/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12519403

go back to plebbit.

>>12519403
Lol what are you, a fucking undergrad?

>>12519403
IQ is not real.
Race is a social construct.
/thread

>>12519403
everything is fine until the last speech bubble, the links to those claims are tenuous at best.
>>12519411
>>12519408
kill selves

>>12519403
Issue 1), /pol/tard is acting like taxonomy, whether it be phylogenetic, or morphological is high fidelity, a one-to-one with reality, it isn't. Take for instance, the brown-polar bear hybrid, which occurs in the wild, and is fertile, or indeed the shared admixture between populations that would be "distinct" under a high fidelity system, where race is a one-to-one with reality. This leads me on to issue 2), rather it makes more sense to classify groups in accordance with ethnicity, and inter-group relatedness, take for instance, the relationship between the Gaels of Northern Ireland and the Gaels of Scotland. In this instance, it can be properly described as an "continuum of ethnicity", not strict races.

>>12519418
You're right Gaels exist on a continuum which logically must mean there's no difference between a Gael and a sub-Saharan African.

>>12519434
But they aren't in isolation, they are part of a larger system, within which gene flow occurs, and has always done. However, gene flow now occurs even more readily than in the past.

>>12519415
Colour is a social construct

>>12519415
All systems of categorization are social constructs, dumb dumb.

>>12519415
the concept of social construct is a social construct

>>12519403
based stealth racebait thread

>>12519403
Hint: This image (and pic related) are undebunkable, which is why every time it's posted on /soi/ basedboys will immediately jump to the 'muh genocide muh nazi' strawman

>>12519403
my take is that even if race were demonstrably a social construct, I would still hate niggers. Aesthetics alone are reason enough, let alone the rest of it. It's ok to not want to see hideous baboobs on a day to day basis.

>>12519573
There's almost nothing wrong with the actual FACTS presented in the images (hint: this doesn't include the editorialized section headers), it's the self-serving and braindead conclusions that you dumb fucks draw from them that are embarrassing.

>>12519585
This.

>>12519573
The facts are sound, but the conclusions aren't, see: >>12519585, >>12519418, >>12519451

>>12519580
I mean, at least your worldview is internally consistent. I just hope you don't actually externalize this hatred.

>>12519585
>>12519589
The only conclusion I'm drawing is that different races have different average intelligences, and that these genetic differences, and not socioeconomic factors, are the reason for the disparity in wealth between whites, blacks, and asians. Do you agree?

>>12519592
white-on-minority violence is virtually nonexistent compared to every other combination

>>12519596
No, because that's far too simplistic, as intelligence itself is a phenotypic trait, meaning it arises from the interaction of the genotype with the environment. Let alone someone as contextual as wealth, which obviously has a large sociocultural component.
You're overstating your facts.

>>12519603
>*something as contextual

>>12519603
Based and /thread

>>12519603
Do you agree that different races have different average intelligences? And if so, do you think there is any genetic component at all?

>>12519614
Can you not read? He already answered you

>>12519615
Not in the post I replied to, which is the only post I know he made because this is 4chan and not reddit

>>12519620
I did:
>No, because that's far too simplistic, as intelligence itself is a phenotypic trait, meaning it arises from the interaction of the genotype with the environment.
>... genotype with the environment.
>... genotype...
But it isn't the only factor to consider. So, what of it?

>>12519603
Come the fuck on dude. Deep down, do you really believe the average Aboriginal is as intelligent as the average Japanese man? Who are you trying to fool

>>12519623
That isn't what I said, you idiot. Seriously, learn to read.

>>12519621
If all races were on exactly equal socioeconomic terms, do you think there would still be a difference in average intelligence?

>>12519628
Define intelligence

>>12519635
the thing that comes up when you google "define:intelligence"

>>12519637
>the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
>>12519628
>do you think there would still be a difference in average intelligence?
No

>>12519628
1) That isn't the reality we live in. 2) As I've already said, socioeconomic factors are not solely caused by some biological determinism, go and look how messy the correlation between intelligence and wealth is. There is one, but it isn't as succinct as people would have you believe. 3) There are differences even within group, based upon the selection criteria, that applies to "racial groups" as well. The issue here is one of the classification, if you look broadly across the range, you'll find variation within the group of around 5 points, less than a standard deviation, which is around 11. For starters, when it comes to concrete data based upon racial, or ethnic classifications, rather than national classification, Lynn's data is really the only large scale study, and that is spurious data:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#Criticism_of_data_sets
My point here? It isn't as simple as you want it to be.

>>12519641
>No
Why?

>>12519635
Ability to solve complex problems, pattern recognition, self control
>>12519624
Nigga, I said here >>12519596 that different races have different population intelligences, and you disagreed. That implies that you think that different races have equal intelligence, or that we don't know enough to say. So I'm asking you, do you honestly not know whether the average Jap is smarter than the average aboriginal?

>>12519415
>/threading your own post
Cringe.

>>12519403
>race doesn't exist
>but racism does exist
How

>>12519644
Because people across races are equally able to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
Protip: living in a hunter-gatherer society requires the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills (or else you'd quickly die)

>>12519647
No, what I said was: >>12519603
It's just that you don't understand that it isn't a dichotomy, there is no simplistic answer, that's my whole point. As I've said in the post linked here, and this post here: >>12519642
Learn to read.

>>12519642
>That isn't the reality we live in.
Conditional statements -- ones that begin with "if" -- often are not, and yet they can still be analyzed. It's a pretty easy yes-or-no question. At the moment, there are differences of average intelligence between races. It is also true that there are socioeconomic differences between races. If those differences were levelled out -- an imaginable scenario, albeit one which is not current reality -- do you think intelligence differences would also be levelled out?

>>12519650
>Because people across races are equally able to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
what are you basing this on?

>>12519652
Largely, but not entirely, as socioeconomic factors aren't the only environmental factors that need controlling for. My point here? We don't have enough data to make definitive statements.

>>12519655
The survival of each race on planet earth

>>12519660
same logic implies humans have the same average intelligence as starfish

>>12519650
It doesn't imply the same kind of knowledge and skills at all. This argument is very weak.
Living as a lion requires learning knowledge and skills too.

>>12519662
Incorrect

>>12519658
What are some other environmental factors?

>>12519663
The definition of intelligence according to Google doesn't specify the type of knowledge or skill, only the ability to acquire and apply them

>>12519415
0/10 bait

>>12519665
Whites and aborigines have both survived on planet earth, therefore they have the same intelligence
Humans and starfish have both survived on planet earth, therefore they have the same intelligence
What's the difference?

>>12519671
So lions are as intelligent as humans, eh?

>>12519676
what a retarded argument. now tell me the birth/survival to adult age ratio of whites, pre-colonization aboriginals and starfishes.

>>12519671
Is there a definition of intelligence under which races have inherently different levels of it?

>>12519671
You said no to differences in average intelligence. Do you think a lion has the same intelligence as a human, wether quantitatively or qualitatively ?

>>12519666
Environment, things like HDI, which isn't solely based upon economic factors, degree of isolationism and innovation. Those sort of things, they aren't socioeconomic. Besides, when we get to that point, what does it matter? That doesn't reflect reality. There is never going to be a situation in which all countries are high on these metrics, all people in this society are equally wealthy and happy. That just isn't reality, it's not real. So, why do you need to perform such an abstraction just to justify this? Doesn't this in itself seem foolish?

>>12519676
Whites and Aboriginals have the same ability to acquire and apply skill, due to their shared ability of communication via language. Which a starfish lacks. Now I'm leaving this thread, goodbye

>>12519680
Why is that relevant

>>12519681
IQ, ability to function in modern society, educational attainment, the list goes on... Oh, but some tribesmen are better at persistence hunting than whites, so all humans have the same average intelligence! Fucking retards man

>>12519685
You don't need to explain that the conclusion of reductio ad absurdum is absurd. The point is that "well they both managed to survive so they're equally intelligent" is dumb

>Whites and Aboriginals have the same ability to acquire and apply skill, due to their shared ability of communication via language. Which a starfish lacks. Now I'm leaving this thread, goodbye

>>12519683
>Doesn't this in itself seem foolish?
No

>>12519693
Right, because needing to create an unrealistic world, one which isn't attainable, just to justify your opinions on biological differences between ethnic groups, due to lack of data, isn't foolish? Riiiight, "bigbrain" here, eh?

