/rg/ Race Genetics general

>should be researched more by biologist
First, let's find genes that offer improved grammar.

>Hurr durr IQ
Easiest way to spot someone who doesn't belong.
Fuck off.

I like this post

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Ehhhh Africans are a terrible example of genetic isolation in Homo Sapiens. The Northerners experienced trade with Southern Europe/Mediterranean Iberia, and the Southerners experienced trade with the Middle East. If you want a true example of genetic divergence, compare any Native American haplogroup with Indigenous Australian.

...

>brainlet can't read a chart

>genetic testing tells us that Africans are clearly separated
>"no-huh, that's not true! africans traded goods with europeans!"
>"we should check instead native americans and australian aboriginals"
>when native americans and australian aboriginals are clearly closer

>"haplogroups"
>it's a principal component analysis

please kill yourself

> myth is about individuals
> shows general trends
Ayy

It says disprove. It doesn't disprove the relevance. It's not a moral judgement.

There's an argument that goes like: "if racists are right, how do you explain Obama or my black teacher? xD"

That picture is a counter-argument to that.

The wikipedia article about this is so funny.

go to the discussion page

The should just rename it to
"Social construct (Social concept)"
what a fucking disaster

...

underrated

I suspect you may be OP. I also suspect you may be using data as a form of confirmation bias to justify your outwardly racist beliefs. If that is the case, then what I am about to post in response will not matter, because you will dismiss it as so much noise. I hope that is not the case.

Assume for a moment that race was genetic, and tied to IQ as well as "fitness" for the world in which we live. This seems to be your overarching argument.

What would be the consequence of that? Well, the immediate implication is that our cognitive abilities and rate of financial and social success is predetermined. If you believe that, then essentially you don't think that people have the capacity to learn or develop as human beings outside of a very small gamut of the limits set by their genetic predispositions.

The logical extension of this belief would result in a world that essentially a genetic lottery. We are born, live, and die according to a prescriptive pattern of DNA, and the influence we have over our lives is minimal at best.

You may want to believe this because you are struggling to succeed, and seek to find a framework in which your lack of success is out of your control. That is perfectly understandable, because we do live in a society that makes succeeding financially extremely unlikely for those born without the family resources of privilege that have been constructed from, ultimately, the free labor of those who were determined to be less than human.

You may want to believe this because you were born into such a family, and you want to try and justify your privilege by rationalizing your genetic advantage as some kind of social darwinist inevitability. This is understandable, but an unconscionable error, and one that leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy of racial hegemony.

Please read the articles in the post following this one, as it may help to complicate the issue:

newyorker.com/magazine/2007/12/17/none-of-the-above

timpanogos.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/test-priming-malcolm-gladwell-on-how-to-push-test-results-and-why-tests-might-not-work/

...

This doesn't necessarily imply that all the peoples of earth are the same, only that one possible classification scheme of the differences is flawed.

...

We should let /pol/ discuss this

...

...

...

>I suspect you may be OP
Wrong.

>I also suspect you may be using data as a form of confirmation bias to justify your outwardly racist beliefs
Irrelevant.

>you will dismiss it as so much noise
I won't dismiss it, so long as it is clearly a thorough debunking using data, and not just some muddling the waters, talking about how we don't know exactly how intelligence works, how there's more to life than intelligence, how the political consequences are terrible, and such irrelevant statements.

>the immediate implication is that our cognitive abilities and rate of financial and social success is predetermined
They are in average. It's clearly a complex formula, but the weight given to genetics and innate intelligence is quite clearly very big.

>you don't think that people have the capacity to learn or develop as human beings outside of a very small gamut of the limits set by their genetic predispositions
Non sequitur and also irrelevant.

>a world that essentially a genetic lottery
That would imply that the formula is only genetics, when it's clearly not only genetics. But genetics is a big part.

>We are born, live, and die according to a prescriptive pattern of DNA, and the influence we have over our lives is minimal at best.
You are not separable from your DNA. You don't live in a vacuum.

>You may want to believe this
Wrong. It would be nicer if everyone was born equally smart. But reality can't be ignored because it's ugly, especially not in a science board.

>because you are struggling to succeed
Wrong.

