Why is race and intelligence such a controversial topic

even without using the term "race....

why is it controversial to believe that certain genetic groups isolated from each other developed different levels of cognitive ability?

Other urls found in this thread:

quillette.com/2016/06/23/on-the-reality-of-race-and-the-abhorrence-of-racism/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17100794/?i=2&from=/20712152/related
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Let me answer your question with another question: Why are you posting on this board?

...

I have asked the science board before...i wanted to get your answers

>why is it controversial to believe
Found your problem

race exists as a social construct, it is not and cannot be grounded via biological means

for example, there is just as much, if not more, genetic variation between members of the same 'race' (e.g. blacks) than there are between those of two different 'races' (e.g. blacks and whites)

essentially your question rests upon an assumption which, upon further examination, turns out to be false

that's probably why your question is so 'controversial'; it's merely misguided

also, inb4 'SJW' - what I'm stating is independent of identity politics and is a verifiable statement about the way the world actually is, one not based on political or ideological grounds

we don't like your kind around here boy

(Objection 2): Human genetic variation is much greater within human populations than among human populations; therefore, variation that exists between groups is of little scientific interest.

This claim is true in a circumscribed sense, but is largely irrelevant to the question of whether population group differences are biologically meaningful. As pointed out by Jeffry B. Mitton and A.W.F. Edwards, the original finding that genetic diversity among human races is insubstantial compared to genetic diversity within races was based on a peculiar way of measuring genetic variation. Roughly speaking, the original claim about genetic diversity was based on analyses at single genetic loci (spots on the chromosome where genes are located) and not on analyses that considered the correlated structure of multiple genetic loci (many locations). Failure to consider multiple loci assures that broad, distinct patterns of allele (gene) frequencies get lost in the noise of diversity at single loci. This sounds painfully abstruse, but the basic point is this: patterns that are nearly invisible for individual genes become visible if one examines multiple genes at the same time (i.e., looks at gene 1 + gene 2 + gene 3 + gene 4…et cetera).

Consider a simple but illustrative example.a Imagine that a friend is describing an animal one adjective at a time (e.g., “big,” “furry” et cetera). You are trying to guess the animal. At first, it is difficult to guess because there are many “big” animals, and there are many “big” and “furry” animals. But as her description continues, it gets much easier to guess correctly because each adjective adds to the prior adjectives. The information that allows you to guess correctly does not reside in any one adjective but in the list of adjectives strung together (“big,” “furry,” “antlered,” “white tailed,” “hooved,” “spritely,” “brown,” et cetera). The same holds for population groups. Each genetic locus, like each adjective, is relatively uninformative; but a string of 200 or 300 loci is very informative.

Empirical studies bear this logic out. The geneticist Hua Tang and her colleagues, for instance, found that self-reported ethnicity corresponded almost perfectly with genetic clusters from 326 microsatellite markers (a microsatellite marker is a piece of repetitive DNA in which a series of DNA base pairs are repeated). Other studies have demonstrated even more power to identify people’s ancestry accurately. These studies illustrate that, whatever the meaning of the claim that there is much more variation within than among races, researchers can, if they use the appropriate procedures, distinguish human ancestral groups from each other with remarkable accuracy. The significance of these genetic differences among groups is entirely an empirical question.

I bet you supported Bernie Sanders.

quillette.com/2016/06/23/on-the-reality-of-race-and-the-abhorrence-of-racism/

this was the article that reacts to the cliche argument of "genetic variation within groups is more diverse than between groups"

What's /pol/ about wanting to know more about an open question in the scientific community?

these are serious academics too...not pop sci guys.....so this issue isn't a clear cut as it is believed

Still don't see why this is relevant to literature. Saget report and hide

even granting this, it's not contradictory that race is socially constructed - it can just be socially constructed upon the pseudo-biological grounds of appearance. If that's true, which it certainly is, than of course people are going to accurately self identify as being part of a specific race; society dictates x qualities as belonging to y race. the biological aspect is not what determines racial differences, it's society.

because the biggest difference you can show is something like 2% difference on IQ tests, you're likely to get a bigger difference in outcome if you sneeze while doing an IQ test than race playing any major factor

diet and other factors is way more important

Because the dominant ideology of West is basically watered-down communism; that is, an irrational, a priori and fundamentalistic belief in human equality

>because the biggest difference you can show is something like 2% difference on IQ tests, you're likely to get a bigger difference in outcome if you sneeze while doing an IQ test than race playing any major factor
Please actually research the issue before commenting on it. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about

You people who scream "/POL/" whenever you're confronted with an idea that you disagree with are literally worse than /pol/. At least that board is 99% satire; you people only out yourselves as the big babies you are.

you have to go back

>Rushton & Jensen
Their data is mostly garbage. In some cases, they used samples of fewer than a dozen people to determine scores for entire countries.

Anyone who claims today to have data that fully controls for cultural factors is full of shit.