IQ is a meme and races are a pre-science construct. You're getting your beliefs from a group of racist losers that outlandishly proclaim they live by the concept of race and detest colored people. Why do you even think they're an honest credible source of anything on this topic? Would you ask anti Semites if Jews are bad? A car salesman if you should buy a car? A conspiracy theorist if the government is trustworthy? How retarded. I honestly should dismiss your merits on the fact you trust overly biased sources so easily in the first place. And yes, inb4 your /pol/strawman tactic 101, anti-racists are biased as well. You'll have to find people who are not moved by greed or their ego for the sake of science and your answer. Such people are getting rarer everyday in the scientific community.

>>12519698
Like Watson?

>>12519696
Correct.

>>12519686
>why is that relevant

>>12519707
I'm glad /pol/ is so "objective".

>>12519711
Me too

>>12519698
>I don't like what you're saying
>I dismiss it without even considering it
ok, then a rope is the only solution for you I guess

Good thread retards

>>12519701
Who?

>>12519724
John H. Watson

>science thread: 50 replies if good
>/pol/ racebait thread: 300+ replies, overall butthurt
Why are you so fucking dumb?

>>12519698
>colored people
WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA

>>12519724
Oh you know... just the guy who discovered the structure of DNA and said that africans are significantly biologically different from the rest of the world

>>12519721
Your faggy incel hands couldn't kill me even in my sleep. You didn't even understand what I wrote. I will put it into retard 4channer speak so you may.
>IQ is not a proven method of intelligence and cannot be used to judge anything
>race is not a proven method of genetical grouping and cannot be used to judge anything
Understand?

>>12519418
we have DNA tracking now, you can't defend "muh random mutations" anymore as in the old taxonomic system. Now relationships between species are numeric and exact.

>>12519403
Your post is evidence in of itself that evolution is indeed random and does not confer advantages

>>12519733
Why is IQ correlated with lifetime income

>>12519739
Either write a quality post or fuck off.

>>12519736
And then suddenly... GENE FLOW! Lmao, it isn't that exact. A label is still a label, a construct we've agreed upon, despite it's degree of reality.

>>12519573
/sci/ has repeatedly
>debunked
this

Juts look at the state of some of those datasets alone.
>Muh special needs kids from West Africa are a valid dataset

>>12519743
You're not denying that IQ is correlated with lifetime income are you?

>>12519739
Whoa, such a strong correlation! Not.

>>12519733
why is IQ correlated with R^2 = 0.3 to general intelligence?
why is it highly correlated with lifetime net worth?
It's not a perfect test but saying that it is totally irrelevant is retarded.

>>12519739
>Why is IQ correlated with lifetime income
Anon, I don't think you understand that going down this road will not win you the argument you think it will

>>12519750
Done, bait thread. *yawn* night night incel

>>12519614
probably. Especially for populations with little outside contact.

Scientifically speaking, what would happen if we sage'd this shitty thread

>>12519752
Yup

>>12519752
I can't see what pixel of the screen is your chart dude... and neither the source. The darker left bottom couple of pixels seems pretty significant.

>>12519754
The whole wealth IQ argument is probably the worst one to try and "prove" your point, because of how shit our current system is when it comes to wealth distribution.
Literally Kardashians, what're they worth? Apparently a lot.

>>12519755
Oh no am I going to lose an argument on 4channel???

>>12519762
who cares about meme celebrities? They are not a high number. I mean real jobs in the average population.

>>12519760
Lmao, that gradient. Meanwhile, in that same image, you have plenty of people with below average intelligence earning just as much as those with above average intelligence. Hilarious.

>>12519762
>counterexample disproves a trend
t.15k salary

>>12519765
No, you already were on a losing streak when you went past down this old street
>Muh high IQ correlates with lifetime income

>>12519755
we're in year 2020, not 1900 dumbass.

>>12519770
My point is, it isn't as exact as you'd like it to be for a definitive argument. Note the graphs posted. Maybe go for something stronger, like academic outcome.

>>12519768
I've seen shittier gradients used to justify masks. Seems like you agree there's a correlation, if only a small one. What causes it?

>>12519768
Almost as if socio-economic systems might not be meritocratic...

>>12519775
t. Burger

LIVE THE AMERICAN DREAM!!!
GO on try harder and you can have your own feudal kingdom with concubines!
BELIEVE

>>12519775
Ah yes, when wealth disparity is ridiculous.

>>12519774
it literally does

>>12519780
lmao what

>>12519775
Class is real
Your cholesterol is too

>>12519777
True or false: there is a correlation between IQ and income

>>12519782
a moderate wealth disparity is a good thing. It prevents retards from gaining power that they would use in a destructive way.

>>12519779
A whole bunch of shit, from intelligence, to conscientiousness, to serendipity (chaos), and more. Once again, it isn't fucking cut and dry.

>>12519780
Almost as if socio-economic systems might not be meritocratic...
Somewhat.

>>12519790
Yes, but it comes with caveats.

>>12519794
It's a little bit more than moderate.
>Picture related

>>12519785
Do you believe financial success is the ultimate arbiter of
>success

Who's system?
For what purpose?

Take the US and Norway.

The US is literally the most wealthiest nation in existence
Which nation is more intelligent?
Which is more successful?

Yet, clearly the US falls far short in PISA rankings, basic intelligence and your elites wealthy are a hodge-podge of shysters, reprobates, plutocrats, inheritors and despicable human beings.

Being intelligent enough to be a cunt is not a metric to be lauded if you create the cunt system to begin with.
I suggest you look at your economic system which doles out the rewards you venerate and then reassess.

>>12519762
KIM IS A BUSINESS WOMAN HIGH IQ

>>12519767
Anon, he has a point.
Your insistence on what success is and then IQ, doesn't even comprehend that the current economic system may not be the best arbiter of this

>>12519803
America is a special case, I'm talking about first world countries

>>12519803
>IQ doesn't correlate with intelligence
>Why does IQ correlate with income
>Intelligence

>>12519403
/pol/ is right on this one.

>>12519806
No I don't believe financial success is the ultimate arbiter of success. The whole point was to disagree with the poster saying IQ wasn't a valid measure of anything. The fact that it correlates with income demonstrates at least some predictive power. I imagine IQ correlates with most areas of success, financial success is just easiest to quantify

>>12519810
>Anon, he has a point.
on 300 millions people there are 100 exceptions meme celebrities that earn a lot
THEREFORE
IQ has nothing to do with income

>>12519813
What're you going on about?

>>12519810
>KIM IS A BUSINESS WOMAN HIGH IQ
Very high thumos.

>>12519812
It's like throughout much of the world.

>>12519812
>>12519823
That's the UK, by the way, if you couldn't tell from the Libra symbol for GBP.

>>12519822
>Everyone largely successful financially in the current economic system is correlated with their high IQ and therefore IQ is a solid metric and exceptions are anomalies.

1 look at the entire edifice of the US establishment should suffice to disprove this.

>>12519823
whooooah it's almost like money inherently grows exponentially

>>12519831
>Implying that's what you want in a supposedly meritocratic society.
Nice self-own.

>>12519830
>Everyone largely successful financially in the current economic system is correlated with their high IQ
that doesn't even make sense syntactically

>>12519819
>I imagine IQ correlates with most areas of success, financial success is just easiest to quantify

Poor metrics.
What does IQ measure?
What does financial success mean and under which system?

If you win at the Hunger Games, well done.

>>12519834
Nice reddit snark, but really, do you understand that self-generated wealth inherently grows exponentially?

>>12519840
No shit, I just indicated that. But is it a positive is your aims are to be meritocratic? No.

>>12519843
>*if your

>>12519835
U wot m8?

Anon's point is that when it is pointed out to him about people like Kim K being successful financially, he retorts this isn't the case for the vast majority of, invariably, Americans.

My point was that this means that he is saying that success within the current economic system correlates with high IQ.
Which is demonstrably not true when you actually look at the economic system this supposed correlation is being derived from.

A system which financially values financial gambling dens over STEM should tell you everything you need to know.

>>12519837
I don't know exactly what IQ measures, as a black-boxed system it still has predictive power for financial success, as measured by lifetime income. There are stupid rich people and smart poor people as well. There are also powerless white people and powerful black people, this does not disprove the general racial power imbalance.

>>12519843
>>12519847
Why not?

>>12519851
>I don't know exactly what IQ measures
honest at least

>There are also powerless white people and powerful black people, this does not disprove the general racial power imbalance.

different topic but there is some truth here.
Racial imbalance has roots in economic and military power.

China is really testing this

>>12519851
>...as a black-boxed system...
Lmao, please tell me you're joking, right? You defend IQ to the death, without even knowing what it is?
Picture related is what the WAIS tests, and WAIS is probably the most common/popular IQ test.

