics, it is often culturally irrelevant to do so. You can divide the world's people up in dozens of different ways, many of them rigorous, but all of them arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.8433278]

>>8433272
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic_(computer_science)

[Anonymous No.8433290]

>>8433271
>it's irrelevant
If DNA groups are the standard by which we can determine what races there are, the fact that what we call races doesn't fit into these groups is entirely relevant.

[Anonymous No.8433315]

>>8433290
A disregard of race= disregard of 'white', 'black', etc
That is not the case. Even if no race is pure, it doesn't make blacks identical to whites

[Anonymous No.8433338]

Discussing race is a classic example of how human intuition breaks down in the face of sufficiently abstract problems.
Systematically categorizing billions of people is an extraordinarily complex and nuanced issue.
Thousands of years of immigration and cosmopolitan culture have obliterated any sense of a continuum, and the average person greets with disbelief the notion that there are people halfway between them and their neighbor of another race. The only gaps are a result of, geologically speaking, short periods of seperation.

[Anonymous No.8433397]

>>8433338
English pls

[Anonymous No.8433414]

>>8433397
he's saying the same thing the chart says using big words.

[Anonymous No.8433433]

>>8433315
>it doesn't make blacks identical to whites
Not that same anon, but that's an irrelevant point- obviously nobody's identical to anyone else. What it does is question whether 'blacks' and 'whites' are useful categories of analysis.

[Anonymous No.8433446]

>>8433433
yeah well explain the stats and studies faggot
blacks are blacks even if you give them another name like 30% asian 10% white 60% black

[Anonymous No.8433463]

>>8433029
Wow, what's the deal with the ones that are almost/entirely a solid block? Are they cultures which have actually successfully imposed a no-sex-with-furriners rule?

[Anonymous No.8433465]

>>8433446
>the stats and studies
?

[Anonymous No.8433484]

>>8433433
>What it does is question whether 'blacks' and 'whites' are useful categories of analysis.
My friend it's time to take the red pill cause you are making me criiiiiiiiiinge like oh my god

[Anonymous No.8433488]

>>8433465
what the fuck do we mean when we say blacks and whites? obviously there are blacks and there are whites etc. them not being pure is not relevant

[Anonymous No.8433490]

>>8433484
Die Negers von Afrika haben von der Natur kein Gefühl, welches über das Läppische stiege. Herr Hume fordert jedermann auf, ein einziges Beispiel anzuführen, da ein Neger Talente gewiesen habe, und behauptet: daß unter den hunderttausenden von Schwarzen, die aus ihren Ländern anderwärts verführt werden, dennoch nicht ein einziger jemals gefunden worden, der entweder in Kunst oder Wissenschaft, oder irgend einer andern rühmlichen Eigenschaft etwas Großes vorgestellt habe, obgleich unter den Weißen sich beständig welche aus dem niedrigsten Pöbel empor schwingen und durch vorzügliche Gaben in der Welt ein Ansehen erwerben. So wesentlich ist der Unterschied zwischen diesen zwei Menschengeschlechtern, und er scheint eben so groß in Ansehung der Gemüthsfähigkeiten, als der Farbe nach zu sein. Die unter ihnen weit ausgebreitete Religion der Fetische ist vielleicht eine Art von Götzendienst, welcher so tief ins Läppische sinkt, als es nur immer von der menschlichen Natur möglich zu sein scheint. Eine Vogelfeder, ein Kuhhorn, eine Muschel, oder jede andere gemeine Sache, so bald sie durch einige Worte eingeweiht worden, ist ein Gegenstand der Verehrung und der Anrufung in Eidschwüren. Die Schwarzen sind sehr eitel, aber auf Negerart und so plauderhaft, daß sie mit Prügeln auseinander gejagt werden müssen.

[Anonymous No.8433510]

>>8433488
>obviously there are blacks and there are whites etc
See
>>8433029

[Anonymous No.8433527]

>>8433510
EXPLAIN BLACK PEOPLE

[Anonymous No.8433529]

«Leurs yeux ronds, leur nez épaté, leurs lèvres toujours grosses, leurs oreilles différemment figurées, la laine de leur tête, la mesure même de leur intelligence, mettent entre eux et les autres espèces d’hommes des d i f f é r e n c e s prodigieuses »: Essai sur les moeurs, INTRODUCTION.[1]
(Their round eyes, their flattened nose, their lips which are always large, their differently shaped ears, the wool of their head, that very measure of their intelligence, place prodigious differences between them and the other species of men.)

