Hey Veeky Forums ignoring the ethics and social correctness, its it accurate to find people from A ethnicity different from B ethnicity?
For example the cognitive spectrum in which group has higher IQ. Or the tendency for certain behavours like agression and anxiety.
Not native speaker. Are some races superior in some areas than others? If so which discipline studies this?
please stop
>people from A ethnicity different from B ethnicity
of course. there are obvious physical characteristics such as darker skin color and thicker hair that make it more suitable to live in warmer climates
Yes. In fields that require a brain.
Physical features are obvious, what about intelligence?
IQ scores, GPAs, graduation rates, employment rates, crime stats, etc...
Those are correlative data, why isnt a discipline studying human races differences? Like we do with plants and animals
Races aren't monophyletic clades, so scientifically it is harder to justify studying differences between them than it is to study differences between animal taxa.
there are more than enough factors to negate the supposed iq-gap
even in the west the rearing environment is still having a huge impact (see the minnesota transracial adoption study) on where an individual is placed in their genetic reaction range
this difference is even bigger between developed and developing nations - consider the flynn effect and the massive cohort differences just here in the west
not to mention the measurement tools and culturally attached methods of learning and so on
because there is very little to study and it's already perfectly covered
plus that dividing people along racial borders makes absolutely zero sense from a genetic standpoint - generalizing for example Africans into one group (which would have a bigger internal genetic variance than the variance between them and other supposed racial groups) would be nothing short of laughable
tl;dr it's not a thing, just give it up already
>Those are correlative data
As opposed to what ? You can identify any genetic characteristic of a biological being, but their manifestation of any skills will always result in a correlative data.
Isnt harder too see cognitive differences between a 100% Finnoungric and a 100% Australian Abbo. Why didnt we found out what genes makes a race better on cognitive areas than others.
From a population genetics perspective, it's easier to detect which genes determine intelligence by studying a large group from the same ethnic group and stratifying them by intelligence than it is to separate people into a 'dumb race' and 'smart race' and asking 'which genes does the smart race have?' The latter approach won't get you very far due to confounding from linkage disequilibrium, founder effects, drift, and other effects on population structure.
>IQ
It's time to leave
No, there is definitely an iq gap. Iq is highly heritable (~75% IIRC), blacks average around 85 (whites at 100), and poor whites perform better than rich blacks.
Look it all up.
But in an equal homogenous group the genes wont be a crucial difference, rather raising, nutrition and education.
20 Native finnish kids will do almost the same output.
Poverty, as well as education arent the main factors to explain violence nor intellegency. Academia has lied or overated its role.
Like I said before there are real scientists looking for genetic differences in plants and animals. But humans only got s social intelectual trying so hard to sell the narrative we all are equal.
>But in an equal homogenous group the genes wont be a crucial difference, rather raising, nutrition and education.
I think you are very naive about the genetics of intelligence if you believe this. Even in a 'monoracial' 'homogenous' population you will have considerable genetic diversity. Otherwise you would not see variation in height, hair color, eye color, introversion/extraversion, and intelligence.
>Academia has lied or overated its role.
I admit that academia has some serious problems but how are you in any position to judge? Have you ever taken a population genetics course? It's an evolving field that requires a considerable background in statistics and mathematics and for you to think that you can do better without any real background in it is, frankly, stupid.
>Hey Veeky Forums ignoring the ethics and social correctness, its it accurate to find people from A ethnicity different from B ethnicity?
Every race is genetically different on some level. This is common medical knowledge. No serious person would actually claim that every race is 100% genetically identical.
You seem to be misinterpreting social or philosophical ideals such as "All men were created equal." These simply mean all human beings are entitled to the same rights, not that we're all genetically identical.
>For example the cognitive spectrum in which group has higher IQ.
The problem with these studies is that we don't know how much social / environmental factors play a role. Any mostly region that's below the poverty line would likely produce individuals with sub-average IQs. Race is not a factor here. For instance, kids growing in the ghetto versus some homogeneously white part of the rural U.S. South will likely produce the same poor test scores.
NOT AGAIN
>20 Native finnish kids will do almost the same output.
I don't need to be from Finland to know that this is false. Even if it were almost true, to imply causality on genetics would be to ignore the fact that the environment and culture among those 20 individuals likely has a higher similarity than the genetic makeup of those individuals (if the two could be compared quantitatively, which has proven difficult). As such, even if your statement were correct, it would hurt your argument.
Define Blacks and whites
if IQ is 75% heritable, and blacks are 85 IQ on average, then they are still within 25% non-heritable from 100 IQ (like whites)
>Nothing has any effect on genetics
>genetics cannot be changed
>except by electromagnetic radiation
H E R I T
E
R
I
T
I've heard of IN- herit but what does the word herit mean all by itself?
It's like, people are fucking retarded and will misinterpret science to support their worldviews, and a lot of people are racist and will use any science even remotely related to justify being an asshole to people, so if you are truly a man of science and not just some manchild autismbot you have a responsibility to avoid feeding that ignorance, even if it means avoiding the propagation of certain studies.
>being mean to people
>ever
Kys
A man of science shouldn't supress research or be stopped by how society might interpret the results
>A man of science has a responsibility to pass on information, even if that information is wrong
You judge correctness by the data, you dont judge the data according to pre-determined correctness
That's like saying scientists have a responsibility to test their students in order to figure out who has the most aptitude
In stead of judging them by their attitudes and their discoveries, they're judged by their relevance to their masters' interests
-
If the data was collected improperly, which it ALMOST always is, like, for example, applying data about monkeys raised since infancy in cages, by apathetic scientists, to the entire species
Utterly perverse and, frankly, stupid
In fact, as a scientist, I have a responsibility NOT to propogate such data
Damn, I'm really in the mood for cheese pizza now
...
Take the red-pill you fag.