>>12519850
>Which is demonstrably not true when you actually look at the economic system this supposed correlation is being derived from.
True or false: there is a modest correlation between IQ and lifetime income

>>12519855
Thanks, now I'm even more convinced that IQ is a meaningful measurement!

>>12519853
Because, just like with monarchies, at the start of the dynasty their often deserving, whether it be through political, mercantile or military success, but as you go along, those traits slowly get bred out, as they're often "outlier traits", and you end up with a Charles II-tier retard on the throne who isn't deserving in the slightest. That isn't meritocratic, that's just dumb.

>>12519856
>In America, there is a specific measure of IQ which may be seen to correlate with a specific economic system's distribution of lifetime income.

Other factors have not been cited such as inherited wealth, political policies and economic structures.

>>12519859
I'm personally a supporter of IQ, I just hate when things are overstated. Which is why I'm currently on the opposing side.

>>12519855
It's ok.
Put him in the Sahara and see if he survives with his immense IQ
He'll blame low-IQ sand neggers for his demise.

>>12519861
I'm not talking about dynastic wealth growing exponentially, I'm talking about lifetime wealth. It is also true that wealth accumulates along family lines, but I see that as a necessary evil, because the alternative is for the collective you to prevent me from taking care of my descendants.

>>12519863
political policies and economic structures which vary from person to person?

>>12519867
Fair point and based

>>12519870
The cogs are starting to turn...
Good.

Lets analyse money, what it is and economic systems and politics
The answers may enlighten you

>>12519870
As a social liberal, my greatest issue is the justification for inheritance. Because, it's quite obviously the right of the testator to bequeath his estate, as a matter of liberty. But equally, once done to the extreme, it becomes highly unmeritocratic.

>>12519869
Thought experiment. A hundred 80IQ and a hundred 130IQ people are left to fend for themselves in the wilderness for three months. Do both groups survive at similar rates?

>>12519873
Which are adapted for a particular class of persons.

If I set the rules, I set the outcomes.
Play my game or get slain.
Because you deserve it for having a low IQ. Which I institutionally capture with the proceeds of winning the game I designed.

Essentially, unless you buy into my policies you won't succeed. Therefore you must be of a lower IQ and simply not intelligent enough.

>>12519874
redpill me on money sensei, my cogs are turnin!

>>12519878
No, the one hundred 80 IQ tribe ambush the 130IQ tribe as they try to "find north" (lmao, nerds), and cannibalize them.

>>12519880
Interesting conspiracy theory. Who's setting the rules, CFR? Trilateral commission?

>>12519873
>political policies and economic structures which vary from person to person?

They literally do too.
You want to come have a look at the Cayman Islands?

>>12519878
Genuinely like this.

Simpsons did it. Kind of.
When the Mensa crew take over.

Man's Ego is an unquantifiable phenomena.

>>12519883
lol! here's some reddit gold

>>12519889
I envision it like when those Western explorers go off into the jungle and end up getting eaten. Although, that's arguably a numbers game.

>>12519877
Aye, very honest.

>>12519885
It's not a theory when you see the wealth stored off-shore and literally see the corruption.

Take the current lobbying in the current stimulus bill. Might is right.

Those with power.
Neo-feudalism.

You don't have to be a raging Marxist to see that current economic interests are ultimately captured by the very capital that determines success
The solution doesn't have to lie with meme-lefty-communism either.

At it's core, the western economic paradigm shift to the Chicago Business schools has sowed the seeds of the rampant corruption today.

The invisible hand of the market and shareholder value whilst gargantuan monoliths suckle ta the teet of
>low-IQ unsuccessful people's taxes and subsidies.

Try Steve Keen. If you disagree with current notions of economic theory or success you are ostracized because...
>who the fuck are you to question my mad gainz of paper.

>>12519896
Why would 80IQ be less likely to be eaten

>>12519881
Your starter for 10.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4eGTY6RWeg

>OHNO IT's A WOMAAAHN

>>12519877
Pontificating aside, society ultimately needs to decide which of those two things it will do, and I fall on the side of letting people look after their descendants

>>12519896
Mr. Anon I presume?

>>12519878
I personally love the Sentinelese as an ethical question

That evangelical preacher was warned not to visit
He did and he died

On paper he would have a higher IQ, no? Was it a success?
Why are the Sentinelese based?

>>12519900
Greater tendency toward risk, the 130 IQ crowd would probably reason the risk outweighs the reward. Also, seeing as there is a correlation between myopia and intelligence, they mightn't even see it coming, literally.

>>12519909
>the private banking system
>nothing to do with the federal reserve
wat

>>12519914
Nah, disagree.

If I buy up all the water supply under the current system because I'm a smart ruthless cunt exploiting the game, when I die, you best believe you should leave my descendants some money but take back a good chunk.

It should be tapered.

>>12519917
religious people have lower IQ's on average compared to atheists and agnostics, so it was just natural selection

>>12519918
Risk/reward of what? seems like you're arguing that 80IQ is more likely to be eaten

>>12519914
Personally, I support the creation of inheritance trust funds, this goes to replace social welfare for your descendants, should they fall on harsh times. Without allowing them luxury, or the ability to blow through their inheritance (like I did).

>>12519915

>>12519922
The tapering happens automatically, 90% of wealthy families lose their wealth within three generations

>>12519921
Oh there is more.

You didn't think we just disappeared did you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zT9pa5AOuE
>Full sources included.
>Treasure Islands is a based book

>>12519923
kek

>>12519928

>>12519925
The risk of attacking your competitor as a means to remove them as a direct danger, and also to predate upon them as a source of food. Risk has an inverse relationship with intelligence.

>>12519930
Really though what did she mean by that? Does she not think the federal reserve is a private institution?

>>12519926
>blow through their inheritance (like I did).

care to tell? What happened lad?

>>12519933
>Does she not think the federal reserve is a private institution?

It's a bit like
>The Crown
It is and it isn't.

>>12519936
I got with my current wife in 2014, and ended up blowing through my entire inheritance on a gaming computer, that is now old as fuck, nice clothes, cigars, whiskey, that kind of thing. The only thing I have to show for it is a 6 year old gaming computer, that is starting to die.

>>12519940
Point was that 20 seconds in she's already saying stuff that doesn't sound quite right. 5 minutes in now and she's really not saying anything particularly mindblowing. Book's on my list but I don't have high hopes

>>12519942

>>12519946
That's bro, I'm probably a disgrace to my grandparents, good thing they're dead so they can't see the mess I became, eh?

>>12519945
Do you know what the crown is?

>Point was that 20 seconds in she's already saying stuff that doesn't sound quite right. 5 minutes in now and she's really not saying anything particularly mindblowing. Book's on my list but I don't have high hopes

Try the lecture instead. It's radical to say what she says as money creation is normally tied into a myth that the grown-ups or economic experts definitely know what they're doing.

Like when the UK after decades of failed economic policy, unleashed austerity by convincing the public that the nation's finances are
>LIKE A CREDIT CARD!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5RQgbBa-jk

>>12519951
>*Thanks...

>>12519951
You still have your health.
And a wife.
You need to go and explore your passion for life and leave the past.
Easier said than done.
One day at a time. Tomorrow is anew.

>>12519956
I just feel like a failure is all, I'm not even going to have my PhD until I'm 33, or so. Life isn't as easy as people make out, and being an adult fucking sucks.

>>12519953
Eh maybe tomorrow, it's late as fuck. She's saying more dumb stuff in this short video. Free education actually pays off because of a multiplier effect -- the money the government pays to educators is returned in teachers' salary tax plus sales taxes on all the extra shit they buy? That's like an extra retarded formulation of trickle-down. The government is still giving out way more than they're taking in in this setup.
I will watch that lecture tomorrow if I remember, but my hopes are even lower now.
Does she have anything to say about fractional reserve banking? That I'm already fully against.

>>12519964
Here's another one
>Unlike investing in bombs, which don't generate employment and income necessarily
that generates employment and income in the EXACT same way

>>12519728
because "racebaits" are the most important threads made on here, its real science, the kind that isn't even up for discussion in the real world because people get their livelihoods taken away for even broaching the subject

Nobody cares about your I fucking love science dumbass threads these are THE questions for the 21st century. You want that shit go to reddit, we get shit done here.

So this is the thread were /pol/ got BTFO
Why can't they leave other boards alone?

>>12519964
>>12519969
well that was underwhelming. Here are some other dumb things she said in the final few moments
>If unemployment is too low, then the level of unemployment must be brought down. If employment is too low, then it must be brought up.
petty gripe but those are literally the same thing, also I'm not a fan of centralized solutions in general
>We should never use the term "growth", because that implies something exponential about our economic activity, and that can't happen
does she have the same problem about people describing coronavirus spread as exponential?

