Why is it that science accepts that height is genetic and that it differs from race to race...

Why would you want any discussion at all about this? Like what are you trying to achieve? It's a clear dead end. If you are trying to feel smart about not being capable to project the repercussions of your ideas, then have fun with that.

>it's a clear dead end

Are you serious?
EVERYONE is convinced by an obvious falsity and nobody is doing anything about it

This doesn't just stop this particular subject but related ones. There aren't many people who will fund research into anything racial.

People can be fired for acknowledging this kind of stuff.
There are increasingly many people (particularly in america) campaigning so that discussing it is illegal.

And you don't want people to talk about it?

Nevermind that knowledge is worth acquiring in general

Plus the implication for evolution, genetic disease, neurology, etc.

You can't say with any confidence that something unexplored is a dead end. What's the point in learning how the Universe began? Isn't that just another 'dead end'?

...

It's not really about science, as I said, it's about the practical impossibility of implementing such ideas. To most people that aren't autistic NEETs ethics are kind of important and banning cross breeding is kind of unethical, you know.

Also: Before solving a problem you actually need to quantify that problem. I claim, the problem doesn't exist or rather is not even remotely relevant to anything. So here is your homework:

1. Quantify how many people "crossbreed"
2. Quantify how uneven the IQs of those couples are (Note: Statistics such as do NOT count, as people select their partners carefully usually)
3. Compare that to how uneven non-crossbreeding couples are regarding IQ. Show that there's something significant to see there
4. Show that the children of crossbreeding are actually significantly more stupid than non-crossbreeding children

That should keep you occupied for quite some time. Hint: You will see that you are actually discussing nothing at all.

I'm not talking about implementing anything, I'm talking about openly acknowledging this and confering the knowledge with the public.

You don't need to force crossbreeding to determine a genetic difference. There are already different races, and people of mixed race.

My back pedalling friend, what is it that you want then? The information is out there and available, anybody can look it up. As mere facts they absolutely are acknowledged, but most people simply decided not to care for good reasons.

>The information is out there and available, anybody can look it up.
>most people simply decided not to care
You can't be serious.
You cannot actually believe this.

If it is revealed that your race is actually inferior than any other race would you accept and kill yourself? Or stop crossbreeding with higher races?

With the first bit, I should clarify that I mean not everyone has it in them to spend hours looking up and reading papers and reviews.

Subjects that these facts relate to should be teaching these facts. People who make political decisions based on falsehoods like "race is skin-deep" should be corrected.

What 'inferiority' is, is subjective.
Most would agree more intelligence is better, but there are other mitigating factors.
I'm not sure I'd rather be asian, but I'd happily be asian, to put it one way.

Height differences between races have more to do with diet where those races are concentrated than genetics.

...

...

Hours? Seriously? Also, information being somewhat difficult to access is a nice way of keeping people who can't understand them properly out. Everybody who's interested can go ahead.

>Subjects that these facts relate to should be teaching these facts.
Who are those subjects?

>People who make political decisions based on falsehoods like "race is skin-deep" should be corrected.
What political decisions are based on that?

Anyone knows what's up with the significant climb in Spain and Greece after WW2? Something with immigration?

Intelligence is all that matters. Strength is irrrelevant in our current world. If one race is more intelligent than the other than its clearly superior. Asians have an higher IQ than any other race. If you arent asian you should kill yourself for the betterment of humanity. Would you accept?

Some areas of:
Genetics, sociology, anthropology, geography, politics.

Many political decisions are influenced by not knowing this - or rather not influenced by the differences they don't acknowledge. In the UK, there was a school that picked minorities and gave them extra education

Science accepts it, liberals don't. The two opposing ends of the stick.

>Intelligence is all that matters.
I strongly disagree.

>If you arent the best you should kill yourself for the betterment of humanity.
Obviously not true.

Those political decisions are influenced by ethics. It's not like anyone believes that everybody is the same, but everybody should be treated the same by law. Your life shouldn't be determined by some group of people you belong to. I bet you also belong to a number of groups of people that would make other people think you are degenerate or something.

Nice opinions. Can you elaborate on that?

It only causes problems. Trust me. When dumb people realize they are dumb, they get angry and lose hope. Just like when virgins finally snap and shoot up schools.

If we spent a lot of time studying IQ and race, we would yield nothing positive from it, and the differences would be less pronounced than you probably expect.

Can you?

Because there has been no falsifiable evidence presented of an 'intelligence gene' or sequence of genes that varies considerably between races. All we have are proxies for g like IQ.

Without any evidence, there is no reason to reject the null hypothesis and such pseudoscientific conjecture will be left to autistic racist NEET /pol/faggots posting on anime imageboards.