>makes succeeding financially extremely unlikely for those born without the family resources
Wrong. Debunked by picture related, as well as Myth 7.

>justify your privilege by rationalizing your genetic advantage as some kind of social darwinist inevitability
Born to a poor family in a third world country. Now part of the middle-upper class. So no.

...

>I am going to post dumb shit to discredit racists, nobody will notice!

>since I don't have data that contradicts all your evidence, i am just going to psychoanalyze you!

...

When you notice the unemployment rate 4 detroit remember that there is a large exodus of people leaving detroit

...

>I also suspect you may be using data as a form of confirmation bias to justify your outwardly racist beliefs
Irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all. You will find data to support all sorts of things. Data isn't the truth. The truth is in how data is interpreted. You're clearly heading down a line of reasoning where you think the purpose of science is to discover the "truth" of the universe around us, but ignoring the reality of the fact that science is a process and language that humans in part create. I respect your attempt to find ultimate objectivity, but I don't know what your purpose is in posting the data you're posting outside of trying to prove the concept of racially based genetic inferiority. Is that, in fact, what you are trying to do? Please be honest.

I am trying to prove that:
>race is a useful categorization that makes good predictions
>IQ is a useful measurement that makes good predictions
>race and IQ are correlated, even when you adjust for externals factors such as wealth, upbringing, etc.
>the correlation is causation too, as evidenced by the fact that most differences between races are in the nervous system, and that the differences are also involved in biological processes related to intelligence
and I don't care about the political or philosophical consequences, my country does not have a sizable number of black people, it effects me 0

Not OP But things have gotten way out of hand , I read a local black newspaper that comes out every wk and I try to counter the BS I see everyday , will find the pic on race and IQ and post it feel the burn oops I mean the truth

>Data isn't the truth. The truth is in how data is interpreted.

I wouldn't bother arguing with people like this, they are like creationists; to them, the truth is whatever makes them feel good- they don't understand the difference between fact and fiction, fantasy and reality, present, future and past, etc. To them, it's all just emotions and you're making them feel bad so "you must be wrong". You simply can't argue with people like that.

Yes please keep all race-related discussion in this thread and talk as much as you want thank you.

This is the type of stuff I'm trying to counter . Not OP

you guys hurt my feelings and gave me PTSD , I'm leaving now and get my mommy to hold me

Okay. Thank you for clarifying your intentions. If you "don't care about the political or philosophical consequences," however, then one must wonder why you're bothering to post this. If "it effects [you] 0," as you claim, then what would be the point in spreading this data?

I think you feel that if you can get enough people to agree with you on an anonymous message board, it will make you feel like what you are saying is more correct. But that violates the principles you claim to support, in that it doesn't matter how many people believe it; that doesn't make it the truth.

If you want to verify the data, you should read the many articles that have been published which show that correlation between IQ and race are not reducible to any factor, genetic or otherwise, and are the confluence of many things.

Let's cut the bullshit, shall we: there is no other purpose in posting arguments of genetic superiority other than supporting or provoking either overt or subtle genocide. That's what you're doing.

Fucking own it.

I'm a liberal too and not all of us worship the way how media labels things

If all white people left America, would it turn into Africa or would the free market hard working culture overpower the genetics?

I'm going back to my safe space not OP

Here are some more things you should read:

psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.46

amazon.com/dp/B000SARS70

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470015902.a0005857/full

>many articles have been published which show that correlation between IQ and race are not reducible to any factor, genetic or otherwise
Post them.

inb4 articles with no data, just muddling the waters

>psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.46

>the authors argue that the overwhelming portion of the literature on intelligence, race, and genetics is based on folk taxonomies rather than scientific analysis.
Myth 2

>They suggest that because theorists of intelligence disagree as to what it is, any consideration of its relationships to other constructs must be tentative at best.
Muddling the waters

>They further argue that race is a social construction with no scientific definition. Thus, studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends.
Myth 1

>No gene has yet been conclusively linked to intelligence, so attempts to provide a compelling genetic link of race to intelligence are not feasible at this time.
Myth 7

>The authors also show that heritability, a behaviorgenetic concept, is inadequate in regard to providing such a link.
All published data says otherwise.

>onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470015902.a0005857/full

>Although human populations identified on the basis of folk-racial categories differ in the proportion of particular alleles, so too do many human populations that are not generally socially recognised as forming races (such as the country of origin within Europe).
To a lower extent.

>Biologically, the populations that form folk-racial categories (e.g. Asians) are no more important or significant than many other populations that are not usually identified as races (e.g. the Spanish and Portuguese).
They are less significant by virtue of the difference being smaller.

>Although human populations identified on the basis of folk-racial categories differ in the proportion of particular alleles, this does not make the folk-racial categories biological categories.
Myth 6

Well, that was easy.

Articles posted on 07/21/16(Thu)00:23:40
Articles commented on at 07/21/16(Thu)00:31:29
Further articles commented on at 07/21/16(Thu)00:38:52

Some links were to full-length books.

You spent exactly 7 minutes and 11 seconds both reading *and* commenting on the material in your first post (), and a further 7 minutes and 27 seconds reading and commenting on the material in ().

This either means you have literal super intelligence and can consume and critique entire series of academic prose at a rate not previously encountered within the limits of human literacy, or you were only reading enough of the material (or more likely just sourced it from the Wikipedia page) to slap on the "Myth" that you think "debunks" the claim.

This is called confirmation bias, because you already had your mind made up before you started reading, and you were just looking for the "weak point."

You are willfully ignoring important perspectives, and you are merely playing a masturbatorial game of shoot-'em-down to try and justify your literally racist beliefs.

Go back to - specifically the line "I also suspect you may be using data as a form of confirmation bias to justify your outwardly racist beliefs. If that is the case, then what I am about to post in response will not matter, because you will dismiss it as so much noise. I hope that is not the case."

That's what I was talking about.

You do not seek truth. You do not want to know or understand the human condition. You want to live in a simple world, with simple equations and linear variables, and the fact that reality disagrees with that perspective has forced you to become willfully ignorant, donning blinders by accepting wholesale the premises of whoever authored those "myth" infographics.

You are basically a cult-member.

This is your wake-up call.

I spent a lot of time researching this already. I found no convincing counter-argument. There's 7 or 8 arguments that are always made, whereas data debunks them entirely. I debunked every key point of your articles. I read the abstract and there's nothing new there for me to see.

You can convince me pretty easily, here's how:
>data

Here's not how:
>retorted logic, muddling the waters, ignoring the data

The big question is, what are we going to do when we find that other races are inferior? Will it just stop at race or will go all the way to IQ in the same race and selective breeding to produce the supreme being? It might sound like a great thing at first but then you realize that rich people are going to be the first to create super humans and they can use that to their full advantage to create permanent class divisions even if it's the same race.

Not science. That's politics.

>You are basically a cult-member.
The irony.

>my position is the default because I say so, even though I have absolutely no evidence to back it up

b-b-but muh authoritative figures

You are clearly influenced by emotions, thus your opinion can be discarded.

>if some races really are inferior bad things might happen
>therefore everyone is the same
>>science
Err

This is semi on topic , its also the funniest webm I have enjoy

>The big question is,
And what will happen if we keep telling black people the only reason they are poor, dumb, going to die young and generally be less healthy, is that the white man is keeping them down with institutionalized oppression?

>data debunks them entirely
Implying that data can debunk something.

So, basically prose is "muddling the waters (sic)" [traditionally the phrase you're looking for is "muddying the waters," btw], and anything that's not on a chart isn't "data?" Is that how you think science works? Is that how you think the world works?

Here's a mind-blowing truth: data doesn't, hasn't, and never will "prove" anything. Data is something people *use* to *try and prove* something.

I've said it before, but it's something that you can't argue against, so you will dismiss it as "irrelevant" (as you seem to dismiss the entire existence of human emotion): you can find data to support *anything.* Anything you want to prove, you will be able to quantify and put in a chart, so long as you're willing to conflate correlation with causation (which you have already stated that you do). The world is your oyster at that point - so why stop there? I bet if you look hard enough, you can match your birthday to an important event, trace your bloodline back to significant historical figures, and use your "data" to prove that you're one of the most important people in the world - why not? If numbers and charts are what determine reality, then go make some numbers and charts that prove things exactly as you want to see them! Go wild!