She's clearly got an environmental / social agenda here beyond pure economics, which is fine, but I'm not expecting a sober unbiased analysis from her. I will watch the lecture later on, but I'm not expecting much, and it's not because she's a womaaahn

>>12519980
If that's your take away from the thread, you're fucking delusional.

>>12519983
>pure economics

Current neo-classical models are anything but bereft of biases

Hayek and Friedman weren't objective,

>If unemployment is too low, then the level of unemployment must be brought down. If employment is too low, then it must be brought up.
Sometimes the neo-liberal classicists need it explaining both ways.
They're contention via monetarist molested thinking is that central governments benefit from x amount of unemployment as it keeps wages lower in the long-term.

A key metric which touches on that exponential factor, is the critique of modern gains, By whom for whom and for what purpose?

Have a Blythe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJH0LIKdC-A

>>12519972
>we get shit done here.
Man you can't even give a reasoned scientific definition of
>IQ
>Race
>The interaction of the 2 scientifically
>The analysis of environmental and socio-economic political factors.

Let's do a trading places experiment.
Send the smartest HIGH IQ (pick an IQ metric) kids to inner-city poor schools and to live on the same incomes and send the dumbest IQ kids from poor neighborhoods to elite private schools.

For other evidence, look at the UK 11+ experiments. in the 70s and 80s

>>12520066
The question asked in the OP already got answered multiple times withing the first 100 replies
/pol/ is delusional for thinking that any other board wants them on

>>12519861
>>12519823
>>12519803
>>12519768
>>12519755
Nice, gommunism thread, I'm in!

>Can you define intelligence objectively and prove that IQ tests are 100% accurate way of measuring it? Can you name exactly all the subtypes of intelligence that are there?
>Can you prove that race is a real thing? Can you isolate alleles specific to certain human groups not present in others and define the exact number of races that are there?
>Can you prove with certainty lthat the differences in IQ scores between races aren't due to factors like SES, lead exposure, [add more bullshit] or even things that we cannot possibly correct for like systemic racism?
>Have you identified EVERY allele that plays a role in IQ, quantified its effect while taking into account the epistatic and gene-environment interactions and proven that the frequency of said alleles varies between race in a way that perfectly explains the gap in IQ?
>No?
>Then I guess that my theory without evidence that all races are equally intelligent stands strong. Checkmate /pol/tard

KEK. The cope is real

>>12519418
Nice word salad. Whenever a leftist starts to use unnecessary complex words he either has no idea what he is talking about or he is trying to deceive you.

>>12520205
not that guy but you can't highlight and google?
sorry i didn't read the post.

>>12520205
Ah right, of course, when you can't actually point to a flaw in an argument, just attempt to debase it, right? You really are the most pathetic kind of person. Next time, I would advise you to wait until the very end of the thread, so I can't come back here and shove it back in your face. Go on, actually rebut me.

>>12520205
not responding to the argument
kek

>>12520205
>>12520228
Also, if you think those are "unnecessary complex words", then you must have the reading age of a middle schooler. I knew literally was bad, but this bad? Ouch.

>>12520228
Why don't you explain your argument in plain English first retard.

>>12520228
Taxonomy isn't perfect =/= we can't say who is a nigger, who is a chink and who is white

>>12520233
>>12520232
>>12520228
samefag

>>12520234
1) Taxonomy isn't an exact science, and it is known for its flaws, largely because it is a labeling system for convenience. 2) As taxonomy isn't perfect, and there are overlap between populations, including gene flow (the passing of genetic information between populations), the "purity-based" model of "race" is not fit for purpose, however, a "continuum-based" model of "ethnicity" is, because it acknowledges the overlap.
And what is a model supposed to do? Describe reality as best as possible, which race doesn't do, but ethnicity does, or at least does better.
Not really that complex.

>replies:191
>Posters:28
Just go back to your containment board, for fucks sake.
>>>/pol/

>>12520241
Nope, you just happen to be especially stupid.

>>12520236
Not my argument, you moron. See: >>12520244
My argument is that your labels are shitty at resolution.

>>12520232
>>12520244
I will respond to your argument. We can today identify genetic clusters that more or less correspond to traditional taxonomic groups. These races have different characteristics some being cognitive and guess what negros score much lower than the other races.
Denying racial differences in the year 2020 is like denying gravity, that is why you have to resort to tactical nihilism and word salads in which I have to interpret what you're trying to say. KYS. Your word-salad could basically be boiled down to the age old "race no real". So why not just say that and save me some fucking time you fucking dishonest deceiving little faggot? Now get the fuck back to your discord server leftie and stop raiding 4chan.

>>12520261
Whoa, all of those words and you still aren't understanding the crux of the problem.
Here, let me show you what I mean:
>Picture related.
Since you're not understanding, despite me stating it in plane, direct terms, I'll be even more direct:
I am not saying there are no group differences. I am not saying there is no phenotypic, or genotypic variation. In fact, I'm saying the opposite, I'm saying because there is such a degree of fuzziness around the metrics, rather than relying on an outdated notion of purity, which race entails, we should function on the more common notion of ethnicity, which attempts there is some overlap, BUT ALSO ACCEPTS THERE ARE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS.
>Now get the fuck back to your discord server leftie and stop raiding 4chan.
Fuck off, you fucking newfag. You're from the post-2015 flood of morons, I've been here since archaeo/sci/.

>>12520273
>*plain

>>12520273
>*accepts there is some overlap

>Races have slightly different IQs
>Races have a certain amount of genetic variance
>Some other animals' subspecies have different IQs and also have a certain amount of genetic variance.
>Therefore we can safely say there are no other factors to consider and humans work in exactly the same way despite being another animal, races are different subspecies, and white genocide is occurring by the way kill the blacks.

That's the point OP's pic was trying to get at. Jesus what a sad case.

>>12520335
Race is not an academic term, ethnicity is. Humans do work in exactly the same way, apart the fact that humans also happen to have something called "human society", which is a whole group of different environmental factors that no other animals have to deal with, in terms of phenotypic expression. Bar a few of those domesticated, and even then, not fully, because they lack the ability to participate. In other words, as I've been saying, repeatedly, throughout this entire exercise in tedium, we lack enough evidence to definitively say whether these arise largely from nature, and to what degree nature and nurture play a role in the expression of this phenotype.
Intelligent, as with many things, isn't some easy to comprehend dichotomy in the OP of some shitty basket weaving form. Stop acting like you can simplify it into a meme, or "infographic", there are volumes written on the subject.
Now please, can you fucking pseuds leave this board.

>>12520351
>*Intelligence, as with many...

>>12520248
>literally proving my point
lmao

>>12520351
lmao please reread his post you bumbling retard
he was on your side, making fun of the meme
god imagine being such a fucking retard that you attack someone on your own side

>>12520205
absolute brainlet COPE

>>12520351
>In other words, as I've been saying, repeatedly, throughout this entire exercise in tedium, we lack enough evidence to definitively say whether these arise largely from nature, and to what degree nature and nurture play a role in the expression of this phenotype.

As Biology is not my major, you are probably more correct than me on the subject. But my point is, the person that created OP's pic is clearly applying too many presumptions himself when he says that different ethnicities are different subspecies, regardless of race being a construct or not. He then goes on to imply that the white one is superior and there is an attempt to wipe it out, which is a politically correct repeating of the old white genocide tinfoil hat nonsense.

Even if wojak on the left is wrong.

I didn't bother going into detail or checking the post to make sure all the academic terms were correctly used because I can't be bothered. And don't call a physics major a pseud you fucking stamp collector.

>>12520369
I'll attack anyone who keeps fucking bumping this dreck, I'm so tired of having it come back, wade into this mishegoss, just to schlep in some common sense, so these verkakte chazers don't get the wrong idea about their "correctness".

>>12519418
tHiNgS hAvE bLuRrY eDgEs ThErEfOrE tHeY dOn'T eXiSt

>>12520380
My point is OP's image's creator didn't get enough context, because he didn't CONSIDER or ADDRESS the possibility of two different species working in the same way.

Being aware of potential pitfalls like this before I go in is what makes me a physics grad and not a bio grad with the subsequent higher fidelity bullshit filter.

>>12519585
Nice to see that you'll privately admit that you know you're lying.

>>12520380
>And don't call a physics major a pseud you fucking stamp collector.
Lmao, please, undergrad, pipe down. Stop bumping this. I've been over this, time and time again. Also, you should know, physics is fucking doomed, unless you're a biophysicist. Have fun frothing my milk, you future barista.

