Is "racial realism" valid or is it pseudoscience?

They can't reproduce.

I think it should just be part of human biology. "Race realism" is such a sperg term.

>Is "racial realism" valid or is it pseudoscience?
Pseudoscience. As shitloads of actual biologists have pointed out, while there are real genetic differences across humans, "races" turns out to be a basically useless tool to describe those differences in anything more than superficial terms.

why do doctors give different medication depending on the patient's race?

Actually some of the big cat hybrids, including the Liger, have demonstrated the ability to reproduce.

...

genetic differences

Racists have been deliberately ignoring findings in biology for the last ten years due to strange intense cognitive biases.

Which findings?

Also racism is based on culture, nothing to do with biology, we just associate behaviours with skin colour because that's easy for our brains to remember, its a literal defense system.

When you see people doing bad things, and a trend repeats (in this case, being black) your brain learns that black = bad dont get close. That's why no one is racist to asians and a lot are to blacks, Latino's, arabs. Their brain developed a defense mechanism against bad people based on bad experiences, either real or told, so yeah, you can create baseless racism, but the original thought always came from a real problem.

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

Most of them are IQ shits but they all talk about the invalidity of race when talking about genetics and biology, due to the lack of environmental barriers between humans unlike animals (which has been the case for thousands of years) Thus humans are designated by a spectrum of clines rather than discrete groups.

>blacks can barely float in water due to dense bones
>No black Olympic watersports athletes at all

>Uncontested black dominance on running

I swear guys there are no genetic differences.

Do you have actual points/evidence or just boring racist rambles?

Think I made two, but I can keep going.

I will let you refute the ones I made first if you can do that instead of throwing ad hominem at me.

How do you explain the vast differences in strength and environmental adaptation if not for genetics. if we're genetically equal how come different attributes only manifest in certain races?

>How do you explain the vast differences in strength and environmental adaptation if not for genetics. if we're genetically equal how come different attributes only manifest in certain races?

Here you go bud:study.com/academy/lesson/parts-of-an-argument-claims-counterclaims-reasons-and-evidence.html

Then come up with a complete argument or not, but im not wasting my time with flippant claims that have no evidence whatsoever.

i think it's just a bias that develops in the neural network as it learns from experience. tay was racist and sexist until microsoft turned off its learning capabilities

Better one: umforensics.wikispaces. com/Claim,+Warrant,+Impact

usaswimming.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabId=2828

not worth my time if you wont put some effort in

0/10 bait or intelligence

kek on the same site it describes how being black has nothing to do with swimming ability in great detail.

usaswimming.org/viewnewsarticle.aspx?tabid=0&itemid=7727&mid=14491

correlation =/= causation and your own sources says it.

If two individuals can interbreed and produce a viable fertile offspring, they are the same species.

Welp if they consider this an African American then I am too.

The own article says so, 70% of blacks can't swim whilst 30% of whites don't. Btw I don't think this because I've read it somewhere, but because many years ago in summer camp we were amazed at how our Dominican friend couldn't float even if he filled his lungs with air and stayed still, he just dropped to the bottom like he didn't have any air inside and yeah we made sure, we spent hours trying and he was as amazed as we were.

Then you see these little facts life throws at you, obvious, right there for you to check but somehow people seem to ignore, like literally no black water athletes, no black male gymnastics athletes, etc. But then you see blacks steamrolling any stamina or speed burst ground race.

Then you think, how peculiar, they're good at everything they had to evolve to survive, better physical strength and endurance also metabolism and muscle growth.

How strange that the race from the continent with less water of the planet is the one that swims the most, how could it possibly be.

Also, everyone tries to deny that there are good black water athletes. But why does no one try to disprove their superiority in running competitions? Its not racist because it benefits them? Can you please post another of your stupid articles (instead of replying with your own thoughts) proving that whites are equally modeled genetically to run as blacks?

> africans
> domimican friend

>swims the most

Meant worst

They're all negroids you ignorant shit.

