Are there any psychological diferences between the races?

This is a retarded example since it's hard to distinguish between nature and nurture

Here's some better ones.

pnas.org/content/109/19/7241.full
This one explains why some /po/acks like to say Asians are "souless" Basically it's just a miscommunication in reading body language

theguardian.com/science/2016/apr/18/genes-influence-the-age-at-which-you-lose-your-virginity-first-sex-dna

OP here.

I'm curious to see if there's genetical diferences between the races that could explain the cultural diferences between tropical countries and more colder ones.

>Their entire "point" is genetics, even if they didn't outright state it.
Why do you assume this?

In this case it isn't difficult; it's nurture. Anyone with a functioning brain could immediately say why people of mixed race have higher rates of mental illness.

>This is a retarded example since it's hard to distinguish between nature and nurture
Why is nurture "retarded" to consider?

>These two posts are made by the same person. They are a special ed neonazi shill trying to ruin the board. Their entire "point" is genetics, even if they didn't outright state it.
lol, someone's been spooked by the /pol/ bogeyman. might want to take a break from Veeky Forums for a bit, /pol/ isn't out to get you

>Using genetics to explain cultural differences
>Between groups that are known to have different climates
The absolute fucking state of Veeky Forums
If you wanna hear what you want to hear

But it seems that all southern countries are way more laid back than northern folks.

This board along with many others have had a marked drop in both quality and average intelligence since being infested with /pol/ cancer.

how do you explain russians and germans being more colder and souless than spics and blacks?

>This board along with many others have had a marked drop in both quality and average intelligence since being infested with /pol/ cancer.
This board has always had low average intelligence, literally since the first day it opened. What makes you think it used to be any better?

>muh /pol/ bogeyman

Boogeyman implies it doesn't exist. If this board isn't infested with /pol/ brainlets, who are the people saying cuck, ((( ))), shilling against Jews, and making race-bait threads? None of that was here before.

>How do you explain the cultural differences between the people brought up in different climates with different histories and different languages and different religions and different literally everything apart from being 99.99999% genetically identical
Oh I guess it must be the single thing that you want to be so you can feel scientifically justified in your beliefs to rid yourself of any cognitive dissonance

>cuck
hardly any posts like this, archive shows 24 cuck posts in the last 9 days

>shilling against Jews
Veeky Forums loves jews, ie. witten grothendieck von neumann etc.

>and making race-bait threads? None of that was here before.
Want to know how I know you're new here? There's been race/IQ threads for like 7 years straight

>/pol/ isn't out to get you
It is if you're mixed race

>It is if you're mixed race
t. paranoid retard

>Reproducing with people of other races doesn't cause mental illness or any illness at all.
riiiight

asians will develop asian looking comunities, blacks will develop tropical looking comunities,

most people will develop somehow the culture they come from somehow, even if they get togheter people from diferent countries.

why do you think spics get along just fine in their own comunities in USA even if they come from diferent countries like mexico and argentina?

Genetically we're so similar it's not even worth mentioning. It has more to do with the way you were brought up than the colour of your skin.

Why is Veeky Forums so unscientific?

>Anyone with a functioning brain could immediately say why people of mixed race have higher rates of mental illness.
Why is Veeky Forums so unscientific?

>>shilling against Jews
>Veeky Forums loves jews, ie. witten grothendieck von neumann etc.
Veeky Forums loves great scientists, listing great Jewish scientists as evidnece Veeky Forums loves Jews is moronic

My uncle is mixed White Chinese, he tried to an-hero at 20-something...

Sample size of one proves nothing, but I believe its possible Asian mixed with white might be more unstable.

>asians will develop asian looking comunities

It doesn't though, what causes mental illness is the way general society treats mixed race kids as social outcasts.

>Veeky Forums loves great scientists, listing great Jewish scientists as evidnece Veeky Forums loves Jews is moronic
wouldn't 'shilling against Jews' take precedence over scientific achievements? where do you even see these 'shilling against Jews' posts?

>racial IQ averages don't have an effect on comunities
>low IQ racial averages wont produce more poverty and crime
???

>using social constructs as an objective benchmark to how obedient a people is.
Retard tier/10

What do you mean? Normally Veeky Forums wouldn't have any kind of shilling threads since that's something retards do

>What do you mean?
"where do you even see these 'shilling against Jews' posts?"

Oh I was more commenting on you saying that Veeky Forums loves Jews

I see these posts on Veeky Forums, posts usually talk about Jewish scientists as if their race were their only feature, posts that imply that the system is biased in favour of Jews, those fucking "PHENOTYPE" posts

>why do you think spics get along just fine in their own comunities in USA even if they come from diferent countries like mexico and argentina?
Maybe because of the cultural similarities and shared language and shared common religion and the fact they all used to be a single country that built all its colonies with the same model

Or maybe spic communities are genetically encoded, maybe one day CRISPR will allow us to inject the spic-community gene into a white person

Define "the races."

white, black, asian, etc.