>>12520388
That isn't what I'm saying, but I can see you're too much of a retarded Zoomer to actually understand it. See: >>12520244, >>12520273, >>12520351. Because I am SO sick of repeating myself to morons like you.

>>12519403
lmao seethe, you cuck.

>>12520396
>physics is fucking doomed

Because we're inevitably going to solve the things the species needs to survive, and there's a finite number of those. You guys will always be in work because there will always be some new moth hybrid to chase after.

Biology might let you perv over alien species, but it's physics that'll get you there. We'll hand over the sexy cat aliens to you after our astronauts are done with them, Mark Watnigger.

Also if you don't want people to bump this, don't keep posting yourself. I'll stop now.

>>12519418
>continuum fallacy

>>12520384
turn off the computer and go outside, take a breath of fresh air
repeat the mantra "I am a real woman" to yourself however long you need to until you feel calm again

>>12520420
No, no, what I meant is that biotechnology, unlike physics, is actually growing. Seeing as you're rather unremarkable, and to succeed in physics you need to be competitive, I can see you'll end up being a quite the milk frother. So, I'll take a flat white to go, alright?

>>12520423
You do realize just pointing out a fallacy isn't actually proving an argument incorrect, right? Maybe try again, and this time, don't just open your /pol/tard handbook to page 1.

>>12520428
No, I wish jannies would clean this fucking mess up already.

>>12520431
No, no, I get what you mean, lad, but that's just it. As you said, biophysics. That requires the use of physics, which draws in people from all sorts of other fields and sets them up for work in other fields. It uses and requires math, programming, and communications skills, and this allows people who are not specialists in one particular area of the field to be very adequate in it as it's all numbers. Increase this further for technology, as it needs teamwork, design, and ergonomics skills.

You bio boys are riding our bus. Nevertheless, as we are merging, perhaps we can make out.

>>12520460
Well, it's the bio bus, but everything else? I agree with it. To move past what was possible before, in terms of application, we need to further combine specialties. I guess you can buy me one drink, and we'll see where this goes?

>>12520431
>quantum computing
>quantum gravity
>dark matter
>fusion
>physicists will be MAKING MY COFFEE! STAGNANT and DOOMED

>>12520478
Yeah, yeah, as I said:
>... to succeed in physics you need to be competitive...
Are you? I doubt it.

>>12520483
not him but I don't care what someone who doesn't even know my name thinks of me, especially not a leftist

>>12520519
>Ooh scary leftist!
Grow up.

>>12520523
there's nothing scary about a leftist
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513816303907

>>12520527
Imagine being this concerned with appearance, rather than the betterment of mankind. This is how I know you're a useless waste of space.

>>12519418
>race is continuum
no shit? classification is still a useful tool

>>12520540
Yeah, which is why "ethnicity" is used academically.
>Since the second half of the 20th century, the association of race with the discredited theories of scientific racism has contributed to race becoming increasingly seen as a largely pseudoscientific system of classification. Although still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by less ambiguous and loaded terms: populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities, depending on context.
Source:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
Which itself cites:
>http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/race--2
>Keita, S O Y; Kittles, R A; Royal, C D M; Bonney, G E; Furbert-Harris, P; Dunston, G M; Rotimi, C N (2004). "Conceptualizing human variation". Nature Genetics. 36 (11s): S17–S20. doi:10.1038/ng1455

>>12520540
you don't see, colors don't exist because electromagnetic radiation is a spectrum not a set of discrete categories
the idea that color is a series of discrete categories is a socially constructed phenomenon
therefore you should paint your house purple and orange you bigot
>>12520538
imagine unironically taking a quip to a retarded comeback as what I give a shit about in life
I'm concerned about physics, which is for the betterment of mankind
you in your heart of hearts know this but just don't want to admit to yourself that someone you don't like might not be a "useless waste of space"

>>12520544
>admitting that the entire thing is just a semantics game

Where's the global rule for banning /pol/ shit like they did with /mlp/?

>>12519592
>I just hope you don't actually externalize this hatred
well he's not a nigger so he probably won't

>>12520564
where's the global rule for banning anti-intellectuals like yourself from /sci/?

>>12520559
Well, it literally is a matter of labeling, labeling being a form of "defining", which is a linguistic tool we use to describe things. So... yeah, no shit?

>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29911926/
tl;dr: 1 to 5 IQ points for an additional year of education

>>12520568
so you are just the retarded redditor who goes to all the race threads and yells at everyone for being a /pol/ bigot for using the wrong term, without attacking the core of what is actually being discussed (i.e. adding nothing to value of the conversation)?
in your words, "grow up" lmao

>>12519698
>Why do you even think they're an honest credible source of anything on this topic?
i just look at the statistics and it just so happens that it corroborates my personal experience

>>12520574
No, you moron, it's about those who falsely claim they can definitively say such things, as intelligence, for instance, are purely genetic, or even largely genetic. When in reality, it is a phenotype, and it also affected by the environment. But you know? I've already repeated this, several times in the thread. A thread which you clearly haven't bothered to read, or my posts, despite attempting to critique them. So, in my own words, you lazy prick, grow up.

>>12520184
Critiquing power isn't communism

>>12520581
no one here has claimed it is purely genetic
it is however largely genetic, with studies estimating a 50/50 split at best or an 80/20 split at worst (80 - genetics, 20 - nature)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
even wikipedia (a source which most certainly doesn't espouse "scientific racism") admits this
>"Heritability", in this sense, is a mathematical estimate that indicates an upper bound on how much of a trait's variation within a population can be attributed to genes.[1]
>Twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%[6] with the most recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%.[7]
I have read your posts and this thread, I just don't agree with you lmao

>>12520185
>Mocks
>Offers no definitions or evidence or debate
WEW definitely won according to the rules of /pol/

Reminder:
The Irish were regarded as an inferiors sub-human race and literally not white

>>12520273
Just ask them what metric they'll use to re-patriate people in the upcoming race wars.

;)

>>12520597
by "best" and "worst" I am of course referring to best and worst for you / your position :)

>>12520351
based

>>12520351
>can you pseuds leave this board

>>12520559
>ethnicity vs race is mere semantics

Anon... I.. think you should never travel to India

>>12520566
>ignores money and politics
t. Private Prison shareholder confirmed

>>12520597
Oh whoa, you don't even understand what variation is, do you?
>Genetic variation is the difference in DNA among individuals [2] or the differences between populations.[3]
In other words, when it comes to the "heritability of IQ", they're talking about a measure within a population, not within an individual. As such, it DOESN'T mean that an individuals intelligence is due to a say, "57% heritability", they're talking about IN-GROUP VARIANCE.
Lmao, it would be really helpful if you actually understood the concepts, because attempting to argue with them. I know all about the heritability of intelligence, but that doesn't mean what you think it means, evidently.
This just gets funnier and funnier. Why don't you try again, pseud?

>>12520612
You can, if you're anything like this retard I'm replying to.

>>12520619
We’re not going anywhere, Moishe.

>>12520604
Shoe size.

>>12520572
>Don't tell Lynn

>>12520619
>*before attempting to

>>12520581
It's ok.
When their retarded notions are put into full effect they'll be happy at the foot of their Chinese superior IQ overlords in their thicko Gulag concentration camps

And they'll have to accept it as.. well being lower-IQ they deserve to be shat on by higher IQ people
>IQ being determined by whichever power holds the power

>>12520616
>ignores affirmative action
t. nigger

seriously though, this is your comeback? what a load of crap

>>12520597
Anon... I.. think you may have low IQ.

>Twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%[6] with the most recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%.[7] IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics, for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults. The heritability of IQ increases with age and reaches an asymptote at 18–20 years of age and continues at that level well into adulthood. This phenomenon is known as the Wilson Effect.[8] However, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease are known to have lifelong deleterious effects.[9][10]

>Although IQ differences between individuals have been shown to have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that mean group-level disparities (between-group differences) in IQ necessarily have a genetic basis.[11][12] The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups.[13][14][15][16][17]

>>12520619
https://www.pnas.org/content/114/51/13441.abstract
>Accurate understanding of environmental moderation of genetic influences is vital to advancing the science of cognitive development as well as for designing interventions. One widely reported idea is increasing genetic influence on cognition for children raised in higher socioeconomic status (SES) families, including recent proposals that the pattern is a particularly US phenomenon. We used matched birth and school records from Florida siblings and twins born in 1994–2002 to provide the largest, most population-diverse consideration of this hypothesis to date. We found no evidence of SES moderation of genetic influence on test scores, suggesting that articulating gene-environment interactions for cognition is more complex and elusive than previously supposed.

