Am I allowed to post scientific, peer reviews studies if the results give credence to racists...

Am I allowed to post scientific, peer reviews studies if the results give credence to racists? Will I banned and told to go back to /pol/?

Other urls found in this thread:

nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982205002095
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848613000460
science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381.full
nature.com/index.html?file=/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1455.html
pnas.org/content/94/9/4516.full
genome.cshlp.org/content/14/9/1679.full
nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7571/full/nature15393.html
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tan.12165/abstract
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2271140/
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707610015
benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/weak-evidence-weak-argument-race-iq-adoption/
psychology.jrank.org/pages/526/Race-Intelligence.html
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289615001087
nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature17671.html
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3751588/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>IQ
>correlation
I can link you to too you know?

You can post anything scientific in a science board.

Why don't you try posting some instead of baiting then crying when you get banned for shitposting?

>banned for posting scientific facts and statistics
AHAHAHAHAHAHHA

You will be told to go back to /pol/ if your interpretation is blatantly biased, but no one will ban you for posting credible articles

I'm not referring to IQ.

I haven't been banned. I've just seen other threads, specifically about minorities, women, transgenders, and other controversial topics, disappear without warning.

None of these studies make the claims that racists want them to.

For example. you can claim IQ is highly heritable, which appears to be true. However you cannot demonstrate scientifically that different races have different genetics for intelligence. There is no evidence for this.

You can try to make claims that race is an important thing, that we are different subpecies, etc, but that goes against the well established scientific evidence. In every case a racist has come here to cite something like they, they have misread or misinterpreted the paper because they aren't educated. A good example is the 2007 Witherspoon paper cited by many racists.

The best you can do is cite some social statistics like crime and IQ and some correlations which prove nothing.

The bottom line is that any concept of racism you may have relies on the fact that somehow everyone in the field of genetics is somehow lying and there's a big conspiracy.

Any thread with enough reporting gets deleted, not necessarily because of it's content but because the people reporting the thread deliberately shitpost and derail the thread with ad-hominems, strawman, name callings and further inane shitposting.

>minorities, women, transgenders, and other controversial topics
We have specific containment boards for all those topics. They dissapear because they are not science.

If you decide to create a thread here, make sure it's either about maths, physics, chemistry. Other soft hobby-tier sciences are tolerated too but you will be rightfully called faggot alot.

>
For example. you can claim IQ is highly heritable, which appears to be true. However you cannot demonstrate scientifically that different races have different genetics for intelligence. There is no evidence for this.

nobody would fund the study, and every PLAUSIBLE hint that IQ data gives us that this is true is explained away through sociological or psychological pseudo-science. see: mirror test study.

>The best you can do is cite some social statistics like crime and IQ and some correlations which prove nothing.

This proves everything. Higher IQ correlates to lower crime, higher income, and more success overall. More minorities commit crime than whites, this has been proven time and again. I won't spoonfeed you the correlation here.

>The bottom line is that any concept of racism you may have relies on the fact that somehow everyone in the field of genetics is somehow lying and there's a big conspiracy.

this is not the bottom line. This is you explaining away the possibility of true evidence existing for the claim that race and IQ have a direct correlation, because you want to marginalize that possibility as a conspiracy theorists' wet dream.

You aren't a scientist, you're a liberal wearing a lab coat. End your life.

I meant scientific studies conducted about those groups you absolute mongoloid.

>nobody would fund the study
>ITS ALL A CONSPIRACY

Sorry, such studies were done over and over again up until the 80s with we really started studying human genetics and learned the truth

>correlates
Correlation is not causation. You would have to provide causal evidence (drastically different genetics between races) for your ideas to hold up.

In order for race to matter for IQ, a trait that has thousands of genes contributing to it, we would have to different on the order of thousands of genes. This is the opposite of what we observe we look at people's genomes. The only reason to cling to these things is for political and emotional reasons.

i guess I can now post hentai if I slap on the name "scientific" to it

>This proves everything
It proves nothing except that a correlation exists. You know the phrase im going to throw at you and it exists for a reason

>correlation studies
>IQ is implied
Funny

If you have peer reviewed studies about it then sure. Don't be purposefully obtuse.

>LIBRULS
post discarded

You realized you just proved his point right? Why dismiss study on something just because all we have is a correlation so far?

cuck

God damn it nigger if you have scientific articles post them stop dancing around the issue so you can pretend to be oppressed

We already know all these about IQ and race groups test scores.

What did you wanted to discuss ?

I never said I was dismissing his argument, I said the existence of a correlation proves precisely nothing

He wants to call us liberal cuck SJWs and throw a tantrum about why he can't post anime girls wearing MAGA hats on Veeky Forums

No I mean what's the topic of discussion here ? Is it the reason behind the IQ score gap among races, is it the genetic or environmental factors?

What are we here to discuss exactly? I mean I'm a white supremacist and even I am tired of seeing this thread here.