You know skin color isn't the only difference between races. When people talk about "white people" and "black people" they mean different populations of people that experienced divergent evolution as a result of geographic barriers, with skin color being useful as a naming convention as it is one obvious trait that varies among the populations. Nobody who acknowledges those differences thinks that skin color "causes" them, that's just ridiculous. The fact that skin colors, among other obvious physical traits, vary between populations more than within them is proof that divergent evolution has taken place, but the variation in skin color in and of itself is not taken to be proof that mental, emotional or behavioral characteristics also vary.
Of course, there is no way to prove that those cognitive variations exist, but there is also no way to prove otherwise. What we must do is look at the evidence and decide which is more likely. It is a fact that IQ, time preference (i.e. ability to delay gratification), tendency for violent behavior, and economic success among other things are all very correlated with the geographic location of a person's ancestry, and the same patterns emerge all over the world wherever such things are measured. Nobody can deny this. The only thing we can discuss are the theories about why that could be.
On the one hand, we know that things like behavior and intelligence are heritable; nobody will disagree that children often have similar personalities and intellectual abilities to those of their parents, and there are studies on twins separated at birth that prove that such effects are not only caused by upbringing. Because physical differences between races show us that divergent evolution has occurred between populations, and therefore that genotypes vary more between populations than within them, then you cannot deem it unreasonable to suggest that intellectual and behavioral traits also probably differ between populations.

t. creationist.

If you doubt the validity of "race realism," or whatever you want to call it these days, and assuming you aren't so retarded that you actually deny the fact that differences in measured intelligences and economic outcomes between races exist, then I'm sure you already know the alternative hypotheses that have been recently proposed to explain them. Differences in environment caused populations in some areas to culturally favor different behaviors than others, which led to some groups having better inventions and societal structures early on, thus causing a snowball effect that caused white and asian populations to economically dominate and oppress blacks which still goes on to this day. I know that's just a very simplified part of a complex explanation, but I understand it well and also think it makes sense. I do not deny that these cultural effects are part of the equation as well. Note, however, that no amount of this type of explaining has or can disprove the theory that genetic differences play a role in the measured differences in outcome we've discussed; the latter has just fallen out of vogue for political reasons.
Personally, I believe it is most likely that it is a combination of the aforementioned explanations that results in the patterns we see with the fates of the races today. I would encourage others to think apolitically about such things, as there is really no reason to vehemently believe one of the standpoints but completely deny the other.

There are studies that have proven that there is no link to exactly what you are "theorizing" about and they are in this same thread: You have no evidence, and have made no arguments beyond "i think" and "i feel" not to mention you haven't gotten rid of the mountain of hard evidence against you

By genetic distance the blacks would be classified as another species, but we can interbreed with them meaning primates screw over the laws of biological taxonomy.

Even mentally blacks and whites are not the same this can be seen in the cultures blacks create and what whites create.Blacks still have primitive paleolithic tribal cultures that are barbaric where as whites have more sophisticataed refined cultures. Even when the black is taken from Africa it still creates a primitive uncivilized culture like what we see in Black America today or Jamaica.

>It is a fact that IQ, time preference (i.e. ability to delay gratification), tendency for violent behavior, and economic success among other things are all very correlated with the geographic location of a person's ancestry, and the same patterns emerge all over the world wherever such things are measured. Nobody can deny this.

see: (You)

All been scientifically proven to be inccorect. Geographic locations and race are entirely separate ideas. There are people of the black race in every single geographic location in the world. Similar with whites.

Blacks have thicker skin than all races even the surface of their bodies is different from us.

The ignorance and lack of self-awareness of you both is unnerving. Have you even taken the time to google this stuff? All i want is a few measly articles supporting your ideas. Dont even have to be scientific journals like the ones i posted that refute you.

Black means African Negroid descent, White means European Caucasoid descent.

If you really think race is just skin color you are a fucking retard.

Google what stuff? Culture is caused by the intelligence of the ones who do it, thats why smart guys usually have nerdy cultures where as morons have more socially dominant ones.

No matter what you do blacks will never act like white people at all.

Like arguing with a wall.

gn mate, it was a blast

understanding biology and genetics is ignorant?

fuck off christ fag.

So you cant argue with me? Guess Im correct then.

Look reality doesnt believe in equality of anything besides dying in the end, blacks are not like us at all they are very different from us mentally and physiologically.