If you want to do science, however, and understand the vast complexity of humanity, though, I'm afraid building a solipsistic bubble to protect you from the overwhelming consensus that the genetic link between race and other behavioral factors is at best only vaguely understood whatsoever, much less able to be formulated to prove any objective truths, then it won't get you very far.

I'm sorry. I know it hurts to be human. But as far as we all know, that's what we are - and turning against each other with divisive and racist ideology just isn't going to help anyone in the long run.

> you can find data to support *anything.*
Start digging then

Find the following:
>we adjusted IQ for wealth, and the racial gap entirely disappeared

Go. I'll wait.

>overwhelming consensus
Only in your mind.

>turning against each other with divisive and racist ideology just isn't going to help anyone in the long run.
this is Veeky Forums

A few posts earlier
>it doesn't matter how many people believe it; that doesn't make it the truth.

Now:
>muh overwhelming consensus

You are obviously too emotional to handle this subject.

I wonder how many studies tried to account for socio-economic factors and failed, and thus were not published because they failed to close the gap

found one income and IQ gap by race with source

Have 10

>genetic research
>it's a phenotype study
kek
Take your dumb infographics to

>principal component
>phenotype

is this enviroment or genetics ? Warning graphic

The overwhelming consensus is... both

heres another one graphic

>can't read his own article
>IQ=pseudoscience
Take your pseudoscientific bullshit to

>IQ=pseudoscience

Let's see
>empirical measurement
>reproduced countless time, consistent results
>makes accurate predictions
It sounds like solid science bro

> its pseudoscientific because blacks are bad at it
AHAHAHAHA. typical SJWtard bullshit. Don't you have some crying to do ?

Go away, dumb shit, you aren't helping your case

Quit posting this garbage or the janny will delete the thread

> dumb shit
Funny coming from a small IQ braintard :^)

If there are differences in IQ between members of different populations as denoted by significant variance of genotypic and phenotypic traits, so what?

Who cares?

Most white people are complete idiots anyway; just look at religion and politics in the USA.

Why does anybody care that on average people from a Sub-Saharan background might be less intelligent than complete idiots from a European background?

At this point, I am actually willing to accept the possibility that you are the result of very ambitious beta-testing in artificial intelligence, and not actually a human being at all.

However, without evidence to support that theory, I must conclude that you are merely a frustrated person who is at war with the fact that they have emotions. I understand; they do suck. You should probably talk to a therapist about how you feel like feelings are irrelevant (that was subtle, what I just did there - I hope you didn't miss it).

So, to the point: If you'd actually read the two Malcom Gladwell pieces, you'd have come across the one that explains how two groups of students were given identical tests, but one was asked to mark their ethnicity and the other wasn't. The results of the one students self-selected ethnicity on were striated according to racial background and showed the "racial gap" to which you are referring. The other one, however, did not.

I hope you can appreciate this data, and see how it can be used to support the idea that it is the *expectations* of the test-taker that implicitly bias them against themselves, and thus form a framework for the idea that these racial differences are, in fact, constructed socially. So deeply and unconsciously that they are difficult to see being constructed, albeit, but most definitely constructed.

As to other claims you are making (not the data, but your conclusions drawn therefrom), the central assumption is that there can be clear correlation between genotype and race. This is not the case - and here's some data to support that (partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/082200sci-genetics-race.html) - although there are more than numbers and charts in it, so you might call it irrelevant.

Cont. in next post
...

That's quite literally what he wants, duh

He doesn't want to have a serious discussion about race based on evidence. He just wants the thread to be nuked so that data can't be spread.

Heres a interesting video youtube.com/watch?v=EschrbihJFk can you imagen people like this deciding court cases , well guess what people like this are on the courts deciding cases

>one was asked to mark their ethnicity and the other wasn't. The results of the one students self-selected ethnicity on were striated according to racial background and showed the "racial gap" to which you are referring
That's interesting, but I heard about it before, and I remember looking it up and it wasn't that pretty. Got a direct link to the study?

>partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/082200sci-genetics-race.html
Meh, I already knew about HGP. Picture related.

>empirical measurement
>can't explain scientifically its implication with intelligence

>consistent results
>Can increase the score doing more tests

>accurate
kek
How is it linked with intelligence?

Take your pseudoscience bullshit to