>Or maybe spic communities are genetically encoded, maybe one day CRISPR will allow us to inject the spic-community gene into a white person
Can you name this gene for me?

So, skin color? Do you have a solid scientific genetic definition of race?

yes

Care to share it?

no

are you the kind of person who doesn't believe in racism?

Racism is a system of belief not based in reality. The entire idea rests on the conspiracy theory that somehow the entire scientific community is lying, either by being paid to lie or under some duress. It is however just a conspiracy.

How can racism be real if races aren't real?

The same way religions are real, but gods don't exist. It's a system of belief and politics, not science.

>The same way religions are real, but gods don't exist.
then define the races as the things people are racist against, what's the issue?

That would only be a definition of belief.. not of science. There is no genetic or scientific definition of race.

I hate you
I was beginning to get somewhere.

>I was beginning to get somewhere.
where?

>That would only be a definition of belief.. not of science. There is no genetic or scientific definition of race.
define "scientific definition"

somwhere

>science board
>wants to discuss social science
There's a reason psychology is classified under the Arts.

Define what you mean by a psychological difference between races

Like you can say "x race correlates with y psychological difference" but that's not necessarily meaningful because race doesn't have to be a causal agent. The problem with a correlation alone is that you can make up any story you want to go with it.

If you wanna go into causes, you either have to consider genetics or environment. Unless you can suggest a specific genetic link (ie you found evidence x race has different genes which result in modified neurophysiology), I'm gonna guess it's probably not there because people have plenty of dissimilarities based on expression of genes, rather than genes themselves, and I've seen no evidence that black people have fewer ion channels in their neurons or anything like that. That doesn't rule out genetics but I don't see a reason to hone in there yet.

Sometimes, though, you can actually get meaningful mutations among populations, like you get something along the lines of lactase persistence, which is being able to process dairy into adulthood, and that could hypothetically influence culture to have greater value for milk products and dairy farming, which could ripple outward in how they live. Skin color is also maybe an influence in how you live too, or connected to it, because pale people are kinda best adapted to cloudy places with less sunlight, black people are better where there's lots of sun. These environments can correlate with all sorts of different weather patterns and climates which in and of themselves demand different things of people. Like, go back a few thousand years, dump 50,000 black people into some sparse area of Scandinavia with enough resources to build a new civilization, and they're probably not going to make it look like, I dunno, somewhere near the equator, because that wouldn't really work.

Nonsensical since Northern countries work less hours in most cases (eve in Spain's case even with long breaks they still say in longer).

>le blank slate

>That would only be a definition of belief.. not of science. There is no genetic or scientific definition of race.
How is this any less scientific than a definition for an atom?

An atom is something you can observe and measure. There are no genetics for what you call race that we can observe.

There's no genetics for atoms, why does there have to be genetics for race?

...

If you go into anti-intellectual garbage heaps like /pol/, you'll get called a shill regardless of what you define race as. Half of them will call you subversive for defining 75%-white people as white, others will call you subversive for not defining 75%-white people as white. Take any arbitrary percentage of "whiteness," and you'll get called a shill for saying it is/isn't white. Still others are so incredibly dumb (yet very confident) that they use contradictory concepts like "one drop rule" as their guide. Most of them agree that Jews aren't white even when they are wholly European, mainly because their entire ludicrous fantasy victim complex narrative hinges on Jews magically having the same genetically-defined characteristics regardless of actual background. Race isn't scientific, not even the people who revolve their entire lives around it can agree on what a race is. If scientists did officially define race according to very specific parameters, racists would call those scientists shills and probably put parentheses around their names and/or organizations.

tl;dr racists are morons

Your argument for race not being a scientific definition is because there's no genetics behind it. There's no genetics behind atoms so why isn't their definition unscientific?

I'm not that guy, but you can't seriously be asking that question?

>I'm not that guy, but you can't seriously be asking that question?
Feel free to elaborate.

It's such a dumb thing to say I'm convinced it's bait, if its genuine then you shouldn't be shitting up Veeky Forums

>It's such a dumb thing to say I'm convinced it's bait, if its genuine then you shouldn't be shitting up Veeky Forums
It's genuine, what constitutes a 'scientific definition'?

Why aren't races real?
You can apply several definitions used in other fields and works:
>different genetic frequencies
>remarkable morphologic differences that are preserved through offspring regardless of environment
>Different adaptations to environment (for example digestive or immunologic)

Of course 'race' is just a taxonomic term, and different definitions will give different races. However can be useful. For example consider:
in the species "humans", selecting a group of people based on racial criteria (such as genetic distance) makes other attribute, such as IQ, to decrease in that subgroup when compared to the general population. Therefore a link between race and IQ can be made in principle (of course doesn't rule out other causes, for example it could be that these genetic differences are environmental adaptations and just so happens that all people of a race live in a certain environment).

1/2

The point is: there's a continuum of genetic diversity throughout all lifeforms, and of course there's more difference between me and a bacteria than between you and me, however, some arbitrary categories can be assessed in order to study them in an ordered manner.
We can apply the same definition of subespecies we use for other organisms and discern races in humans. Of course not the naive races "black yellow white", but there definitely are.

