Why do the humanities deny that the genetic makeup of a population plays an important (if not THE most important) role in determining the kind of society that population can produce? Why do they deny the theory of evolution when it comes to humans?
Is it because of Marxism?
Yes it's Marxism and cowardice. They Either want terrible things to happen or think they are preventing a greater evil. The reality is that the truth is never evil, and denying the truth only galvanizes people into the pride filled supremacism they are trying to avoid.
This sounds like a question for Veeky Forums
Why? This is the humanities board. The study of human genetics is actually thriving in the scientific community right now.
this is not related to this board, even including the "humanities"
Putting the subject of the board in your post does not make it related or appropriate for the board
Yes
Some issues are too politically-sensitive to be subject to the same kind of rational analysis as other fields.
You can see that in a lot of responses to TBC, many of which amounted to "your case isn't proven" (fair enough), but then dishonestly implied that "not proven" = "junk." Which it certainly isn't; the thesis is one of the better theses available to explain various aspects of society and its configuration.
You'll see this when people who have never even read TBC casually (and incorrectly) note that it has been "debunked." They actually mean "critiqued," but are simply reciting a false narrative pushed for political purposes by dishonest academics.
No one has ever "debunked" the notion that the thing called "IQ" or g-factor is subject to Gaussian distribution across populations, and that when sorted racially, different populations appear to have different distributions.
>Some issues are too politically-sensitive to be subject to the same kind of rational analysis as other fields.
But what constitutes "politically sensitive" is subjective. This subject wasn't considered politically sensitive, say, in the early 20th century, whereas subjects not considered politically sensitive today were indeed politically sensitive back in the day.
My question is how and why did this subject become politically sensitive?
biology is crap, in special human biology, it doesn't even have any basis on the bible or acknowledge Noah sons to base the nations
Because the powers that be, for a variety of political, social, and economic reasons are pushing for globalism, free trade, multiculturalism, multiracialism, and so on, and have been since at least the end of World War II, and anything that threatens that is attacked through the mass media and academia.
The truth of the differences, culturally, biological, intellectual, between peoples is a threat to the current political and economic order and thus cannot abide.
They took to long to reconcile the fact that smart/average blacks exist at the time and now it's switched. Imagine if they could in the early 20th century.
idk
Basically following World War II, when politically-motivated anthropologists like Ashley Montagu made it their mission to establish anti-racism as a central plank of modern science. Fields like eugenics became associated with "Hiterlism" and were discarded.
By the late-60's, intelligence research became explicitly-political following the civil rights movement in the US and the soixante-huitard movement in continental Europe, and IQ researchers like Arthur Jensen were physically attacked when they tried to give speeches.
After that, unless you had the "right" kind of politics, university officials were unlikely to get you funding or tenure for sensitive matters like race and IQ.
Steven Jay Gould refuted "The Bell Curve" in "The Mismeasure of Man".
I believe the same as you do, although I'll admit I have trouble to pinpoint who those "powers that be" are. They seem to be a mix of bankers, corporate heads, Jews with persecution complexes, and ethnomasochistic Whites. It's hard to tell if there is a coherent conspiracy or if they are all acting in a disorganized manner according to their self-interest, but achieving the same goal.
I think it goes a lot deeper than the influence of a single academic.
b8
*to clarify he wrote it in 1981 but re-released it in 1996 with an added response to Murray
How? Gould was and is a highly respected figure in biology. A shame he died at 60--I'd love to see him rip into the alt-right.
I tend to view it more as a political movement of inter-related mini-conspiracies working for their own self-interest that incidentally achieves these results.
Less of a Legion of Doom, more of an infestation of rats.
Of course it went deeper than one academic; it was an entire movement. And it was championed by a lot of prominent non-scientiist academics, too, like Marcuse.
That's a good example of common "wisdom" that turns out to be flat-out wrong. Aside from the fact that Gould got caught lying post-mortem about skull-size research, his "refutation" of TBC amounted to him whining about the propriety or legitimacy of sources.