In the case of the golden jackal and the golden wolf, as OP's picture provides, the two, despite being different species, CAN produce fertile hybrids.
Therefore, the definition of Species relating to the production of fertile hybrids is not in all cases correct.

It is then not implausible to say that africans are a different species. I'm sure many of you have seen the comparison of skulls across races, and if you haven't, or don't want to google it, i'll be glad to post some.
The image attached is comparison of the wolf and the jackal skulls, respectively. Given the particular importance cranial structure has on the brain in humans, cranial difference between races is all the more notable.

Basically everyone is genetically different but some people (not outliers, an entire populous) are different enough to be classified as a different species, at least with consideration of the golden wolf/jackal case.
If you're triggered by this you should recognize it as impacting your judgement and act accordingly

>I have made no arguments beyond "I think" and "I feel"

I did not say either of those things. My argument is:

1. physical characteristics vary between populations
>self-evident
2. Culture did not cause this
>self-evident
3. Therefore, genetics is responsible for the physical differences between populations
>follows from 1 and 2
4. IQ, time preference, tendency for violent behavior, and economic success are correlated with the geographic location of a person's ancestry
>IQ
>library.flawlesslogic.com/iq.htm
>rense.com/general79/dut.htm
>Violent behavior
>amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/
>ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43
>economic success
>ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v64n4/v64n4p1.html
5. Behavior and intelligence are heritable
>behavior
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8776880
>nature.com/tp/journal/v5/n7/full/tp201596a.html
>blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/06/heritability-of-behavioral-traits/
>intelligence
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
>ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence
6. Economic success is related to good behavior and high intelligence
>self-evident
7. The current state of affairs regarding the success of the various races is probably partially explained by genetics
>follows from 3, 4, 5, 6

>Science
Nice false flag. Science has proved countless times that our genetics vary hugely from region to region, race to race. Unless you are from another dimension and claim all black parents have black children out of pure coincidence, we already established that human characteristics are inherited to the next generations which keeps these traits distinct from others.
The classification of our sub-species is entirely a social construct though. We are very diverse in a way that can result in too many human sub-species for us to categorize. Also we do have other skills, ideologies, properties that are more significant than some protein in our genes.

OK, so let's check out all the articles that "refute" this argument nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
>We review the results of genetic analyses that show that human genetic variation is geographically structured, in accord with historical patterns of gene flow and genetic drift. Analysis of many loci now yields reasonably accurate estimates of genetic similarity among individuals, rather than populations. Clustering of individuals is correlated with geographic origin or ancestry
Wait, that actually proves point 3
>but the correlations are imperfect because genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous, overlapping fashion among populations.
This does not refute my argument that intelligence and behavior vary between populations any more than it refutes the argument that skin color varies between populations. That is to say, it does not. I do not refute the fact that genetic overlap exists in places where populations have met each other and interbred. I do not deny the fact that north African people are generally somewhere between the skin color of Europeans and central Africans. In fact, this actually supports my point 7, because we see in fact that average intelligence also exists on the same spectrum across the areas where populations have overlapped. North Africans also have average intelligences between those of Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans. American blacks have average IQs higher than African blacks due to white interbreeding. I know that "races" in the classical sense cannot be definitively categorized due to factors of genetic overlap, but the fact that genetic variation exists on a spectrum across geographic areas does not disprove the fact that intelligence is also.

There are a myriad of physical differences between races. In medicine physicians will use different drugs dependent on the race of the patient.
In regards to cognitive capacities and inclination to criminality, there's a wealth of research suggesting the brain, like any other organ.

It's well accepted that blacks get sickle cell anemia far more than any other race. No one questions that.

You can cover variation in any other organ between races, without anyone raising an eyebrow, but once you get to the brain people shy away or just deny empirical truths.
The director of my doctoral program is an Asian dude that wrote his dissertation on links between ethnicity, self-worth, and proclivity to crime and IQ. He's a fucking autistic robot behavioral statistician who could care less about politics but he accepts that blacks tend to have lower IQs, 19% higher levels of testosterone and a propensity to aggression.
I'm not a storm fag, dont browse /pol/ and shy away from politics, but yeah there are clear neuroanatomical and psychometric distinctions between race.
Here's a rare, in-depth peer reviewed study about neuroanatomical variation between races. Anyone inserted in neuroscience, neuroanatomy, psychology, and even anthropology should find it interesting.
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964318/

>racial realism
real racism
civil war

A black person looks different from a white person. The black person and the white person do not have a significant difference in IQ.

>sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982205002095
>Here we add further compelling evidence supporting the RAO model by showing that geographic distance – not genetic distance as in [3] – from East Africa along likely colonisation routes is an excellent predictor for genetic diversity of human populations (R2=85%)
More proof that place of geographic origin predicts genes
>The pattern of decrease in genetic diversity along colonisation routes is very smooth and does not provide evidence for major genetic discontinuities that could be interpreted as evidence for human ‘races’ 2. and 5..
Again, you seem to be trying to "disprove" the idea that races are distinct and objectively classifiable to a certain degree, as if I were arguing that humankind evolved from monkeys separately in 6 different places and none of the populations ever interbred. I do not think this.

>sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848613000460
>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
All of these are just more of the same idea.

I am essentially arguing that reddish colors are more intelligent than yellowish colors. You are attempting to refute me by claiming that color does not exist, because there is a spectrum of oranges between red and yellow.

I know this bait, but the IQ gap among races is an accepted truth among those in psychometrics, neuroscience, psychology and psychiatry.
pss.sagepub.com/content/17/10/921.extract

> psychometrics,
> psychology
>psychiatry.
> neuroscience,
lol no it's not

>not in neuroscience

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964318/
did you even read it?
It has nothing to do with the pseudoscience you cling too, just biological variations in brains.

illiterate retards belong in

It is in neuroanatomy and in neuroscience. White's have more grey matter, typically indicating higher levels of intelligence. >ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964318/
Also, blacks tend to have a 19% higher level of testosterone if you want to get into the strictly physiological aspects of aggression
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455741

Yes, I read it. It concludes that variations in brain size and structure correlate with geographic place of ancestry. Do you think that brain size and structure have "nothing to do" with intelligence and behavior? If not, can you make a cogent argument as to why you think they don't? I'm genuinely curious, especially after you've read MY argument, , how you could think it is based in pseudosciece. If you think the social explanations for the failure of blacker peoples are more likely than the genetic explanation, that's a fine opinion to have because I believe in them also. But I have yet to read anything in this thread that refutes the idea that intellectual and behavioral predispositions are related to geographic place of ancestry. The closest I've got is the "race is a spectrum" argument, but I've already explained that I agree with that idea and that it has nothing to do with my point.

Who do blacks always suck at IQ scores in almost every part of the world and every single year? What makes them less intelligent?

>Cystic fibrosis is more likely to occur in whites
Everyone nods in agreement because it's racial variation in the respiratory system
>Sickle cell anemia occurs largely in those of sub-saharan african ancestry
Everyone nods in agreement because we're discussing simply the shape of red blood cells between races
>Nearly 100% of Native Americans are lactose intolerant
Everyone nods in agreement
>Blacks require larger doses of Tacrolimus to prevent the rejection of a donated organ
everyone nods in agreement
>The chinese can metabolize warfarin better than any other race
everyone nods in agreement
>Neuroanatomical differences between races exist and results in varied intelligence between races
EVERYONE LOSES THEIR FUCKING SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because somehow the brain isn't an organ, is it?

You don't understand neuroanatomy enough to understand the implications of the structural variation on intelligence.
Since you're a retard, I'll take this little excerpt and let you do with it as you will.
"Our primary finding is that when compared to Caucasians, an African-American cohort exhibited smaller cerebral volumes but larger absolute left OFC volumes."
The cerebrum has been empirically linked to intelligence, while the orbital frontal cortex has only been linked as a reward system.

Smaller cerebral cortexes. The tropical climate they evolved in also likely didn't place emphasis on intelligence as a utility for survival.

Everyone is in agreement already. You're just trying to enforce science to tiny minds who can't accept the reality of nature, thats all.

>Speculative, preconceived, biased, lazy, no curiosity, deaf.

wtf are you doing on a science board

I don't understand the point you're making. Am I a retard for thinking that structural variations have implications for behavior and intelligence, or do African-Americans have smaller volumes linked to intelligence and larger volumes linked as a reward system? I'm starting to think I'm trolling myself by assuming you're even making a discernible point in the first place.