>>12520622
based and Iraqi Bush pilled
>This should be the ultimate test of IQ and race

>>12520619
you're the only one talking about individuals in a thread about races (i.e. populations), buddy
nice try trying to be smug and bringing up something irrelevant and passing it off as if it's what I'm talking about
challenge: point to a single post where I said that it's the individuals and not a population

given you've just admitted that it's population variance, then surely you'll concede now that this is why niggers are retarded (i.e. what everyone else you have been arguing against has been saying)?

>>12520612
Wait? The joos?
Surely their superiority in controlling events if that is what you allude to, proves they're superiority and you should abide by their expertise. Your IQ can't compete.

>>12520632
Anon ... I think you might have contradicted yourself ... >>12520619
>its about populations
>no it isn't

>>12520639
No, because literally:
>Although IQ differences between individuals have been shown to have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that mean group-level disparities (between-group differences) in IQ necessarily have a genetic basis.[11][12] The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups.[13][14][15][16][17]
You're the fucking idiot.

>>12520642
That's still about populations, dingus, It's about IN-GROUP variance. Literally read the last part.

>>12520631
The fact that:
>It's always the US
>It ignores African recently arrived migrants every time.
>You ignore literally the lobbying by private prisons' industries and politics and economies

Shows that you are Cletus personified and will never have a passport to see the world.
I bet you think Botswana is a fly.

Do you think Republican Senators and the Police are christ-like and not corrupt?
Are you a shareholder of Locheed Martin?

>>12520645
that doesn't follow at all and the only reason that that is the case is because (((anthropologists))) don't want to admit that conclusion

>>12520642
That's not me but that other anon has clearly debilitated your intellectual orifices.
Try again and this time actually read what you cite rather than cherry picking.

The sad thing is we could have a nuanced debate about the science of learning, genes, education and intelligence, but as always the flood of plebbits post 2016 certainly lowered the IQ of these boards collectively.

>>12520645
>That's still about populations, dingus, It's about IN-GROUP variance. Literally read the last part.
you got it the wrong way around lmao, I was referring to the posts in the other order
I thought you'd be able to interpret your own arguments but obviously not, my bad for making such a good faith assumption

>>12520648
The studied cited that you disagree with, do not back up your assertion of anthropological jewish control.

Although, if that is what you alluded to with your parenthesis, then you have to contend you have lower IQ as the parenthesis group is smarter than you.

>>12520650
>That's not me but that other anon
schizo hivemind
yes, plebbitor, I know schizophrenia ≠ mpd
>the flood of plebbits post 2016 certainly lowered the IQ of these boards collectively.
t.
the absolute lack of self-awareness is astounding
have you done the mirror test?

>>12520656
the studies I cited agreed with me
>"Heritability", in this sense, is a mathematical estimate that indicates an upper bound on how much of a trait's variation within a population can be attributed to genes.[1]
>Twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%[6] with the most recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%.[7]
try as you might to twist what this says from anything other than "IQ is between ~57% and ~80% heritable", you shan't succeed

>>12520657
>Still didn't read his own cited source that contradicted his initial assertion of it.

I'm afraid I haven't done the mirror test as my low-IQ genetics means I can't comprehend it.

>>12520653
This, >>12520632, isn't me. Although, it does a good job in pointing out the enviromental influence, take for instance, the difference in variance seem between childhood and adulthood:
>Heritability measures in infancy are as low as 0.2, around 0.4 in middle childhood, and as high as 0.8 in adulthood.[8] One proposed explanation is that people with different genes tend to seek out different environments that reinforce the effects of those genes.[20] The brain undergoes morphological changes in development which suggests that age-related physical changes could also contribute to this effect.[28]
That is, the environmental influences are inseparable from the genetic influences, they reinforce one another. What we're talking about here is the degree to which genes, and environment matter, it turns out they both matter, a lot.

>>12519603
This is really what it boils down to

>>12520351
>Now please, can you fucking pseuds leave this board.
you first

>>12520661
Now, there are 5 cited papers here:

>Although IQ differences between individuals have been shown to have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that mean group-level disparities (between-group differences) in IQ necessarily have a genetic basis.[11][12] The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups.[13][14][15][16][17]

Your conclusion is that all these 5 papers are?
>Controlled by (((them)))
>Agree with you
>Irrelevant

Do you like cherries? Do you understand scientific nuance?
Perhaps it's our low-IQ compared to yours.

Ok Sherlock, let us say you are right about everything to do with IQ and race,
What should be the solution?
A final solution?

>>12520640
>the joos
Brainlet detected

>>12520679
How old is that book? What's the ISBN?

>>12520665
>Ask him about P-Values...

>>12520679
>>12520685
FYI, posting old documents in like me holding up a Renaissance map and acting like its proof of sea monsters.

>>12520685
>>12520689
cope
https://global.oup.com/ushe/product/principles-of-population-genetics-9780878933082?cc=ca&lang=en&

>>12520665
>What we're talking about here is the degree to which genes, and environment matter, it turns out they both matter, a lot.

Clearly you are controlled by (((them)))
How much do they pay you?
I feel that as a Burger in the US Niggers are dumb and Cletus in the deep-south deserves his higher social status compared to Niggas.
I will ignore your nuance as I have a superior IQ
How do we stop those bug eyed-chinese?

>>12520679
>Posts emphatic statement
>Doesn't post source
>On /sci/

Anon, you literally have to go back
Do not pass go
Do not collect 200 pounds

>>12520691
Which edition? Because the first edition was published in 1987.

>>12520684
(((the joos)))
Is this better, oh Number 197 IQ anon?

>>12520692
That's not an argument, as much as you think it might be one. You're just a cretin, it's simple as that.

>>12520694
>scanned copy from obvious academic text
>less legit than redditor gibbering
>>>/reddit/

>>12519415
Unironically based

>>12520695
Definitely a British anon
>Deadpan delivery,
top kek

>>12520699
You didn't cite the text in your post/cap you absolute bell-cheese. Hence the opprobrium.

>>12520692
>>12520698
Although, this might be satire? It's pretty hard to tell on the Internet. I hope it's satire.

>>12520699
Which edition is it?

>>12520695
can only confirm for 3rd and 4th, latest which was 2006.

>>12520697
No, I like the term subversive kikes better.

>>12520702
see: >>12520691

>>12520698
see
>>12520703
Brits have done satire for years.
I'd recommend Yes Minister.

>>12520646
you theory doesn't hold up for the simple reason that whites are the least racially biased. but for you nothing will be good enough proof, you're like a religious fanatic

>>12520680
maybe you should put my statements in context?
>controlled by (((them)))
the (((them))) part is a joke, but the statement about anthropologists rejecting the conclusion of races having genetically different IQs because it would be raycist!! is true
like OP says, if sociology weren't so biased, we'd have already categorised races into different subspecies
>Agree with you
they agree with me insofar as that IQ is between 50% to 80% hereditary, as was the original discussion point which you denied being the case (>>12520581 - "[idiots saying things like] intelligence for instance, are purely genetic, or even largely genetic")
>Irrelevant
see reason 1 ("controlled by (((them)))") for why - all the data and evidence supports the conclusion that races have genetic differences in IQ, however anthropologists refuse to publicly and outright just state this conclusion
>Do you like cherries?
yes they are very sweet
unfortunately I don't pick them, it's far too much work for me, I'd prefer to rather have an honest, agenda-free discussion
>Ok Sherlock, let us say you are right about everything to do with IQ and race,
>What should be the solution?
>A final solution?
on the premise that everything I've said is true, then I want anthropologists admit that this is the truth so that academia can finally be agenda-free again
though that's probably hoping too much, agendas will pop up in other areas, but at least eliminating one agenda will put us closer to the truth
given the conclusions (i.e. that it's mostly genetic), it'd also be good to stop affirmative action
other than that, nothing that I can think of
I don't want an ethnostate
I don't want genocide
I don't want eugenics

>>12520711
>whites are the least racially biased
not quite, they're just biased against themselves.

>>12520704
Show me the front matter, which would detail the edition, publication date and so on, of that book.

>>12520709
Great taste.

>>12520691
Is the 3rd edition ok there?
https://b-ok.cc/book/958472/44f3b4

>>12520713
>like OP says
I meant "like OP's image says", minor hiccup in thought

>>12520716
here is for the third. i don't have the fourth on hand.