It was the academic equivalent of anklebiting. If you really want to "refute" or "debunk" something, you need an alternative hypothesis supported by stronger evidence, and he didn't have one. Or at the least, you have to expose the hypothesis as illogical/contradictory/unsupported/etc. He most certainly didn't do THAT.
His "argument," as such, was more or less that science had a long history of racism and that Hernstein/Murray were being mean racists, too.
yeah how DARE you expect murray to follow the scientific method properly
The Mismeasure of Man is not a refutation at all, it's a typical example of post-modernist prevarication. The crux of Gould's argument is that there allegedly was this American anthropologist living in the 19th century who "mismeasured" the cranial volume of skulls of different races, and that this mismeasurement was due to unconscious racism displayed by his part, and therefore his work was tainted by racism, and by extension, all work on intelligence is tainted by racism. Gould's evidence was his remeasurement of the skulls which the anthropologist had used.
Now, this is clearly nonsense to any rational personal, because nobody has used cranial measurements in the field of intelligence study in the past 100 years, ever since Francis Galton invented psychometrics. This is akin to attacking Astronomy by showing the falsity of the methods of Astrology.
Now the real kicker is that a few years ago a study showed that the American anthropologist had, in fact, not mismeasured any skulls, but instead it was Steven Jay Gould who had committed methodological errors. Ironically, he was the culprit of "unconscious anti-racism" which caused him to falsify his data.
And although one shouldn't interpret this as a personal attack, it still needs to be mentionned: Steven Jay Gould was a communist Jew.
Genetic population differences get overblown super hard by racists. You don't have to immediately resort to blaming Marxist conspiracies for people not wanting to shave off their ideals of equality.
>Gould was and is a highly respected figure in biology.
Nonsense, his work was rejected as laughable by the academic community. He was the Jared Diamond of his time.
Anyways I've expounded in more detail here:
I tend to agree.
Right, but I find it hard to believe that academics could have such an influence on the whole structure of society. The academics produced the subversive work, but who paid for it? Who promoted it?
SJG doesn't attack Murray's methods, he attacks the method of a guy who lived in the 1820s, methods which turned out to be correct.
>Genetic population differences get overblown super hard by racists
Okay? But we're not talking about racists here, we're talking about academic work.
>You don't have to immediately resort to blaming Marxist conspiracies for people not wanting to shave off their ideals of equality.
Where did I blame Marxist conspiracies?
>And although one shouldn't interpret this as a personal attack, it still needs to be mentionned: Steven Jay Gould was a communist Jew.
Then why mention it?
>Why do the humanities deny that the genetic makeup of a population plays an important (if not THE most important) role in determining the kind of society that population can produce? Why do they deny the theory of evolution when it comes to humans?
The theory of evolution states the opposite you uneducated fuck.
Because it gives context to his underlying motivations. He was part of the genetics-denying movement of the 70s and 80s (with Leon Kamin and Richard Lewontin), who themselves are the descendants of Boas and Montagu.
What? You seem to be confused.
>The theory of evolution states that people groups that develop in wildly divergent environments will end up genetically the same.
By what means? Does the Evolution Fairy keep them from adapting to those separate environments with different adaptations so all their differences are purely superficial? They have different skin, bones, susceptibility to diseases, skull shapes, pregnancy duration, athletic highs and lows, and so on but their brains were kept exactly the same?
How? Why? What what principle short of divine intervention does such a ridiculous scenario emerge?
>t. someone who doesn't actually understand the goals of undertakings such as the human genome project
The goal is to use genetics to understand the underlying causes and risk factors for many diseases and pathologies, not to sort out "muh IQ and race."
The reason you won't post this on Veeky Forums it because you know you will get BTFO or you already have.
>so on but their brains were kept exactly the same?
user we still retain a fuckton of our features from the days human and and frog common ancestor
>The goal is to use genetics to understand the underlying causes and risk factors for many diseases and pathologies, not to sort out "muh IQ and race."