«[Ε]t ils n’ont d’homme que la stature du corps, avec la faculté de la parole et de la pensée dans un degré très éloigné du nôtre. Tels sont ceux que j’ai vus et examinés»: Essai sur les moeurs, INTRODUCTION.[2]

(And they are not men, except in their stature, with the faculty of speech and thought at a degree far distant to ours. Such are the ones that I have seen and examined.)

«[Ε]t on peut dire que si leur intelligence n’est pas d’une autre espèce que notre entendement, elle est fort inférieure. Ils ne sont pas capables d’une grande attention; ils combinent peu, et ne paraissent faits ni pour les avantages ni pour les abus de notre philosophie»: Essai sur les moeurs, kεφ. CXLI.[3]

(And one could say that if their intelligence is not of another species than ours, then it is greatly inferior. They are not capable of paying much attention; they mingle very little, and they do not appear to be made either for the advantages or the abuses of our philosophy.)

And the best quote:

«C'est une grande question parmi eux s'ils son descendus des singes, ou si les singes sont venus d'eux. Nos sages ont dit que l'homme est l'image de Dieu: voilà une plaisante image de l'Etre éternel qu'un nez noir épaté, avec peu ou point d'intelligence! Un temps viendra, sans doute, où ces animaux sauront bien cultiver la terre, l'embellir par des maisons et par des jardins, et connaître la route des astres. Il faut du temps pour tout»: Lettres d’Amabed, Septième lettre. D'Amabed.[4]

(And it is a big question whether among them they are descendants of monkeys, or if monkeys come from them. Our wise men have said that man is the image of God: behold a pleasant image of the eternal Being with a flat black nose, with little or no intelligence! A time will come, without a doubt, when these animals will know how to cultivate the earth well, to embellish it with houses and gardens, and to know the routes of the stars. Time is a must, for everything.)

[Anonymous No.8433554]

>>8433529
>A time will come, without a doubt, when these animals will know how to cultivate the earth well, to embellish it with houses and gardens, and to know the routes of the stars
Heh. In the end even Voltaire didn't go full /pol/.

[Anonymous No.8433564]

>>8433527
See >>8433276

[Anonymous No.8433565]

This is THE authoritative text on race and intelligence. Irrefutable, it was composed by a Harvard-educated UC Berkeley educational psychology professor and still embarrasses posturing leftist dilettantes to this day. Jensen withstood histrionic progressive sanctimony for his entire career, continuously destroying facetious arguments propagated by cowards like Stephen Jay Gould and various offended laypeople with hot opinions.
http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

Jason Richwine, also Harvard-educated, is doing interesting research on how racial differences in intelligence influence society. Here's an article he wrote that explains why there are still popular myths promoted by the media and egalitarian pseuds like "the difference between black and white IQs isn't significant" or "IQ isn't reliable or taken seriously by academics" or "even there is an IQ gap, we shouldn't acknowledge it."
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/opinion-jason-richwine-095353

[Anonymous No.8433767]

>>8433258
It also means that, even though there mostly aren't any clean cut subdivisions, there ARE differences between populations.

[Anonymous No.8433826]

>>8433767
No, we muddied the waters enough to the point that it's impossible to make clean cut subdivisions, therefore race doesn't exist and all the statistics about race are invalid (except for the ones we like).

[Anonymous No.8434550]

>>8432236
I really enjoyed pic related!

If you are not yet willing to commit to reading one of his books I would recommend you check out his youtube account.

[Anonymous No.8434574]

>>8432236
bible

[Anonymous No.8434982]

>>8433565
>THE authoritative text
>Irrefutable
Nah, nothing in science is 'irrefutable' and these questions in particular aren't close to being settled. Interesting stuff, though. There's another summary article that comes to different conclusions here:

http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/nisbett2012int.pdf

Surprised this thread is still up. Does /sci/ still delete IQ threads on sight?

[Anonymous No.8435259]

>>8433529
>(And one could say that if their intelligence is not of another species than ours, then it is greatly inferior. They are not capable of paying much attention; they mingle very little, and they do not appear to be made either for the advantages or the abuses of our philosophy.)
Savage

[Anonymous No.8435579]

Le red skittle thread