The problem is you cucks are too afraid of what admitting that simple thing could bring about. I have seen it many times, and gives me the chills. To see grown up "scientists" to admit that they would never publish something such as "being gay is genetic" (were talking hypothetically) because that would allow some forms of discrimination.
You argue that "it's implausible that everyone is lying". However, I think it's precisely that: most scientists are liberal and those who aren't, fear the consequences of speaking something contrary to the mainstream consensus. We have a typical case of "humans being human": they put belief before reason, and are so blind, think themselves so wise and intelligent, that they won't ever consider they are mistaken.

Sadly, scientists are political and have beliefs. It's been like that throughout all history, and there's a well known saying that "science advances one funeral at a time", and happens even today.

2/2

races are as real as dog breeds

Dog breeds have more genetic variation between them than humans do.

>Dog breeds have more genetic variation between them than humans do.
And?

>science is a liberal conspiracy
Every /pol/ thread

Do you also believe climate change is a lie and the earth is flat?

>Do you also believe climate change is a lie and the earth is flat?
I bet you think pairing these two ideas up makes them seem equally ridiculous (they aren't)

They are. Your entire ideology rests on the case that all the scientists are lying.

>bringing climate change
kek
my point still holds, and honestly considering all the fuss about civil rights and antiracism, is it so hard to consider that I might be right?
What happened to Watson for even suggesting that there could be IQ differences between africans and europeans?
Are you so candid to really believe scientists are all machines who only want the truth and never ever let their political beliefs get in the way? There's not much politics in quantum physics, so a great deal of truth can be expected. Racial issues however are VERY political...

What about GMOs? Nuclear Power? Food processing?

Science does not care about politics at all. Just because there are certain things YOU don't like doesn't mean it's all a lie.

Your shitposting and raids have nothing to do with with is scientifically wrong or right. Even if the things you believe are true, which they aren't, it wouldn't change modern politics or be an excuse to segregate people.

you are making a lot of assumptions, the first of which is that you think you know me or what my beliefs are.
>What about GMOs? Nuclear Power? Food processing?
what about them? lmao...

you are grasping at straws right there.
>Science does not care about politics at all
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
yeah sure bro, that's why diversity programs are being implemented in most campuses, becasue they don't care about social justice at all.
Ayyyy

Those are political programs, not scientific ones.

>Science does not care about politics at all
Scientific findings have political implications. See the examples that make up your conservative strawman.

>Science does not care about politics at all.
undergrads taking over Veeky Forums again?

No, they don't. That's only what you desire. You want your pseudoscience to be true so you hold on to your political beliefs, but it's all just conspiracy theories and emotions.

Yes, they do. Just look at what you think everyone that disagrees with you believes in. Your own stance on issues like climate change or nuclear power is a politically relevant opinion.

>Science does not care about politics at all.
where do most research funds for science come from again?

Race is a social construct. You are thinking about phenotypical differences.

I had someone tell me iq has nothing to do with intelligence because of racial differences in scores and that if you can improve your score on a few via training then that's not a measure of intelligence.
Anyone care to tell me how this makes any sense?

>le strawman

The IQ test is a test, and testing is a skill which can be practiced for a better score.

>BELIEVE ME OR YOURE A POLTARD NAZI!!!!

what do you expect? half of Veeky Forums is spooked by the /pol/ bogeyman

Never say never when it comes to biology. But I agree its probably societal issue.

>Anyone care to tell me how this makes any sense?

Yeah. When you see intelligence tests they are not trying to be like school tests in which they test how much you know about something. They are trying to test that supposed inherent level of general intelligence we all had.

For example, consider gifted kids. Most people would agree that those kids are naturally "smarter" than the average kid, in some way or another. But how can we measure that? How can we measure raw intelligence? Well, first we need to define raw intelligence. We can try to do so like this

Definition: Raw intelligence is the base level of general intuition a person has and is born with and can't change.

You can easily say that your typical Stacy was born with less raw intelligence than someone like Terence Tao, who has great intuition. I also say that it can't change because we observe that no matter how much brainlets try to get good at math, they never can truly understand it. All they do is memorize more analogies and methods. So clearly their knowledge is increasing, but their raw intelligence isn't.

Following this definition then if a test claims to test raw intelligence then it obviously must have the property:

Theorem: If a person takes a raw intelligence test arbitrarily many times then the person must always score the same.

Proof: I proceed by contradiction. Suppose that he first got the score [math]s_1[/math] and then in some other round he scored [math] s_2 [/math]. As the two numbers are not equal, one is bigger than the other. That means that either the person's raw intelligence decreased or decreased. Ergo his raw intelligence changed, which is a contradiction. QED.

Unfortunately this is not what happens with IQ tests. People who train for IQ tests can easily score like 10 extra points. Therefore the IQ test is not a raw intelligence test.

you're an imbecile