That's one of the reasons, but you must be extremely uneducated if you think that research on racial differences and on the genetic causes of intelligence hasn't also greatly progressed since the early 2000s.
Perhaps you're ignorant of websites like 23andme which deciphers your genome to tell you your racial ancestry?
As for the field of intelligence research, articles come out all the time. Here's a recent one as an example: nature.com
I believe genetics matter, but culture matters too.
North and South Korea have the same genetics.
Dont go searching for a single ism that will explain everything.
Murray had equal and opposite political motivations (and regardless of his left-wing politics, Gould's Jewish background should be irrelevant given that most race/IQ "studies" suggest that Ashkenazi Jews have among the highest of any group).
Similarly, I'm suspicious of your good faith. At least you're hiding yourself better than most /pol/acks.
Are you implying that the differences in intelligence between humans and frogs is due to culture?
Yes, culture obviously matters.
>Murray had equal and opposite political motivations
Not really, the opposite of a communist would be a neo nazi I guess, and Murray is not a neo nazi at all.
> (and regardless of his left-wing politics, Gould's Jewish background should be irrelevant given that most race/IQ "studies" suggest that Ashkenazi Jews have among the highest of any group).
Ashkenazi Jews do have the highest average IQ. As for why that makes mentioning his background irrelevant, I don't quite follow. I mentioned his background because there is a definite current in jewish culture to combat (most of the time non-existent) "oppression", to the point of science denial, which goes back to Montagu and Boas.
>Similarly, I'm suspicious of your good faith. At least you're hiding yourself better than most /pol/acks.
Thanks for the compliment.
>when sorted racially
That becomes the problem right there. Because nobody can clearly define a "race" without encountering some form of loki's argument. It's like trying to define humanity by genetics - we can't do it without either calling non-human someone who clearly is human, or calling human something that is clearly not.
There is more genetic diversity within each race than there is between races. Race is more of a social construct than genetic. And its definition is more subjective than objective.
There's a guy in Missouri who is clearly white. But he always identifies himself as black. The state even took him to court over this and lost because they cannot legally define black, or white, or Hispanic or Asian.
In what fucking way is this Veeky Forums?
Fuck off back to /pol/
Ask yourself
Why do people with higher education tend to be more accepting of diversity, while dumbfuck highschool grads are the racist ones?
It does not reflect well for you sir.
Sheesh, when will Lewontin's fallacy finally die?
>And its definition is more subjective than objective.
You can analyze a swab of your spit and construct a precise ancestry tree. How is that possible if genes do not contain the information for determining race?
>There's a guy in Missouri who is clearly white. But he always identifies himself as black. The state even took him to court over this and lost because they cannot legally define black, or white, or Hispanic or Asian.
That's more a problem of the legal system than of racial science.
Brainwashing?
Why did Europeans never create civilization unless taught by brown people?
Bad luck? Or genetics?
Please don't shit up this thread, we have a good discussion going.
Because Genes do NOT contain information for determining race. Only ancestry - which is almost always a mishmash of MANY geographic origins. Genetics provides a far better argument AGAINST races than for them.
There is no such thing as genetically pure white man.
What I've never gotten from the sorts of people who support Murray's hypothesis is what effects it would actually have if this were accepted as true. I'm ignoring the /pol/ "kill/deport all the niggers" types, but would a 5 or 10 or 15-point IQ gap (however wide it would be after controlling for factors like poverty and malnutrition) have any effect on government policy or on how you should treat the average black or white person? What does it mean for gifted/genius blacks and dumb whites/East Asians?
What do you mean? The genetic inferiority of ancient Europeans is a perfectly acceptable subject
>muh dumb smart people
>Because Genes do NOT contain information for determining race. Only ancestry - which is almost always a mishmash of MANY geographic origins
Don't be ridiculous, racial ancestry and geographical origin are pretty much the same thing because whites all have a geographical origin in Europe, blacks all have a geographical origin in sub saharan Africa, etc.
