Human biodiversity and history

Look man, I mean I'm not even a racist, okay? But even if I were that graph wouldn't help me be a racist because it doesn't make sense.

I would need to go to some better stormfront or neo-reactionary sites for that.

Americans should stay away from race discourses.

Are non stem students really this bad at reading basic graphs?

Is this just an excuse to call anons niggers? Most people aren't that literate when it comes to graphs anyway, he could just be white or some other race and a little confused. Not sure why you can't simply explain that most researchers that were asked, fall along the 0-40% range and 40-100%.

fuck

Why is it that the only people who care about trying to study the different intelligence levels of races are also white supremacists

makes you think

No that still doesn't make any sense. The graph is fundamentally flawed. I'm siding with his original contention.

because to continue being a blank slate libtard you have to deny the reality of race differences in intelligence and pretend the gap doesn't exist?

Holy shit, it gets so bad even the pyramids decide to leave

...

More pressing: why do self-described promoters of science and people who lambast others for being anti-science ideologues continue to deny human biodiversity?

Why does so much of Veeky Forums fall into the 0% category? Is it because this board is full of left wing virgins?

my sides

This is the funniest thread on Veeky Forums. Nothing makes any sense. I don't know what you mean. That picture with detroit made me confused.

Because the totality of modern scientific research has concluded race does not, in any practical terms, play into intelligence

Meanwhile you are still relying on discredited Nazi doctors and Josef Mengele for your opinions on anthropology

>Because the totality of modern scientific research has concluded race does not, in any practical terms, play into intelligence

You must know something that the vast majority of intelligence researchers don't then, random spotty Veeky Forums virgin

>race denialist retards unironically browse Veeky Forums

neat

kek

All studies say that asians are smarter than whites. White genocide when?

You're sure setting the bar high by going full /pol/tard and not even pretending to have a thoughtful discussion in your shitty thread, OP.

*east asians

>White genocide when?

y tho. asians lack SEVERELY in creativity

>White genocide when?
It's happening this very moment. But slowly.

>if you accept there are race differences in intelligence, it must IMMEDIATELY be followed by genocidal tendencies

holy shit, why are lolberals such loose canons?

I mean, in a political climate where the left blames everything on institutional racism and le privilege, it's pretty fucking important to know that there are genuine biological reasons society ends up with black people on the bottom every time

>opinion in the title
>arguing with opinions

>every time
Please, give other examples.

>East Asia is closer to Africa and than Europe according to this

Europe, North America, North Africa, Central and Southern America. Every multiracial country hates niggers

You forgot South Africa.

Of course. There needs to be more place for the asian masterrace. I mean its for the betterment of humanity,right?

It's not like we expect blacks to just kill themselves once it's been proven that they're less capable.

We'll help them do it ourselves.

So if it turns out Asians are more capable than Caucasians, it's up to them to make us die. I say let them try, see how far they get :^)

Why would blacks be interested in proving their inferiority?

I didn't know whites were being honest-to-God displaced, sterilized or killed in camps. There would be forcing "whites" to stop using their language, but there's not a single one, so add that in would be retarded.

>"Muh replacement population."

It has happened everywhere else too, get over it.

Do they hate niggers or black people? Is this based around IQ or violent behavior? even then there are differences world wide for certain populations and immigrant groups.

>emilkirkegaard
a reputable source

>intelligence is racial
false
Persons with a 100 IQ of every race are equal, genetically. Precisely because IQ is genetic.

I don't see why we need to give blacks a hard time, when whites have lower averages than Asians and generally give low IQ people a pass just because their racial average is slightly higher. Just look at the overlap.

blacks who do better than niggers and dumb whites can prove their superiority? I don't know why anons forget that IQ data also states this. Anons just seem to jump to >All them must die
unironically and ironically.

>I don't know why anons forget that IQ data also states this. Anons just seem to jump to >All them must die
>unironically and ironically.
I know why.
It's because people look at the IQ data with a political agenda and draw conclusions that cannot be found in the IQ data.

Take Obama as an example. He's most certainly more clever than Trump. Obama is a professor in law while Trump has a bachelor's degree in business. Take Michelle who has a Juris doctor from Harvard and Melania who dropped out of university in Slovenia after 1 year of learning about arts.

Finally IQ is correlated with academic success more so than it is with income. Ironically poor Baron.