>intelligence is genetic
yeah, thats pretty much educated guess work. completely non rigorous in the scientific sense.

IQ is a flimsy psychologists.

we are nowhere near the technology level to pin down exactly where in our DNA intelligence is determined. until you can do that, any discussion regarding intelligence differences between the races is useless.

you don't even have a clear, genetically determined, definition of race.

> pol boogeyman thread derailing shitposting
go back to your ghetto

"All races have equal intelligence" is a powerful counterargument to evolution

Education comes from culture, intelligence comes from genes.

0/10 troll

First quantify intelligence in neurobiological terms (i.e not with psychometrics) and then you can start talking about biology.

You didn't address my point. I didn't say anything about education or culture.

>not with psychometrics
Why not? They're the best way to do so. That's the whole point of a neural network.

> You can't quantify love so love doesn't exist.
Aside from your pants-on-retarded "argument", intelligence is not a form of matter so it can't be quantified.

Your point is based on a false equivalence where you ask for unmeasurable things to be measured. But you also reject the fact that intelligence comes from genes which is why nobody takes you seriously.

Do you think intelligence just happens randomly out of the box and not inherited by every other aspect of the human nature through genes ?

Because you are the one who is arguing for a genetically deterministic viewpoint of intelligence.

If you can't even present a neurobiological metric for the nebulous concept of intelligence, how do you even expect your argument to have anything to stand on?

Ofcourse it's determined by genes. What else do you think intelligence is determined by ? What other magical hidden factors do you think there are ?

>unmeasurable things
So you're stating the general concept of 'intelligence' as defined in purely biological terms is unmeasurable?

> But you also reject the fact that intelligence comes from genes
I only stated that there's no evidence of any variation of 'intelligence genes' between the races and the sensible and scientific approach is to go with the null hypothesis.

>What other magical hidden factors do you think there are ?
I'm not that user, but upbringing is neither hidden nor magical. (just playing a devil's advocate, I have no expertise in this subject)

>upbringing is the major determinant to one's intelligence

Ayyyyyy

This is what politically correct brainwashed retards believe.

Early childhood nutrition, diet of mother while child in utero, education while brain is still highly neuroplastic, etc

>Ofcourse it's determined by genes.
Yes but how much and how much do those genes vary across races? Can you demonstrate that differences in IQ (a poor proxy for G) across races are linked to variations in genes across races?

It is, actually.

Early childhood nutrition has a longstanding effect on IQ.

You just contradicted yourself. You said there is no intelligence genes, then you said there are intelligence genes but there are no variation with those between the races.

It's like saying there are no variations between skin color among races even though black people have black kids and white people have white kids. Or saying there are no genetic variations between tall people and short people, even though short people have short kids and tall people have tall kids.

You are trying to dismiss the entire genetic inheritence as if no such thing exists (where it demonstrably does exist) to justify a competely unsound and unscientific idea. Intelligence is inherited just like every other feature we get from our parents. Black genetics don't magically breed a white kid, short genetics don't magically breed a tall kid and low intelligence genetics don't magically breed a smart kid. If you can't comprehend a biology 101 tier concept of genetic inheritence, nobody can help you.

>there are different selection pressures for race X and race Y
>not just skin colour
>both races end up virtually the same after thousands to tens of thousands of years
???

culture determines you education, not your inherited genes....You can change a childs bone shape if you restrain them from young ages.

>longstanding effect

Learn the difference you retard.

Even if you have the best upbringing, there is a ceiling for each individual determined by the genetics.

I fucking hate /sci now, seriously how many times has this question been posted here. I quit, I quit, I QUIT!!!!!!!

Psychology isn't science
Sociology isn't science
Biology isn't hard science
Humans don't exist

>short genetics don't magically breed a tall kid
lol, actual genotypes for complex phenotypical traits like intelligence, height, etc are not as simple as your high-school biology punnett squares

/pol/tards really are simpletons

>You said there is no intelligence genes
I didn't say this. You're attacking a strawman. I was asking what you defined as "unmeasurable things"

You still can't show me any genes that are responsible for intelligence that vary across races.

It's hard to determine how much of your intelligence came from genetics and how much from learning. Secondly, the genes for height or race are different from the genes for intelligence. Just because you see these genes together with their race doesn't mean they are connected. Correlation does not imply causation. For example, just because most Indians are high achievers with above-average IQs does not mean it's their race that contributed to it. Without accounting for other variables, theories about intelligence related to race don't have much value if they cannot be tested in a meaningful way.

I bet you can't show me an alligator evolving into a giraffe either

or a much better counterpoint, the lack of many transitionary species 50 years ago didn't make believing in human evolution irrational

Nice false equivalency. I never claimed that such a thing was possible so why would I have to prove it? You claim that there's genes for intelligence which vary considerably across races, so show me some evidence. Burden of proof is on you.