>Genetics provides a far better argument AGAINST races than for them.
Not at all. Read up on Lewontin's fallacy, the idea that the statement "there is more variance within races than between them" is false.
>There is no such thing as genetically pure white man.
True insofar as the words "genetically pure" don't mean anything. Strawman argument to argue against the existence of races.
>There is more genetic diversity within each race than there is between races.
You should probably stop right there. At this point, you're just repeating dogma, and almost certainly would not be able to participate in a discussion of actual population genomics.
A "race" is just a group with genetic affinity derived from common descent over time, and the proliferation of things like group-propagated alleles.
People who object to the term usually object from nonsensical or dishonest grounds. But it's a perfectly valid and often quite useful means of typologizing human populations.
Maybe for another thread.
Pretty much.
>, the idea that the statement "there is more variance within races than between them" is false.
meant "the idea that the statement [...] refutes the existence of races is false"
It would destroy most of the reasoning behind legal doctrines such as "disparate impact," which presume that under-representation (or over-representation, depending on the context) is prima facie evidence of illegal discrimination on the basis of race.
Hopefully, it wouldn't have the negative outcomes you described (kill/deport...), although to be honest it's quite possible that this could happen. The SJWs who haven't read Murray's book assume that his argument is "niggers are dumb and should be deported", but his argument really is "blacks (and lots of whites, of course) have a low IQ, how can we structure our society to allow citizens regardless of their intellectual abilities to live a decent and fulfilling life".
I think the most obvious application of accepting the IQ gap would be immigration policy, which would cause IQ to be taken into consideration when admitting in immigrants (which is already the case with Asian immigrants, who can only come through H1B, which selects for high IQ).
A second obvious application would be education reform. Public education is awful because it is based on Marxist dogma that all humans are equal in capability. This has caused a hunt to eliminate any unequal test scores, which of course, since students have unequal cognitive capabilities, usually means making the level of education so low that it becomes meaningless. And ironically the biggest victims of that are inner city minority kids with high IQs (who do exist). The kids of the upper class education professors who devise these school reforms of course usually go to expensive private schools where they are taught Greek and Latin from an early age...
Educated people tend to inhabit bubbles in which they interact with other educated people, which means that the "diversity" they experience is not the kind of diversity experienced by people in less-rarefied social environments.
It's one thing (and quite an easier thing) to be an educated Chinese person dealing with educated blacks on campus. Quite another, deadlier thing to be a working-class Chinese person dealing with the black urban underclass in a place like Oakland.
>Obese keyboard warriors from /pol/ displaying complete ignorance of biology once again
The fact that a bunch of high school dropouts think they're going to mastermind the mass murder of millions is hilarious
Ha, we've read the same Amren article.
Not an argument.
no it wasn't.
You can breed a random collection of dogs into 1:1 equivalents of known breeds like the poodle or look alikes. That's how many pounds are often wrong on guessing the ancestry of dog mixes and many times confuse a mutt fora pure breed.
Also can you define the races?
These shitters from /pol/ get BTFO on Veeky Forums every month so they came here to "Redpill" raid people into their cult instead
>You can breed a random collection of dogs into 1:1 equivalents of known breeds like the poodle or look alikes
Their genotype would differ though.
>Also can you define the races?
Human genetic clustering.
TBC doesn't address biology. It's a book about statistics. It doesn't posit a specific biogenetic theory of group-difference.
IT will go straight to hell and you know it. Look at fucking Eugenics or better yet the assumptions on the capabilities of blacks in the American South leading to institutes treating blacks as 2ndclass citizens who aren't worth equal treatment because "it's wasted on them"?
If the people in power think you are innately stupider then them they will treat you like shit. Also public schooling is weak because of massive funding disparities and low budgets along side how cities allocate taxes.