Yeah, but there's really nothing at all to suggest that this gap is due to genetic differences. This is also close to unanimously accepted in "psychometrics, neuroscience, psychology and psychiatry".

I'm saying that the fact Africans have smaller cerebral cortexes indicates theyre less intelligent. Are we in agreement?

>Yeah, but there's really nothing at all to suggest that this gap is due to genetic differences
See:
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964318/
"Our primary finding is that when compared to Caucasians, an African-American cohort exhibited smaller cerebral volumes"
A smaller cerebral cortex indicates hampered intelligence. So are you now contesting that race isnt genetic?

Races are socially constructed. We have agreed that certain partly-geographically distinct and genetic traits (skin colour and other superficial characteristics) are the basis of the social construction of race. Of course, these traits correlate only somewhat to geographical origin.

From this construction of race, all kinds of crazy speculative pseudoscientific shit is extrapolated -- that these groups also, based on genetic differences, have different temperaments, personalities, intelligence, etc. It's all just based on bias and a remnant structure from a long and ugly history. It has nothing at all to do with science.

"Race realists" are simply racists, who dearly wish that blacks are inferior for fucked up reasons. Probably some kind of superiority complex or a need to be "edgy" and look through all the "PC bullshit" or whatever stupid narrative they need to tell themselves to maintain their fragile self-image.

Regardless of whether race is real or not, blacks are inferior.

wtf are you on about. that isn't evidence for a genetic component at all. brain volume is partially heritable and most studies find only a weak correlation between brain size and IQ. take your speculation to /pol/

>zero scientific data
>politics based argument
Try again

>19% higher levels of testosterone in blacks
>massive gap in IQ scores regardless of wealth or geographic locus
>smaller cerebral cortex
:^) Yes. All socially constructed.

>we happily acknowledge that negroids are by default much more fit than white men
Kek. No they're not. Only a disproportionate number of African American males have this trait as a consequence of selective breeding practices back when they were livestock.

Yes.

It troubles me that you keep attacking factual science with no reliable counter argument other than saying "no its not like that" and can't suggest anything to put in the place. You need to have an argument of your own to account for the huge intelligence gap, otherwise you'll just be a contrarian and excluded out of discussions.

There is absolutely no compelling argument whatsoever. There is no evidence that temperament, personality, intelligence etc differ on the basis of genetic differences between races. No evidence. So what do you want me to cite, really? There's just a big screaming pile of nothing.

Structural size in brain mass is linked to intelligence though and if blacks have less grey matter and smaller cerebral cortexes; they're going to be less intelligent. Also the IQ gap is staggering, as it is.
Is race heritable? Can a black couple bear an Asian child no. There are phenotypical differences between races. Do you accept that blacks get sickle cell far more than whites and that its heritable? Then why wouldn't the same be applicable to brain variation. Why in this study did whites and blacks have distinct structural variation in the brain, across the board? Coincidence?

It's funny how you post these neat little factoids and proudly exclaim how you've demonstrated that they are due to genetic differences between races, when you really haven't. A lot of factors influence these phenomena, but you jump straight to your pet hypothesis.

There is evidence just look at the cultures different races produces, blacks always create cultures that seem like a paleolithic savage trying to use modern technology. Also jackass if our cranial shapes are fixed then it means our disposition can be as well. Its not surprise all the humans that live in the tropics are savages.

Do you suggest intelligence is randomly assigned to babies when they are being carried by storks?

Do you suggest that intelligence is a magical property that differs from every other inherited characteristic like genetics, eye color, height, bone density, weight, inherited diseases and basically everything else that make us who we are?

Muh poverty cant explain non africans doing better than africans in acedeimics in their own countries.

>You need to have an argument of your own to account for the huge intelligence gap
you mean besides that psychologists suck at repeatability and statistics?
Psychometrics isn't science

Read the fucking thread? Do you accept that higher testosterone leads to increased aggressive behavior?
Well blacks have 19% more than whites
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455741
Do you accept that the cerebral cortex is the fundamental part of the brain associated with higher learning and intelligence. Well blacks have a smaller one than whites.
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964318/
Do you accept that IQ is human test thats been tweaked and perfected since 1912.
And that blacks have far lower IQs across the board regardless of wealth or education.
>pss.sagepub.com/content/17/10/921.extract

Serotonin is the cause of aggressive user.