You still can't show me any such genes. So if there's no observed link, why should scientists accept any other explanation than the null hypothesis?

>false equivalency
It's an unreasonable expectation of evidence for a simple proposition

Premises:
Evolution is true
Races existed independently under unique and significantly different selective pressures (excluding those selecting for skin colour) for many thousands of years

Is it reasonable to expect they would end up with more differences than skin colour?

Prove that the origin of so-called 'intelligence genes' is from selection AFTER leaving Africa 130,000 years ago.
Prove that the distribution of these genes varies considerably between haplogroups

>AFTER
Why do you say that?
You think something similar happened before?
Why not again? Or is intelligence just a "you have it or you don't" thing?

You're the one making the claim that intelligence can be linked with race-specific genes.

Distinct races only evolved after leaving Africa, so it's on you to prove that any genetic markers for intelligence evolved after that point.

strawpoll.me/10761590/

strawpoll.me/10761590/
strawpoll.me/10761590/
strawpoll.me/10761590/

strawpoll.me/10761590/

No, all I need to show is that it is more reasonable to believe intelligence or potential varies across races. That it would inevitably be linked to genes, like everything else, is simply one additional source of information. It is false and misleading to suggest I have to provide anything relying even on the existence of genes, let alone that I have to prove their exist certain genes (though their existence could be inferred if I showed what I am trying to)

Not just blacks but aboriginals too

Actually its on you to prove that they stayed the same since you cliam that there were no genetic variances when we know there are lots of other genetic variances.

Intelligence isn't just a single thing that you can identify with one gene. Its the sum of your cognitive capacity, your linguistic skills, your capacity for critical thinking and they work with other parts of the brain. Historically you can see the achievements of races and their general impact on their statistics related to basically everything that can only be achieved with intelligence.

you must have linked this to /pol/

you must be an illiterate highschooler

>No, all I need to show is that it is more reasonable to believe intelligence or potential varies across races
Not if you're claiming that variation in intelligence across races is biological in origin. Stating that measured variations in IQ scores between races exist because of genetics but claiming you don't need to show which specific genes those are is intellectually bankrupt.

We can identify the racial variation in genes that code for sickle cell anemia, so why can't bigots demonstrate which "IQ test genes" vary considerably between races?

No, I'm suggesting it's racial in origin. That it is therefore genetic is simply an implication of modern biology.

>claiming you don't need to show which specific genes is intellectually bankrupt
This is absolutely fucking ridiculous and you know it.
Do people need to show the changes in molecular structure between water and ice to show that they are the same element?
Was racial intelligence somehow "not possible to convincingly demonstrate" before the discovery of genes?

(In fact, we probably could identify which genes if we did studies.)

Show me the evidence of the height gene that will determine exactly how tall someone will get when they hit a certain age or height genes don't exist.

Show me the evidence of the weight gene that will determine exactly how fat someone will get when they hit a certain age or weight genes don't exist.

Show me the evidence of the hair color gene that will determine exactly which color someones hair will get or weight genes don't exist.

See I can apply your argumentative fallacies to other things as well but it doesn't magically make them inexistant or not determined by genes.

>you can see the achievements of races
Not a scientific argument and very culturally contentious.

>Actually its on you to prove that they stayed the same since you cliam that there were no genetic variances when we know there are lots of other genetic variances.
Burden of proof lies on you, since you're the one making the assertion that there is a connection between specific genes that code for intelligence and race.

There's no falsifiable evidence for that, so what do I disprove exactly?

lol what

what kind of insult is that you brainlet

>burden of proof
Should the default position be that races that existed under wildly different selective pressures did not significantly change, except from colour, in tens of thousands of years?

Not at all. You're the one claiming intelligence is not herited and just happens randomly I guess, even though (I'm optimistically assuming) you accept that skin color, bone shape, eye color, hair color, height, weight and every other feature is passed on through genetics. It's a ridiculously wild claim to suggest that intelligence is something completely different and is the only thing that is not inherited. And I await your proof that shows its not inherited and some other unkown hidden factors are actually determining intelligence.

The default position is that there isn't a significant racial variation between distributions of these genes is because humans share a vast majority of the human genome and any significant deviation from this in the form of SNPs would have to be proven.

This seems unreasonable to anyone that believes in evolution and the wildly different pressures of Africa and other continents

Nobody is claiming that intelligence isn't heritable (although it's thought to be only 75% to 80% heritable and the remaining percentage is down to prenatal health, nutrition, education in childhood, etc), just there's no evidence for differences in the genetic portion of intelligence between races.