>all have a geographical origin in
But that's wrong. Nobody has origins in a single geographic region. Where did their ancestors come? You think Europe was populated by white people a half billion years ago? You think North America was populated by Amerindians a half billion years ago?
Come on, you're not even thinking. 5% of the Europeans have Temujin as a common ancestor. Does that make them Mongolian or white? In America, shall we go with the number of black ancestors or the "one drop" rule for determining who is black or white?
Shall we just ignore the Turks and Greeks because we can't tell if they are White or Middle Eastern? And genetics show Libyans share a common ancestry with Iranians. Shall we now call Libyans and Iranians the same race?
As if dogma automatically means it's untrue.
Prove me wrong. Show me one peer reviewed research paper that says otherwise.
>common descent over time
So you're saying everyone is the same race if you go back far enough.
>and the proliferation of things
You should probably stop right there because alleles is a terrible means of determining race.
Here's something for HARVARD UNIVERSITY that essentially says, you're wrong.
sitn.hms.harvard.edu
Now here's where we cue the complaint that Harvard is some liberal cuck school or some bullshit like that.
These old arguments are beyond boring.
badly done statistics. I swear to god every single Science-fag/peopel in fields that use it undergrad needs to be sat down in a stats class or two.
>IT will go straight to hell and you know it.
I'm not quite sure. Of course if you keep suppressing it and confining this knowledge to the extreme right you shouldn't be surprised if when they seize power things go awry. But there shouldn't be a reason that with proper education this knowledge wouldn't lead to atrocities.
>Also public schooling is weak because of massive funding disparities and low budgets along side how cities allocate taxes.
Not really, schoolchildren in China outperform our inner city schoolchildren with only a fraction of the funding. Public schools in the inner city are shit because educators are not allowed to discipline the troublesome students. To be frank, half of them do not belong in any kind of school anyways.
you know its possible that you're correct, and that ancient Europeans were dumber then than they are now, and for it to also be true that Europeans are still smarter than others nowadays thanks to some selection. its been 2000 years since Jesus and like 5000 years since the ancestors of modern Nords moved into the region. Jews went from being an oppressed minority to the richest, most powerful minority in the world in far less time, arguably due to some sort of pressure.
eugenics needn't violent or involve sterilization.
needn't be*
>You can create new population groups through the mixture of existing groups.
Well, yeah. Amerind mestizos, for example. That doesn't refute the existence of population groups to begin with.
Generally you would define races by taking genomic data from a lot of different individuals (basically the GWAS approach), and observing how those genotypes tend to "cluster," or appear to be in affinity with one another.
Then you will map the various clusters, and find that some of them make up larger clusters, and that different clusters can be characterized as having different sorts of statistical "distance" from other clusters.
And generally, this information comports with our simple unlearned impressions - Aussie aboriginals tend to look really different from other groups of humans, and their genetic clusters are indeed pretty far from those of other population groups.
The specific means of deriving clusters and assigning distance values is part of the technical field of population genomics, statistical genomics, etc. These things, in their details, are subject to a lot of debate.
But the notion that there are no such things as genetic population clusters (or that clusters cannot be identified/categorized in any meaningful way) is silly at this point. Of course they can. The debates relate to HOW we do it; not IF we even CAN do it.
>But that's wrong. Nobody has origins in a single geographic region.
Most europeans have 100% of their ancestry from Europe.
>Where did their ancestors come? You think Europe was populated by white people a half billion years ago? You think North America was populated by Amerindians a half billion years ago?
Now you're just using fallacious reasoning. I guess we can't differentiate between humans and single cell organisms since we both have the same origins!
>Come on, you're not even thinking. 5% of the Europeans have Temujin as a common ancestor.
What? I think you meant to type Chinese.
>In America, shall we go with the number of black ancestors or the "one drop" rule for determining who is black or white?
Use percentages, it's the modern method.
>Shall we just ignore the Turks and Greeks because we can't tell if they are White or Middle Eastern?