If it were up to me I'd have no problem ridding the world of dumb people, black or white. But I know for certain that no black would be on board with genociding most of their race.

>and Melania who dropped out of university in Slovenia after 1 year of learning about arts.
To be fair, there was no reason for her to continue.

Most of your race too, really. There's no way a person with a 150 IQ isn't genetically superior to a person with a 130 IQ who got their score at the third try.
There's too many people anyway.

Reminds me of an Alex Jones phase where he would claim 170 IQ scientists were planning to kill of almost everybody.

>Most of your race too, really
Clearly that would depend on the exact criteria for what constitutes being "dumb", and I said nothing that would allow you to guess mine, so that's a kind of irrelevant point.

Oh and by the way 130 or 150 isn't that big of a difference. Anything above, say, 125, and personal characteristics become more relevant in determining success than IQ.

In fifty years genetically modified babies will available and computer-assisted brains too. Everyone will be as intelligent as he can afford, and so it will become a social issue relevant to social sciences.

It's irrelevant what your race is. You can be Ashkenazi Jew and most of you will still have to go if we are into genocide.

And you are right it depends on the criteria a point which I basically replied to preemptively.
Your post wasted time.
Not a waste at least.
It's very arguable what you are saying if we are actually measuring intelligence.
Success is not the same as intelligence.

I would respect Human Biodiversity theorists more if they didn't make shit up on the fly, like pic related.

All of that stuff is on the very fringe/edge of academia, and lacks the necessary politically unbiased reasoning for it to be accepted for studies. 90% of it is "muh IQ scores!!111"

Even for 100 quota, if you aren't east Asian or European, you'd still have to have cull most of your race.

It's politics what they engage in.
Most of them don't even accept that Asians are smarter on average. This should be an absolute fact withing that framework.

It's a mess and basically an excuse to be against race mixing, because human biodiversity will allegedly go away (it won't). There's no implications race mixing is bad if you look at the IQ data. Or any other scientific data. If a smart person has a kid with a dumb person the result is how it is, regardless of races.

>You can be Ashkenazi Jew and most of you will still have to go if we are into genocide.
Complete non fucking sequitur what the fuck are you even on about.

>Your post wasted time.
Your waste of time wasted time.

>Success is not the same as intelligence.
I never even implied anything of the sort.

Work on your reading comprehension, holy shit.

Yeah but he was arguing that you'd have to kill of most whites.

>IQ quota
The differentiation should be done based on genetics. Just because the black white IQ gap is 47% genetic doesn't mean some other groups aren't underperforming because of things other than genes. Indians are an example. No way their average potential is lower than black Americans.

>>You can be Ashkenazi Jew and most of you will still have to go if we are into genocide.
>Complete non fucking sequitur what the fuck are you even on about.
Are you new or dumb? You just said it would matter what your racial group is. And I said it wouldn't matter because even if you belonged to the smartest group, most would still have to go.

Also ofc most whites would have to go too. 100 IQ is far too dull and low. Also I actually never mentioned whites. I said "your race".

I honestly have no idea what the fuck you're on about, so let me just reiterate what's been going on:

I said
>most of blacks would have to die if we were to remove the dumb

And you said
>most of anyone will have to go, even Ashkenazi fucking jews with what, 120 iq?

To which I replied
>that would depend on your criteria of what's dumb

To which you just sperged out.

Are you just going on off the assumption that my criteria for "dumb" is "anything below 115" or some shit?

Also
>calling someone new for (supposedly) losing an argument
Do you lack any kind of awareness of the word "new" and its usage?

>inb4 poolnloo compilation image

>To which I replied
>>that would depend on your criteria of what's dumb
>To which you just sperged out.
Read the original post I made.
>below 115
And no thats's not my assumption at all. It should be clear from my posts.
>new
Called you new because you came across as someone who was clueless about Jewish IQ.

You have no idea what 'the fuck' I'm on about because you are stupid.

What do your parents do?

>Indians
What else could be causing it?

Iodine deficiencies, lead in water, poor education, poor nutrition, poor hygiene resulting in diseases. Obviously conditions are suboptimal. Those are some things that could be behind that. Plus the biggest value for heritability of IQ is at 80%. There's room there.

the same thing that caused the Americans and Scandis to rise 15+ points in

>The Dutch data proved the existence of unknown environmental factors so potent that they account for 15 of the 20 points gained. The hypothesis that best fits the results is that IQ tests do not measure intelligence but rather a correlate with a weak causal link to intelligence.

psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.171

You still make no sense.