This would require that all races came from similar intelligence ancestors, and that intelligence wasn't selected at all because they didn't all branch off at once

Again, you're assuming that intelligence genes evolved after migration out of Africa rather than before. What makes you think that the brain evolves as fast as something more readily apparent (and subject to sexual selection) like skin colour, eye colour, height, hair, etc?

Intelligence isn't a scientific argument you fool, it's a statistic
you simply need to look at that sentence, fully understand it, and realize what you're contemplating makes no sense. You can't scientifically verify anything without a real part, intelligence hasn't quantity. Colour of skin does; height does, these are instantaniously observable realities. Intelligence is not measured because measuring it is complex, do I need to get philosophical now?
You're just not getting it, there is no reason to conduct an argument for intelligence when the variables are obscure (how does the brain work really), and the dialogue is obscure (what is the smart thing), and the factors too complex (is schooling highly bias to location, location highly bias to race etc etc etc)
there are just too many UNMEASURABLE quantities, it doesn't matter how bad you want there to be a line in the sand, no one has done it and it's questionable as to how we should do it and why we should do it.

I really hope you're not the race you think is smartest because you're a fucking moron.

So you think by chance they are all statistically having predominantly different skin colors, bone shapes, eye colors, height, hormonal balance, by some magic they have identical intelligence ? Even though history have shown a gigantic gap between these races as it relates to welfare, technology, civility, crime rates and anything else that you get to accomplish using intelligence ?

So why even start this thread with the premise that "scientists dont accept that intelligence is genetic and it varies between race xd" if the question of intelligence isn't even a scientific matter in the first place?

Do you just want to circlejerk about how LIBRULS don't realize that NIGGERS R DUM XD?

I don't think it's right to keep talking as if there was a single period in which a single set of genes led to greater intelligence, and that's not what I'm saying.

You said you believed intelligence heritable.
So assume this is true before we leave Africa.

1) You have to believe that the ancestors of modern Africans are (in terms of intelligence heritage) the same as the ones who left Africa, otherwise we'd have different intelligence.
2) You have to believe that this happened at every point that the human race split.
3) You have to believe that the interbreeding with neanderthals (highly present in europeans and asians) did not affect intelligence
4) You have to believe that differing intelligences then emerged after this fact somehow, or that the whole time we always had a perfect mix of different intelligence-families and that they stayed within their own.

Might have poorly phrased some of this, but it mostly gets across what I mean

see The brain is an enormously complex organ that would take a very long period of time to evolve. The time since races separated from a single point of origin in Africa is not enough for the brain to evolve that drastically.

Things like skin color, bone shapes, eye color, height, hormones, etc are far more superficial and responsive/sensitive to selective pressure (both natural and sexual)

Intelligence isn't a scientific argument you fool, it's a statistic
you simply need to look at that sentence, fully understand it, and realize what you're contemplating makes no sense. You can't scientifically verify anything without a real part, intelligence hasn't quantity. Colour of skin does; height does, these are instantaniously observable realities. Intelligence is not measured because measuring it is complex, do I need to get philosophical now?
You're just not getting it, there is no reason to conduct an argument for intelligence when the variables are obscure (how does the brain work really), and the dialogue is obscure (what is the smart thing), and the factors too complex (is schooling highly bias to location, location highly bias to race etc etc etc)
there are just too many UNMEASURABLE quantities, it doesn't matter how bad you want there to be a line in the sand, no one has done it and it's questionable as to how we should do it and why we should do it.

I really hope you're not the race you think is smartest because you're a fucking moron

>Intelligence isn't a scientific argument you fool
>you fool
not a scientific argument

> The time since races separated from a single point of origin in Africa is not enough for the brain to evolve that drastically
Thats a subjective judgement and not a fact. All the other features are drastically changed including the bone structure. And no, everything is responsive to selective pressure including intelligence.

>green text
reaction image

> Colour of skin does; height does, these are instantaniously observable realities.
By your definition they are not determined by genes either.
see :

Well, problem is that we don't have many preserved brains from 100,000 years ago so we can't really analyze their neural structure, but our brains haven't really grown since 150k y.a

shut the fuck up dude. nobody is saying genes for intelligence don't exist. until they are explicitly isolated and defined, the argument about intelligence differences is pointless. IQ tests aren't good enough.

We infer that from skull shape + the tools we find them buried with

Not like certain different races have differences in skull shape and tools or anything

You don't need to go back to anywhere to compare genetical differences. You can see how many different phenotypes are characteristic to specific races.

Your argument would make sense if you weren't cherrypicking and claimed the same thing for all our features. Height is also not explicitly isolated and defined. It depends on your parents height, bone structure, hormonal composition, weight, etc... By your definition, everything is pointless to talk about since they can't be identfiied 100%