Ha, I was wondering when you'd bring them up. Just because there exists border populations at the bridge between two continents which exhibit intermediate characteristics from both continents doesn't refute the fact that these two continents differ.
Or in other words, just because green exists between blue and yellow doesn't mean that the colors blue and yellow don't exist.
>And genetics show Libyans share a common ancestry with Iranians. Shall we now call Libyans and Iranians the same race?
Well it depends, to what extent do they share their ancestry? Considering North Africa was peopled by near eastern migrants during the neolithic, I wouldn't be surprised if they are kin.
>badly done statistics.
This argument is all the more hilarious that it usually comes from Gender Studies majors, and the fact that the field of statistics was historically created by the Eugenicists Francis Galton and Charles Spearman.
Shit like segregation and Eugenics were done by the people who should have known better people of power, people of fucking science, people better then you an I.
>Not really, schoolchildren in China outperform our inner city schoolchildren with only a fraction of the funding.
LOL china's school stats are so fraudulent and filled with fine print shit they don't really mention unless you dig deep.
Reminder IQ is the most useless it's ever been now because it's based on averages and "mental age"
This. I'm always amazed people take china seriously.
>Shit like segregation and Eugenics were done by the people who should have known better people of power, people of fucking science, people better then you an I.
Still, it's a fallacious argument. It's basically at the same level of "if we don't accept syrian refugees it will be literally lead to another holocaust!".
Just because people in the past were assholes doesn't mean that knowledge should be suppressed.
>LOL china's school stats are so fraudulent and filled with fine print shit they don't really mention unless you dig deep.
Not as fraudulent as our inner city schools I'd wager.
>Most europeans have 100% of their ancestry from Europe
You're so full of bullshit.
>Use percentages, it's the modern method.
we as a species have been estimated to share 99.9% of our DNA with each other.
A landmark 2002 study by Stanford scientists examined the question of human diversity by looking at the distribution across seven major geographical regions of 4,000 alleles. Alleles are the different “flavors” of a gene. For instance, all humans have the same genes that code for hair: the different alleles are why hair comes in all types of colors and textures.
In the Stanford study, over 92% of alleles were found in two or more regions, and almost half of the alleles studied were present in all seven major geographical regions. The observation that the vast majority of the alleles were shared over multiple regions, or even throughout the entire world, points to the fundamental similarity of all people around the world—an idea that has been supported by many other studies (Figure 1B).
If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region. Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities. In fact, there is ample variation within races (Figure 1B).
Ultimately, there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other (Figure 2).
Source: sitn.hms.harvard.edu
IQ is a shitshow now. So is SAT scores. Hell there were jewish fraternity groups that held study groups with the tests where they memorized them front to back.
Importantly, the evolution of skin color occurred independently, and did not influence other traits such as mental abilities and behavior. In fact, science has yet to find evidence that there are genetic differences in intelligence between populations. Ultimately, while there certainly are some biological differences between different populations, these differences are few and superficial. The traits that we do share are far more profound
Science and genetics: Instruments of modern racism
Despite the scientific consensus that humanity is more alike than unlike, the long history of racism is a somber reminder that throughout human history, a mere 0.1% of variation has been sufficient justification for committing all manner of discriminations and atrocities. The advances in human genetics and the evidence of negligible differences between races might be expected to halt racist arguments. But, in fact, genetics has been used to further racist and ethnocentric arguments—as in the case of the alt-right, which promotes far-right ideologies, including white nationalism and anti-Semitism.
Considered a fringe movement for years, the alt-right gained considerable attention and relevance during Trump’s presidential campaign. Indeed, Steve Bannon, the current senior counselor and chief strategist to President Trump and the former chief executive officer of Trump’s campaign, has notable ties to the alt-right. Once relegated to obscure internet forums, the alt-right’s newest pulpit is the White House.