Until OP posts some articles its just him trolling for stories he can take back to /pol/

>60 years ago: smokers are more likely to get cancer
>LOL SO WHAT CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION THIS ISNT SCIENCE NO POINT IN STUDYING IT FURTHER

The difference there is that we found casual evidence and identified what chemicals caused cancer, you retards.

Yes, and before we researched it further all we had was a correlation.

You sound underage to be honest.

Why must you be so dishonest? I have said that a correlation is not proof, which it is not. Nor was it proof when the first studies on smoking were done. The mountains of subsequent controlled research from thousands of different angles was proof

0/10 b8

We all welcome scientific peer reviewed studies, but obviously you never had any links in the first place..

the transracial adoption studies pretty much blow away any notion of child-rearing environment having anything to do with IQ outcomes.

No, we don't have any causational studies, because as far as I know there's no feasible way to set up a randomized control trial for this. Not that anyone would accept your grant proposal or publish your data if you did.

However, we do have a mountain of circumstantial evidence that makes alternative hypotheses flimsy at best.

Stop feeding the troll.

They disappear because people realize it is bait and ignore it. Congrats on getting this many people riled up tho haha i am impressed

>This proves everything. Higher IQ correlates to lower crime, higher income, and more success overall. More minorities commit crime than whites, this has been proven time and again. I won't spoonfeed you the correlation here.
Correlation does not imply causation, you absolute pancake. Yes, minorities have lower IQs and higher crime rates, but none of that says anything about what factor causes allof that.

If it's a survey on the demographics of hentai viewers, or something like that, thenyes.

They're not dismissing it entirely, but it's not scientifically credible as proof of causation if all we have is correlation.

hello shill

And we've been studying human genetics for over 40 years. We are not genetically different enough for differences to in a trait to be caused by genetics when that trait has thousands of contributing to it.

We've been doing research on human genetics, evolution, and intelligence for decades now. It's just the results don't say what you want them to, so you claim it's all a big conspiracy. The truth is you're just a crybabies coming and begging to raid our board for emotional validation.

And there's nothing wrong with researching something further, but you don't come out and say its PROOF OF CAUSATION UNTIL you do that further research.

A single very flawed study from the 70s proves nothing, especially when other studies had the opposite results, such as trans-continental adoptions to the US, Canada, and Norway from areas of Africa and Asia where the children took on the average IQ of their adopted country.

>correlation blows away anything
>science can't even describe an optimal parental education
More pseudoscience

nom nom nom i bet OP's hook tastes good

I'll just leave these here. lmk when you have studies of your own


nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982205002095

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848613000460

science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381.full

nature.com/index.html?file=/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1455.html

pnas.org/content/94/9/4516.full

genome.cshlp.org/content/14/9/1679.full

nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7571/full/nature15393.html

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tan.12165/abstract

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2271140/

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707610015

The sad part is you wouldn't because the mods don't ban you for your lack of understanding the conclusions of said results from the studies in question.

They ban you for starting potential flame wars and bait threads upon other miscellaneous things.

Veeky Forums would be a completely different place if they actually reviewed over the studies you posted and required you to PROVE YOU UNDERSTAND your shit concerning said studies before you could submit it.

>I copied and pasted this from stormfront so it has to be true

fishposter you are bumping his thread did you know that?

>this many triggered liberals
>this many triggered white apologists
>this many redditors
>on this board
>in 2016

>especially when other studies had the opposite results, such as trans-continental adoptions to the US, Canada, and Norway from areas of Africa and Asia where the children took on the average IQ of their adopted country.
Can you post the source(s) please?

>Reviewing correlation conclusions
Nice one

>I see you have pointed out how am I wrong and how my line of thinking is flawed. Allow me to make a rebuttal

>KEK KEK KEK KEK KEK KEK

And yet there has not been a single source posted in favour of OPs position

I am OP, I did not make any claims or take any positions. Read my post again- it is a meta question about this board.

>i-its n-not that they're s-stupid and l-lazy b-because their brains are i-inferior!
>its b-b-because of the e-environment!

Fair point, but a position was definitely implied, aka that "racist" interpretations of population IQ studies and similar are correct.

Neither a source nor an argument

No-one said that.

It devolves quickly on this board eh?

Also your question was answered repeatedly

>the bottom line is not that genetics proves me wrong. the problem here is you are ignoring my evidence that correlation = causation!

jesus christ.

>if i look at the genetics, blacks and shitskins are smart!
>but, if i look up and around, i see that they are ruining the planet!
>better keep looking at my desk so i don't make the jew who funded my research mad....

How can people look at groups like Ashkenazi Jews with all of their achievements and seriously make a claim that intelligence is not heritable and not different among the races?

Boggles the mind.

>iq is heritable
>however we can't identify which genes are responsible for intelligence yet, therefore it is wrong to say some races are more intelligent than others even though it's clearly established iq is heritable and differs significantly across the races therefore intelligence can't be attributed to genes but some other spooky mechanism that dictates heritability
wutttttttt

this

Religion is highly heritable too. Is there a gene that makes you Jewish, or is it some other spooky mechanism?