>>12520715
yes, but my point stands, of course the fanatic will never admit it that blacks are much dumber and more violent

>>12520717
i got it on libgen, idk about this link. i saw the 4th irl and looked at the section.

>>12520721
Huh, that's relatively modern. I'm quite surprised to see that.

>>12520722
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/maoa-race-and-crime/

>>12519403
Replace race with population, and everybody is almost fine unless you start to claim some are dumbers than the others.

>>12520730
>thealternativehypothesis.org

>>12520730
Every time I see that name, I can only ever think of the "show me the genes" meme.

>>12520731
Forgot to add :
The different populations/races are often fucked up though. Classification can't really be done unless the whole topic start to be taboo af.

>>12520727
it's a handy term as defined here, there is no reason to do away with it other than it causes people to have irrational hang-ups because of something historical.

>>12520730
ok you don't really get it do you? no one is mistreating blacks see >>12520711
everyone is mistreating whites, where is our affirmative action then? clown

>>12520679
Did you even read the definition of race in that highlighted text onwards?

>>12520736
Fair enough, although this doesn't excuse the other "deterministic" or "essentialist" arguments in this thread.

>>12520739
yes ofc. where you draw the line is up to the utility but once drawn people do fall on either side of it because of genetic distances.

>>12520730
just because blacks have a victim complex doesn't mean anyone actually is mistreating them, whites gave them so much and keep giving them and it's never enough

>>12520745
>where you draw the line is up to the utility
That's the point
Which line?
Are Jews white?
Are Irish white?
Is Indian a race?

The rest of the source talks about all the other factors and the arbitrary use of the term and delineation.

To the OP question, what line or utility for race and IQ will we use?

>>12520746
Just because whites have a victim complex doesn't mean anyone is actually mistreating them, blacks gave them so much and keep giving them and it's ever enough.

>>12520746
WE OPPRESSED YO

>>12520753
name one thing that blacks have given us
(cannot be co-created by a white person)

>>12520753
see your reversing the argument doesn't work because niggers have literally always been a net negative for western society. don't you realize the day white become minority in america is the day every golem subhuman is a debt slave to literal bank jews

>>12520722
The white man is the devil
See, that can be said too.
Now let's get back to grown up talk.

Where do you draw the scientific delineation of what you mean by black and by IQ and how genetics determines the interaction and definition of intelligence?
Does society and environment and politics, nutrition and economics play a role?
Why is this always US centric?

Will you accept a higher IQ chinese definition of white people being low-IQ when they house you in your future workpods?

>>12520764
>>12520766
Blacks gave the West labor, in the form of slavery, and sharecropping and culture.

>>12520746
>just because blacks have a victim complex
definitely wasn't compensated during the emancipation and probably owns shares in a private prison or Locheed Martin

Pray tell, what happens to a Black African country that says no to the US and wants to be left alone?

>>12520751
>Which line?
the decision boundary
>Are Jews white?
the ashkenazi ones are.
>Are Irish white?
look white to me. amongst the whitest in fact.
>Is Indian a race?
can be, but it is more apt to think of it as a collection of races.

>The rest of the source talks about all the other factors and the arbitrary use of the term and delineation.
it is arbitrary only where you delineate but not how it delineates. the individuals are more related to each other than other such groups.

>To the OP question, what line or utility for race and IQ will we use?
suppose you need to treat someone for something linked to duffy antigen system and the only thing you have to go on is skin color.

>>12520754
>not comparing like for like.

>>12520770
so you're telling me you agree that the only way to make a nigger productive is through slavery? since as free people they prove to be subhumans

>>12520773
just to add to this because i have more important things to do today.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
>Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, equation M44 can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is equation M45 ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, equation M46 ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.

>>12520779
?

>>12520772
didn't the USA literally build a country for niggers and left them alone and they became just the same subhumans as they've always been? i forgot the name

>>12520783
This is insane.
They weren't even regarded as humans.
Yet white men still raped them mercilessly.

Again, what happened to black people that say or said no to white slave-owners or the US Foreign Office?

>>12520792
Liberia?

>>12520783
Uh? Not at all, I also mentioned sharecropping and their cultural additions, for instance, the foundations of rock and roll, both of which were through their own volition.

>>12520792
Not when you control the foreign policy.
Every post-independent African nation that said no to US corporations or the military was destroyed.

But of course you'll justify with
>But we iz high IQ

And when this logic will be applied to you you'll squirm as the Chinese ruin you.

>>12520800
Chinese are insectoid so that’s irrelevant.

>>12520792
All
>Black countries
Were actually carved borders by the White European Powers, largely in the 1800s in Berlin.

Let's ask the Native Americans how superior the white man's trust is
>Sign this treaty

>>12520803
>the white man
hello shitskin

>>12520802
Keep telling yourself that when they measure your low-IQ and send you for processing

As a US white population, you can't even control your diabetes and cholesterol and you pontificate on the same white race?
Be humble

>>12520767
>Where do you draw the scientific delineation of what you mean by black and by IQ and how genetics determines the interaction and definition of intelligence?
somewhere in africa i draw the delineation, if it looks like a black, fuzzy haired nigger, he's therefore outside of the delineation. by iq i mean iq tests. i don't need to know how genetics influence your poopoo peepee interactions. you're implying a blackbox can't be useful. this is iq tests.
>Does society and environment and politics, nutrition and economics play a role?
yes it does.
>Why is this always US centric?
because it's patently obvious that the USA will be the first victim of globalism.
>Will you accept a higher IQ chinese definition of white people being low-IQ when they house you in your future workpods?
i don't advocate for white people to live among chinese people as a minority. so no?

did you gain some insight or what? did you really think you were being deep with your retarded post?

>>12520805
That was the demarcation made by an anon in this thread
Then the
>White vs Niggas
It must be

When were the Irish allowed to be white?

>>12520796
this is it yes

>>12520807
>somewhere in africa i draw the delineation, if it looks like a black, fuzzy haired nigger, he's therefore outside of the delineation. by iq i mean iq tests. i don't need to know how genetics influence your poopoo peepee interactions. you're implying a blackbox can't be useful. this is iq tests.

You haven't read a thing in the thread
>I hate niggas
>I think they're dumb
>Therefore I sure hope random collation of random cherry facts will subscribe to me views
>Let's go on /sci/ rather than /pol/

Genes and high-processed trans-fats have clearly played a part in your retardation.

Since this thread is going to die soon, I thought I'd just post this here.
Jacob's so-called "Festive Selection" is a lie, out of the apparent "7 varieties", only 3 of them are actually unique, the rest are just differently shaped water biscuits. I feel robbed.

>>12520807
>because it's patently obvious that the USA will be the first victim of globalism.

Victim
VICTIM

kek
Churchill was right about Americans
Truly a nation of complete navel-gazing idiots.

>>12520818
/thread and I defer to this post.

>>12520800
all i see is cope desu, you get handed a country industrially on par with USA, you're a subhuman and can't manage it. if the big bad european wanted to control you and actually had the capacity yo destroy you, why did he give you an entire country? you just failed and you cope now with bullshit excuses, that's all it ever is.
>but the chinese
idgaf nigger, the chinese can take care of themselves in the first world, the whites can take care of themselves in the first world. you're jsut a subhuman desu, why aren't you making the same argument for abbos? they are as subhuman as it gets, but you can't use your copes then

>>12520807


>yes it does.
Good,

>i don't advocate for white people to live among chinese people as a minority. so no?

But you advocate for you to live and make another a minority?
Did you pay rent to the Natives?

Now, if race and IQ are to be what you determine them to be, will you accept a superior Chinese CHAD subjugating you on the basis of their superior IQ test results and your inferior IQ results?
Would you prefer the Finns?

>>12520814
i was cool with niggers up until last year, blm radicalized me for sure. the facts are still solid

>>12520821
Imagine being the originator of modern globalism and complaining about getting globalized.

>>12520827
>But you advocate for you to live and make another a minority?
no nigger?? when did i say that?? why would you think that i want niggers in the west??????
>Did you pay rent to the Natives?
im not american but from what i know natives sold their land and then renaged on the deal and then got genocided because they too were retarded subhumans

>>12520825
Since when has Mainland China been a First World nation? Taiwan is, but Taiwan isn't part of Mainland China.

>>12520827
>Now, if race and IQ are to be what you determine them to be, will you accept a superior Chinese CHAD subjugating you on the basis of their superior IQ test results and your inferior IQ results?
>Would you prefer the Finns?
i never once implied that niggers should be grateful for being enslaved, stop with the strawman, it's really tiresome

>>12520832
>I radicalized few color my view of an entire people.
You really are a moron, huh?