Members of the alt-right are enthusiastic proponents of ancestry testing as a way to prove their “pure” white heritage (with Scandinavian and Germanic ancestry being among the most desirable) and to rule out undesired descent from any other groups (including, unsurprisingly, Africans and the Ashkenazi Jews, but even certain European groups, such as Italians and Armenians). The belief in white superiority, and the need to preserve it, drives the alt-right movement—and genetics is both the weapon and battle standard of this new, supposedly “scientific” racism.
Those who disagree with alt-right ideologies may assume that the alt-right is merely spewing ignorant nonsense. This is certainly true for some of the alt-right. What is perhaps a more difficult truth is that many of the alt-right do, in fact, understand biology and genetics to an impressive extent, even if this understanding is flawed.
We also share 50% of our DNA with bananas you retard. We aren't talking about the basics of life.
and the 99.9% claim is bogus regardless.
>Is it because of Marxism?
>You're so full of bullshit.
I'm not.
>we as a species have been estimated to share 99.9% of our DNA with each other.
And we share 98% of our DNA with baboons. That 0.01% is important. Fraudsters trick brainlets like yourself into believing that "since 0.01% is a small number, it can't be important!", but it is.
Also for the fucking third time, read up on Lewontin's fallacy, do I have to literally spoonfeed you?
>quora.com
>en.wikipedia.org
What is important is not the distribution of individual alleles, it's the distribution of clusters of alleles.
>If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others.
Fallacious argument by fraudsters. It's been known for 15 years that what differentiates populations are the allele CLUSTERS.
And indeed when allele CLUSTER frequencies are analyzed, and not allele frequencies themselves, then guess what, you can determine race with 100% accuracy.
For instance, alt-right proponents have stated, correctly, that many people with European and Asian descent have inherited 1-4% of their DNA from Neanderthals ancestors, and those of African descent do not have Neanderthal heritage. They are similarly correct that Neanderthals had larger skulls than humans. Based on these facts, some within the alt-right have claimed that Europeans and Asians have superior intelligence because they have inherited larger brains from their Neanderthal ancestors.
However, this claim ignores that while there is evidence for the effect of Neanderthal DNA on certain traits, there has been no evidence for its effect on intelligence. Furthermore, scientific research indicates that the Neanderthals were not necessarily more intelligent simply because they had larger skulls. Unsurprisingly, the alt-right tends cherry-pick the ideas that align with their preconceived notions of racial hierarchies, ignoring the broader context of the field of human genetics.
Fighting racism with understanding
Just as the alt-right is no longer an easily dismissed fringe group, their arguments have some factual basis, and cannot be swept aside as the babbling of the scientific illiterate. The alt-right is not clumsy in their use of science and genetics in their battle for their “ideals.” Those who oppose the alt-right, and other racist entities, must arm themselves with the same weapons: education, namely scientific and genetic literacy.
Mounting scientific evidence has shown that humans are fundamentally more similar than different from each other. Nonetheless, racism has persisted. Scientific findings are often ignored, or otherwise actively misinterpreted and misused to further racist agendas of extreme political groups. Opponents of these forces must, through their own education and awareness, combat these misleading interpretations and representations of scientific findings.
>Show me one peer reviewed research paper that says otherwise.
That says otherwise than what? Let's take the contrary approach - let's start with the premise that race doesn't exist.
Well then things get pretty weird right away, because we see a bunch of differences in everything from physical characteristics to disease prevalence to IQ that appear to relate to the groups that we used to call "races," but now deny exist.
>So you're saying everyone is the same race if you go back far enough.
Kind of a weird and irrelevant statement, but probably not for quite some time into the past, since some population groups appear to have H. neanderthalensis descent while others don't. So we'd have to go back to at least the hominid common ancestor and not just that for H sapiens sapiens. And that would be pretty pointless, since genetic evolution has changed a lot of things over time among the living groups descended from that ancestor.
>alleles is a terrible means of determining race.
Allele frequency is one of many INDICATORS of race. And a useful one. But it's a small part of the science behind the categorization of population groups.
>HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Junk. And I went to Harvard, so it's disappointing to see the professors there pushing this kind of twaddle. It should tip you off when a "genetics" discussion begins with the words "Donald Trump’s election..." - it's a political document.
> ‘Race’ cannot be biologically defined due to genetic variation among human individuals and populations.
That's just flat out wrong. Notice the following claim:
> over 92% of alleles were found in two or more regions, and almost half of the alleles studied were present in all seven major geographical regions.
No shit. But what are relative FREQUENCIES of each allele among different groups? Now we're getting into actual genomics. Then we take our different frequencies for different alleles, and see how they cluster in toto among different groups
IQ tests have never been better at what they do.
Why are you resorting to copy pasting garbage?
Notice that nowhere is the word "conspiracy" mentioned.
>A landmark 2002 study by Stanford
Badly, badly outdated. That's literally from the pre-full-genome-sequencing era.
We're going to finally get a lot of interesting data based on full sequencing coming out in the following years, due to the fall in sequencing costs.
So now Harvard publishes the rantings of retards, in your opinion.
Good to know.
Ignore the facts I cited all you want. You're arguing with Harvard University now.
There are experts and Xspurts.
Experts are highly educated in their field.
X is an unknown quantity
Spurt is a drip under pressure
An Xpurt is just some unknown drip under pressure.
>it's disappointing to see the professors there pushing this kind of twaddle.
And there it is - just as I predicted.
You white supremacists are so boring and predictable. Go back to your Stormfront and /pol/ where you belong. I'm done with you.
IQ tests are more worthless not then when they required outside knowledge in the very early stages. IQ tests now do not measure intelligence, they measure the average.
It's like a school system where everyone competes against each other for grades.15% can get As regardless of how well or poorly everyone does.
>So now Harvard publishes the rantings of retards, in your opinion.
The link you posted is a blog post, not a peer reviewed article.
It literally starts with:
>Donald Trump’s election as the 45th President of the United States has been marked by the brewing storms of racial conflicts
I mean, come on. This is not peer reviewed research.
You are trying to hard to bait. Be less obvious.
>You're arguing with Harvard University now.
Ha yes, we're arguing with Vivian Chu, the noted "Opinon, Blog" columnist.
I guess Harvard's Reich genetics lab is BTFO forever. How will they ever recover?
>You white supremacists are so boring and predictable. Go back to your Stormfront and /pol/ where you belong. I'm done with you.
Let's be honest you got destroyed in this thread.
I'll be frank I didn't understand your post.
Why would I be ignorant of that when race(and gender) is also a major factor in developing certain genetic diseases like Lupus or cystic fibrosis?
That simply looks at intelligence as a wide category, and it speaks nothing of race. There are so many variables in human executive function that finding one or some multiple genes that MAY be involved is hardly getting to the bottom of its mechanisms. Certain genes can be repressed or unrepressed at certain times or conditions. I suggest you dabble greatly in genetics and molecular biology before you start proposing any threads like this. Admit it, you got kicked off of Veeky Forums so you came here.
honestly i dont think you need to, hes literally just saying all an IQ test does is measure deviations from the average. which is true, but hardly devastating. obv IQ=/= the g factor, but it is a good correlate.
>This sounds like a question for Veeky Forums
Isn't it weird how all these expert biologists hang around on /pol/ and Veeky Forums and are nowhere to be seen in Veeky Forums?
>There are so many variables in human executive function that finding one or some multiple genes that MAY be involved is hardly getting to the bottom of its mechanisms.
I never said that all the genes had already been determined. I was saying that it's a work in progress, contrary to your claim that there was no research in genetics to sort out "muh IQ" as you put it, and proved it to you by citing an example of recent research in that field.
How can you be so sure that it is impossible to determine those genes? Are you prescient?
> Admit it, you got kicked off of Veeky Forums so you came here.
I don't post on Veeky Forums
It's not really surprising, considering the important social ramifications, historically and in contemporary times, these theories have.