>Poor people make the world worse!
>poor people have worse genetics!
TOP KEK

Don't feed the troll.

Wait, you dont think... no waaay

Source pls.
I'm Interested if they got to average IQ for their race in the area, or just a rough average of their age group or what

I think the belief in something greater than ourselves is Inherited and our parents add whatever kind of variety they like to that belief

>no proof
biggring.jpg

If you skip the long preamble, this page has a nice list of studies, with relevant bits excerpted:
benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/weak-evidence-weak-argument-race-iq-adoption/

Nice to see that people still haven't the slightest idea what science is

No one used the words SNP or GWAS

shit thread

>This is an obvious statment, for the simple reason that race itself is a social construct, not a scientific fact. Social constructs and their social consequences need social explanations of social causes. The debate of the racial IQ gap is about as meaningful as attempting to compare the average magical intelligence of those sorted into each Hogwarts Houses by the magical sorting hat, if one were to base a society on such strange notions.

>statment

This guy is so fucking low IQ and delusional.

The premise is based on setting up a strawman, aka social construct definition of race, and then using that to say race doesn't exist and therefore can not be used to categorize people.

Essentially he is substituting a good definition for genetic categories for one that is shit. Then saying because the imaginary social sciences definition of race is shit, there can be no genetic differences.

It's utterly shitfuck low IQ garbage.

>ignorant hereditarians

He needs to go to any agricultural farm and ask how they got such high milk yields from their cows. Ask if they used social construct theory or genetics.

>people saying correlation doesn't equal causation when it comes to races
>will use a correlation = causation argument for climate change

Okay, let's also look at this low IQ faggot's sources.

"Psychologists have used three ways to estimate white ancestry in African Americans. (It is worth noting that there are no "pure" racial groups.) Skin color is an imperfect measure, because not all native African peoples have dark skin. Also, children with lighter skin may be treated differently, even in the same family. Family histories of white ancestry may or may not be accurate. Possibly the best method tests blood groups; different racial groups have different rates of certain blood groups, allowing one to make a statistical estimate of ancestry."

So scientific

psychology.jrank.org/pages/526/Race-Intelligence.html

I love the jews I live only to serve them.

>you can't disprove me therefore i am right in my beliefs

Intelligence is heritable
Intelligence related genes are also highly conserved by evolution
It stands to reason that different groups of people have different avg IQ based on different evolutionary and survival needs. Such as being isolated or having a lot of migration which allows transfer of genetics along with other factors.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289615001087
nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature17671.html
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3751588/

Published Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS), reporting the presence of alleles exhibiting significant and replicable associations with IQ, are reviewed. The average between-population frequency (polygenic score) of nine alleles positively and significantly associated with intelligence is strongly correlated to country-level IQ (r = .91). Factor analysis of allele frequencies furthermore identified a metagene with a similar correlation to country IQ (r = .86). The majority of the alleles (seven out of nine) loaded positively on this metagene. Allele frequencies varied by continent in a way that corresponds with observed population differences in average phenotypic intelligence. Average allele frequencies for intelligence GWAS hits exhibited higher inter-population variability than random SNPs matched to the GWAS hits or GWAS hits for height. This indicates stronger directional polygenic selection for intelligence relative to height. Random sets of SNPs and Fst distances were employed to deal with the issue of autocorrelation due to population structure. GWAS hits were much stronger predictors of IQ than random SNPs. Regressing IQ on Fst distances did not significantly alter the results nonetheless it demonstrated that, whilst population structure due to genetic drift and migrations is indeed related to IQ differences between populations, the GWAS hit frequencies are independent predictors of aggregate IQ differences.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289615001087

Here we report the results of a genome-wide association study (GWAS) for educational attainment that extends our earlier discovery sample1, 2 of 101,069 individuals to 293,723 individuals, and a replication study in an independent sample of 111,349 individuals from the UK Biobank. We identify 74 genome-wide significant loci associated with the number of years of schooling completed. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with educational attainment are disproportionately found in genomic regions regulating gene expression in the fetal brain. Candidate genes are preferentially expressed in neural tissue, especially during the prenatal period, and enriched for biological pathways involved in neural development. Our findings demonstrate that, even for a behavioural phenotype that is mostly environmentally determined, a well-powered GWAS identifies replicable associated genetic variants that suggest biologically relevant pathways. Because educational attainment is measured in large numbers of individuals, it will continue to be useful as a proxy phenotype in efforts to characterize the genetic influences of related phenotypes, including cognition and neuropsychiatric diseases.

nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature17671.html

There really isn't a good way to measure raw intelligence, most people can't even agree on what intelligence actually is. We can look at some groups being more successful than others, but that doesn't depend just on intelligence, it's also affected by culture and geography.

>what is epigenetics