Why would you say that most of everyone, even a people whose IQ is 120, would be removed, if we set to remove dumb people.

How else can this shit be interpreted other than your criteria for stupidity being approximately 120 IQ?

Never
As a large part of intellegence is knowledge based, gene exspression is shaky, and a high level of interbreeding between populations any measure claiming to represent that is complete pseudoscience.
Let alone paeloanthroplogy, lmao.

>asians lack SEVERELY in creativity
Oh, lol.

Asian research institutions aren't well established. Most Asian intellectual capital goes into industry. Japan alone makes more patents than all of Europe combined yearly, and the average Korean is something like 6-10x more innovative per capita than the average Euro.

52% of American patents are by non residents

Have you taken a look at who writes those "American" and "Canadian" citations?

Not to mention, look at the TOP citations, almost all Asians in the hard sciences.

scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&vq=chm&view_op=list_hcore&venue=UJChSoIuvTUJ.2016

scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&vq=eng&view_op=list_hcore&venue=iGi98NXoUDsJ.2016

scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&vq=phy&view_op=list_hcore&venue=ey6hLIMB9w4J.2016

What were the cultural factors behind this?

People being "intellectual fatties", ie. taking stuff at face value instead of spending 10 sec to look it up.

scientificamerican.com/article/kids-and-animals-who-fail-classic-mirror/

/pol/ BTFO

>however there has been some controvercy
Controversy being it lead science into a politically inconvenient conclusion, hence there must be something wrong with the method, because there is no way reality could be politically inconvenient, right? If something points towards such conclusions, there must be some mistake at play, clearly.

Just look at the guy who dared to suggest:
>There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.

Instead of any two way dialogue he was merely stumped out of existence. That's why the scientific community would rather dismiss any method that would prove there is a difference in cognitive capabilities across various ethnicities than deal with the politics of such a statement. IQ also came under a shitstorm as soon as people started realizing how politically incorrect the measurements turned out to be.

Science will rather just ignore the issue alltogether than try and risk hurting the feelings of the feeble.

Literally everything you discussed had been attacked with reasoned arguments. Plenty of people have had a two way dialogue. But I understand the need for the victim complex and to reject any reasonable retort as SJW pandering.

>politically inconvenient conclusion
>he says as he ignores the link containing the researcher's direct answer to his original question

the kenyan kids recognized themselves, that's all that matters, here's another one

digest.bps.org.uk/2010/10/01/cross-cultural-reflections-on-the-mirror-self-recognition-test/

read these threads from top to bottom before you post in them, pol scout

They already did and have since debunked outdated theories. You're late to the party.

>the kenyan kids recognized themselves, that's all that matters
They did not. They stood, appalled. It was just assumed that they understood that they were looking at themselves, but that "there must've been some cultural differences at play for them not reacting to the mark."

Just read this bullshit and tell me this has any merit as an actual explanation:
>The difference is not about when the children develop self-awareness or empathy, Mitchell says. Rather, it has to do with their social conditioning. Kids raised in interdependent cultures learn from the earliest games they play how to be part of a group.
>"They aren't supposed to look different so when they see that mark they're stunned," he says.
>Meanwhile, children raised to be independent are taught games that emphasize how they are separate and unique.

They don't go into detail what exactly they mean by "interdependent" or "independent" nor how exactly they determined the inherent differences between what kinds play here or there. They just create an ad hoc solution, a vague mumble jumble, to find a way around the obvious fact that the children in Kenya failed so unexpectedly badly.

Can it be cultural? Maybe. Have they sufficient proof to jump to such a conclusion? Not according to this article. So why did they make the jump? To avoid potentially inconvenient truths and a shitstorm.

Most of the "dialogue" has been attributing to environment anything that proves there being a difference, just as with the above example.

What kids play*

>Most of the "dialogue" has been attributing to environment anything that proves there being a difference, just as with the above example.

Considering this was the case with the Dutch, Scandinavians, Americans, and many other Europeans it makes sense that it would apply to others like the Indians as well

What exactly are you referring to?

I have never in my life head anyone ever make the argument that how women act in Southern and Eastern Europe is something to strive for. And I've been shitposting here for years.

Or is it just fun to draw angry irrational people and imagine up all kinds of stupid shit they'd be saying?