>>12520835
idk i've yet to see a jew complain about globalism unironically, idk what you're on desu

>>12520825
>Vote for a leader
>Leader get's shoahd by CIA
>CIA then control your politics and country

Rinse and repeat. Again, Look at Gaddafi. Highest GDP and standard of living even Burger's didn't have.
Said no to the US. Got shoahd.
Now who's interfering with who?

I bet you thought Banana Republic is just a store.

Name a country the US hasn't fucked over
If one dark country did to the US even once what the US does routinely, you wouldn't hear the end of
>but they're uncivilized.

>idgaf nigger, the chinese can take care of themselves in the first world, the whites can take care of themselves in the first world. you're jsut a subhuman desu, why aren't you making the same argument for abbos? they are as subhuman as it gets, but you can't use your copes then

Talks about globalism
Talks IQ and race
Can't answer what he'll do when the Chinese with higher IQ deem the US white's to be sub-human IQ.

You see where the logic takes you? Of course you don't One rule for you, another for everyone else.

>>12520835
Actually Britain was open about it's Imperialisms. Which isn't Globalism.
Globalism is
>Nothing matters but money.


Oh Oswald, the moment you remove global interference from muh white countries the moment I will accept you racial isolationist utopia.

For now, accept that the US has it's fingers in every pie imaginable and that this directly affects the results of what you point out

>>12520849
Last I checked, McDonald's headquarters it in the US, isn't it? What about Disney? Don't disown your greatest invention, Yank.

>>12520846
i was bewildered at the stats when i first saw them, and it all clicked. why are you calling me an idiot for noticing a general trend?

>>12520832
honest and though I disagree simple.

>>12520857
Because you're applying it too broadly, there are many blacks who also condemn the violence of BLM.

If you really think race and IQ aren’t related you are seriously overlooking a basic subject.

>>12520863
Simple as.

>>12520855
>Can't answer what he'll do when the Chinese with higher IQ deem the US white's to be sub-human IQ
why should i answer this? i never implyied that nigger should be grateful for being enslaved, therefore how are you "owning" me by dishing this argument? you're actually kind of dull

>>12520869
The difference in variance seem between childhood and adulthood:
>Heritability measures in infancy are as low as 0.2, around 0.4 in middle childhood, and as high as 0.8 in adulthood.[8] One proposed explanation is that people with different genes tend to seek out different environments that reinforce the effects of those genes.[20] The brain undergoes morphological changes in development which suggests that age-related physical changes could also contribute to this effect.[28]
That is, the environmental influences are inseparable from the genetic influences, they reinforce one another. What we're talking about here is the degree to which genes, and environment matter, it turns out they both matter, a lot.

>>12520875
>*... variance seen between...

>>12520866
again i go back to >>12520766, of course there are "good" ones, but this is a general trend and the good ones made no difference when your cities were burning down

>>12520875
you might be quoting the wrong post

>>12520880
Riiiight, because you think the majority of the 46,713,850 Afro-Americans were out rioting? I doubt even more than 1% of that number actually rioted, considering there were around 14,000+ arrests, which would also include other ethnic groups.
You're still an idiot.

>>12520890
You're right, I was. Thank you for pointing that out.

>>12520867 see: >>12520875

>>12520892
im definitely not an idiot here, the blm sentiment was shared among the majority of blacks, it was a minority that disavowed it. and again i will go back to >>12520766, this is the average black's lifespan. you can't deflect this forever. all i ever seen from blacks are setbacks for the west.

>>12520797
but you do realize this >>12520766 is the average black man when he's free, right? so what labor have they constituted if it takes 4 whites to off-set his loses?

>>12520903
It wasn't anymore than 1% of Afro-Americans out rioting, I'll say that with certainty.
There were 14,000 ≈, the US has a black population of 46,713,850, if there were a majority, that is, more than 50% of that population out rioting, that would be 23,356,925 people. What would the arrest ratio be? 23356925/14000=1668.35, or 1 arrest per 1668 rioters. That doesn't seem right, does it? What about 10%? That's 4,671,385 people, with an arrest ratio of 4671385/14000=333.67, or 1 arrest per 334 rioters. To me, that still seems a little high. What about 1%? That's 467,138 ≈ people, with an arrest ratio of 467138/14000=33.367, or 1 arrest per 33 rioters. That seems about right. So, I'd say, it was clearly no more than 1% of the black population of the US rioting. Do you think that's a sufficient sample size to condemn all of the other 99%?

>>12520911
A life is only worth money to you? Sad.

>>12520923
*>There were 14,000 ≈ arrests...

>>12520923
what arests you fool? no one stood up to the rioting, all of your cute little math is absolutely baseless
>>12520927
don't move the goalpost. you have no place in the west first of all. no white person should have to look out for you

>>12520942
>what arests you fool? no one stood up to the rioting, all of your cute little math is absolutely baseless
It's literally on the Wiki page, you fool.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests
Shall we look at enforcement efficiency?
1 arrest per 1668 rioters, an enforcement efficiency of 0.0599%.
1 arrest per 334 rioters, an enforcement efficiency of 0.299%.
1 arrest per 33 rioters, an enforcement efficiency of 3.03%.
It was clearly no more than 1% of the US black population, if that, out rioting.
>you have no place in the west first of all.
I have no place? I'm not black, and even if I was, a black person has as much right to be in the West as anyone else, if they follow the social contract, which most of them.
>you have no place in the west first of all. no white person should have to look out for you
They were brought over here as slaves, against their will. We don't owe them anything, that's true. But we do owe them the social benefits that all citizens are entitled to.

Can we seriously discuss why 13% of the population commits over 50% of the violent crime?

This can’t be just poverty it doesn’t add up.

>>12520960
>*... which most of them do.

>>12520960
>if they follow the social contract, which most of them
checkmate racists!!

>>12520962
Not all 13% of the black population commits crime, you moron, it would be a small subset of that.

>>12520972
They do, a majority of them DO NOT commit crimes. Learn what a fucking majority is, and stop generalizing across a whole group of people, you FUCKING IDIOTS.

>>12520976
That makes things much much worse...

>>12520976
i cannot comprehend how you've scrolled through all the statistics in this comment thread and still believe blacks are worth it. it's people like you that doomed the west. you're probably a woman or a basedfag

>>12520985
How exactly does it? All groups have small subsets of criminals.

>>12520986
Because I'm not a moron who condemns whole groups of people based upon minorities.

>>12520992
>Because I'm not a moron who condemns whole groups of people based upon minorities
oh you have condemned people, your future descendents

>>12520997
That's some sensationalist nonsense, as I've shown example after example.

>>12521003
you will never see, you're blind. the west is over because most people actually agree with you, that is most white people, >>12520711

>>12521012
Do you have some facts to back that up?

>>12520713
søÿboi hasn't responded, guess I win :)

>>12521016
i literally linked you a statistic, and just a thought. instead of always asking for facts, even thought this thread is full with redpills, try to use your fucking head

>>12521028
Right, do know where we are? We deal in facts and figures here. Also, your facts don't show what you want them to show, they don't show this majority. You cannot condemn a majority for the actions of a minority.
It was 1% of less of the US black population that rioted, it isn't a majority of the US black population who commit crimes, as shown by your own figures. You're the one who is blind, my dog whistling friend.

>>12521036
this is your majority >>12520766, anything else is is the jerry on your melting pot cake, your cities still burned your authorities knelt, it's clear as day the future of your nation

>>12521060
You do realize the issue here is the poverty trap? If we made further attempts to uplift them, through the means of improved schooling, and the such like, there is a very real likelihood that their productivity will also improve.

>>12521068
you do that and have fun in your cultural playground, the west is already dead.

>>12521093
You keep saying that, but you don't keep proving that.

Imagine being so obsessed that you literally have to spend all your free time posting about iq on /sci/

>>12521111
checked quads of truth

>>12521111
Do you think I have anything better to do?

>>12521201
aren't you the guy who was lecturing others earlier on in this thread about being "lazy pricks" and "useless wastes of space" and shitting on physicists?
yet you yourself admit to having nothing better to do
lmao, kek'd
should've guessed

>>12521262
N-no t-that's no-not me!

>>12521068
>if you make the street wet it starts to rain

Black IQ mediates low SES, crime rates and poor academic achievement and there's plenty of proof for it.

>>12520646
the top earning 20% of blacks commit more crime than the lowest 20% of whites. The wealthiest black neighborhood is far more dangerous than the most hick redneck economically depressed shithole imaginable.

>>12520646
>Are you a shareholder of Locheed Martin?