Black people suck at IQ, SAT scores, averaged GPAs, graduation rates and pretty much everything else that requires intelligence. They suck at all these repeatedly in every year.
Putting your fingers in your ears and screaming won't change what's real and what you deny.

It's quite simple. You have insufficient data to back up your claims. I don't have an obligation to do anything as long as your argument is bad.

small correlation between brain size and IQ:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10781101

And unclear evidence whether the relationship is causal:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10781101

You're that retarded aren't you.
Here baby.
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17415783
"Twin studies have shown that genetic effects varied regionally within the brain, with high heritabilities of frontal lobe volumes (90-95%)"

Black brains are 15% in volume to white ones infact have you ever seen the head of a black african before? It looks like they have no brains because of those sloped apelike foreheads.

More so the fact blacks have sloped foreheads should clue you in there is something off about these guys.

Hey dumbfuck, total brain size may be irrelevant but the size of a specified structure is not. I'm assuming you think babies born with microcephaly are as smart as a normal child?
Also, you bring up IQ as a measure of intelligence but dismiss it when we bring up the fact that American blacks have an average IQ of 85.

What am I supposed to read after you said you have neither any argument nor evidence? You got one chepprypicked link that you keep posting without explaining the huge IQ gap.

Let me know when you have some context.

>Structural size in brain mass is linked to intelligence though and if blacks have less grey matter and smaller cerebral cortexes; they're going to be less intelligent.

Of course, and population-wise they are, but this doesn't prove the difference is due to genetics.

>Is race heritable? Can a black couple bear an Asian child no.

Jesus, yes of course, but race is defined on superficial, simple traits, not IQ.

>o you accept that blacks get sickle cell far more than whites and that its heritable? Then why wouldn't the same be applicable to brain variation.

Uhhh, why would it? Intelligence is much more complex and interacts with environment.

>Why in this study did whites and blacks have distinct structural variation in the brain, across the board? Coincidence?

Your lack of imagination astounds me. There are a host of social, cultural, economic and methodical factors that could possibly explain this difference.

>IQ -> Culture

Nice thinking. Don't bother with the enormous amount of pesky confounding variables.

>Jesus, yes of course, but race is defined on superficial, simple traits, not IQ.
Why would it be limited to only that? If race can affect muscle fiber percentrage then it can also affect brain tissue.
>Uhhh, why would it? Intelligence is much more complex and interacts with environment.
Intelligence is as much a trait as sickle cell though meaning its still dictated by genes thus can be applied to have a biological fixed limitation.

see:
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17415783
"Twin studies have shown that genetic effects varied regionally within the brain, with high heritabilities of frontal lobe volumes (90-95%)"
Brain structure is heritable baby boy, espeically in the frontal lobe. I know you may not have learnt anything in high school but the frontal lobe, notably the cerebral cortex is the region of the brain associated with higher thinking, emotions and most importantly intelligence.
>simple traits, not IQ.
Why do black that grow up in rich families with access to education still score substantially lower on IQ tests? Even twins seperated at birth, raised in entirely different homes retain the same IQ .

Now user I know you left wing types have problems thinking critically but just imagine just you have a group of morons and a group of smart guys, now you give them the same set of material and tell them to make a culture from it. Obviously the morons will make a simple hedonist culture where as the smart guys will make a sophisticated civil one.

Culture is just an extension of human accepted social customs which requires intelligence you stupid fuck.

If the blacks were any sliver of civilized mentally they would never even conceptualize these animalistic cultures they have created.

>Do you suggest intelligence is randomly assigned to babies when they are being carried by storks?

Uh, no, it's formed through the baby's brain's interaction with the environment through the lifespan. This is hardly controversial if you ever wanted to check up on the science of IQ.

>Do you suggest that intelligence is a magical property that differs from every other inherited characteristic like genetics, eye color, height, bone density, weight, inherited diseases and basically everything else that make us who we are?

No I don't suggest it's magical. But it's clearly different from these characteristics as they are very simple and are based on simple combinations of genes and are only weakly in interaction with environment (save for height and weight)