Either a very long time, or never.

Considering the myriad of confounding variables (i.e nutrition, education, culture and so on),
it seems that a highly stringent test unlike one yet seen would need to be developed to take measure of racialist features.

In any case, it seems at least to me that it would be a waste of time to pursue this sort of study unless chaff can be sifted through easily.
Looking at genes solely is rather stubborn considering the varieties of actual salient factors that we do understand and can alter.

i love how you are making this racial when some of the american or Canadian kids were not necessarily white. W Its almost if you were shilling for your own retarded political biases...

>scientific study of children in the 70s
>having anyone but caucasian subjects
pick one

They can have a lower IQ average and still recognize themselves in the mirror. Those two are not mutually exclusive.

Also they could have been appalled and frozen and still able to recognize themselves. Of course it can be up to culture of upbringing if the child touches the paper or not and how it reacts. I have to take the word of the researcher who made the study on this one. Since they actually conducted the study and observed the children.

You are denying parts of the paper that don't fit your agenda right now.

Here's a few truths, that contradict the idea that Kenyans are much much later to develop self awareness.

Kenyans are human, like it or not - that's the reality. It's the species they belong to.
Also, blacks in general allegedly mature earlier. This has been observed with IQ as well and proposed as to why the IQ gap between whites and blacks in America increases with time.

Not him, but he's referring to the contents of this thread.

Read it before you drop the redpills and you will understand.

Doesn't Mrs Trump speak six languages or something?

"No"

Isn't the "blacks" based on us blacks that are mongrels?

Nothing to do with direct violence or language. Read up on the legal definition of genocide.

>It has happened everywhere else too, get over it.
And nowhere was anyone ever okay with it. Everyone resisted it. And it's natural to resist it.

Of course you wouldn't say that to native Americans.

N-no be progressive and get over it you white shitlord!

Because they know enough about science and academia to see through this kind of bullshit.

>I mean, in a political climate where the left blames everything on institutional racism and le privilege
They do not, you just have a victim complex like the rest of /pol/.

>reasons society ends up with black people on the bottom every time
They wind up at the bottom because most of the world has been profoundly effected by imperialist European powers who had a vested interest in making sure their primary source of manual labor stayed in manual labor.

>Legal definition of genocide:
>"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

>(a) Killing members of the group;

>(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

>(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

>(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

>(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I don't see anything of what you are implying.

>Of course you wouldn't say that to native Americans.

I would because, at this point, the actual genocide happened hundreds of years ago and that shouldn't be relevant to the discussion unless we are specifically playing the "Genocide Olympics" (and, even then, so far the prize would be a tie between the arabs, the mongols, with the genocide suffered by the native americans placed at the third place).

People don't want to become minorities in their own homelands, they don't want to lie down and take it, why should they?

Being a minority is inherently bad. Have you ever taken a course on intersectionality?

>white genocide is real
lol
immigrants 'replacing' non existent white people is not a genocide
it's not replacement, there's place enough

i don't want random third worlders who have no place here, but let's live in reality please

C loosely fits under what's happening, alongside the "mental element" which is present.

You could perhaps argue also for D.

>I would because, at this point, the actual genocide happened hundreds of years ago
Yes. Their genocide is over (most of which was diseases, may I remind you).

Now the question that arises is: would you have said "big deal, happened before elsewhere too, get over it" while it was still going on?

Why do you retards use the word """human biodiversity""" to disguise psuedoscientific notions of social Darwinism?
Anthropology and ethno-ecology both study human biodiveristy but don't put them into a hierarchal postion.
And study human biodiversity in the form of Socio-ecological beta/gamma diversity instead of treating the alpha diversity of the entire species and autistically trying to use it to confirm psuedoscientific notions of racial superiority.
Because human biodiversity is like the biodiversity of different apple strains.
So fuck off with your pseudoscience and cryptic nazism.

Seems like genocide to me. Once Abdul and Makwambe outnumber you two to one they'll start making it formal by gunning you down in the streets. In fact they already do, while cashing welfare cheques to boot!

It conforms, genocide doesn't have to outright.
working women and contraception also play a role, which is why they are spreading as norms globally, to bring down the birth rates where it actually matters.

It doesn't at all.

If you are white living in the Western world you can easily have 3 kids and take care of them if you aren't a bum. The conditions are very good.