Normally I'd agree with you, but this thread isn't even tangentially related to literature and is obviously just you trying to get into an argument about race and intelligence. Go make a reddit account and bother some subreddit, or better yet, READ A BOOK on the subject and then start a discussion. Until then, fuck off

This is putting the horse on top of the cart desu

okay, let's grant that the genetic variations within groups is equally or less diverse than that between different racial groups.

however, the very fact that that study utilizes the concept of race in its formulations is essentially begging the question. regardless of whether the 'differences' between races are based upon supposed genetics, appearances, or self-identification, the classification is still arbitrary and along social grounds.

say a scientist wants to test the genetic variation among a group of 'blacks'; participants must necessarily self-identify as black and/or be categorized by said scientists and society as black via either their genetics or appearance. essentially, the direction of causation is unclear; are the participants grouped as belonging to one and the same race because of their (pseudo)-biological factors, or are they deemed as sharing those very factors because of their labelling as belong to the same race? consider the one-drop rule - at what point does an individual stop belonging to one 'race' and become part of another? the type of study explained in the article cannot answer that question.

even utilizing scientific studying and testing doesn't do away with the fact that race is constructed along social, geopolitical lines and is at the end of the day arbitrary. in fact, accounting for the genetic variation that i'm granting you (which, despite the fact you pulled up one study, isn't as clear-cut as you would seem to like it to be), such racial constructivism is not incompatible with this type of analysis. if anything, studies of the sort you linked to only confirm what i initially posted.

linking to 'muh science!' does not make your case any more convincing if you still ignore the underlying social elements determining such investigation.

>Their data is mostly garbage. In some cases, they used samples of fewer than a dozen people to determine scores for entire countries.
You're confusing Rushton and Jensen with Flynn. Again, don't comment on the subject if you don't know what you're talking about; you're making yourself look less intelligent, not more

Look into the difference in North and South Korea intelligence as a result of pure nutrition differences
If you can link me to a study that shows a substantial (not minor 1-3% differences) difference in intelligence stemming from a pure racial factor which take into full account all other factors and methodologically isn't a pure joke give me it

I'm new to this conversation, but you're missing an important part of this argument. We're not discussing the way people act, their traits, etc.

The argument is simply whether there are genetic spectrum differences between groups of people who had 50-100 thousand years of isolation to evolve, and you're essentially making the percentage argument, that humans are too similar for race to be more than a construct. Our minute differences from a chimpanzee make up a huge body of differences, and similarly the AVERAGE differences between members of each race are on a spectrum within a small percentage difference. Black people, for example, are predisposed to be tall. Asians are predisposed to be short. But there are seven foot tall Chinese, and three foot tall black people. The averages land reasonably close to each other, but race is certainly more than a construct in a biological sense, because race regardless of color can be used as a way to designate group. Indian people look different from African people, because they were separated for a very long time. The tangible biological differences are small, but in the same way they can manifest different physical characteristics they can certainly manifest mental differences.


This is a matter of genetic history, which doesn't work well for making arguments about "white" people as they have mixed so much, but certainly works for defining, say, someone who is only three or four generations removed from African descent or Chinese descent. You're being unreasonable if you argue this based on a flawed study that has been pointed out as such in this thread.

And you've clearly confused Flynn with Lynn.

Kill this garbage thread.

plz sage this thread. Go read or talk about books.

Only you can stop /pol/ from making every board about their obsession.

So sensitive

I bet you supported Bernie Sanders.

Because it's not true. Why is that so controversial?

...

Because actual experts in the field (i.e. NOT lefty laymen with hot opinions and an internet connection) say it is true

can't wait til hillary cucks trump and you blow your brains out

Tfw liberals think everything is a social construct but don't remember that there are multiple societies

Who said I'm voting for Trump?

You should

So you took a group of people living in poverty with dark skin and tested them about math, your county's history, literature, some logic problems and they didn't score so high and there's supposed to be a correlation

why argue with these scum butters? just report them and move on

They test all different races in America too and there are different results that correlate with ethnicity. What's your iq?

Why are you a leftist?

>you looked at scientific studies regarding race and iq

Back to /pol/ racist scum

There ya go.

Duh. Veeky Forums voted for Bernie. Off our board, foreigner.

*GASP* You mean people are DIFFERENT?

Oh I reported.

there is more genetic variation within chimpanzees than between chimps and humans

therefore we are not a different species amirite?

>but you cant mate with them so thats why

Look up Ligers.

LEWONTINFAGS BTFO

Yea

Out of all the things you listed, only logic problems are on an IQ test. If you don't even know what an IQ test is, then why are you telling everybody they aren't reliable? You do not have an obligation to share your retarded opinions on whatever subject is unlucky enough to briefly capture your miniature attention span. Just don't open your mouth when you're out of your depth!

Bonus fact check: black people do WORSE on average on intelligence tests that are designed (with black input!) to be "culture fair" and test pure g

tfw non-liberals forget that social construct doesn't mean something doesn't exist, it's just not based on biology

Of course you did. You needed the free shit to support your bohemian lifestyle.

>race is just skin deep!

nope. obvious morphological skull differences between the races

>it has no basis in biology

You realize things are nature and nurture right? That's why conservatives start charter schools, so we can nurture underprivileged youths towards intelligence. Democrats nurture minorities towards dependence through a welfare state.

Conservatives are the true social justice warriors

forgot my pic

>no increase in intelligence between elementary school and graduation of high school
>college graduates lower iq than those who didn't graduate
Literally any person who wasn't homeschooled would call bullshit on this sourceless /pol/ chart

>If you don't even know what an IQ test
This was not even mentioned in the OP or the post I was responding to. So /pol/, so Trumppy. Go away.

Dingus it's parents education compared with their child's iq

Pic related is a sauced one

>there might be differences in iqs among race

Haha go away pol
Go away trump

I'm not listening lalalalala

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17100794/?i=2&from=/20712152/related

>why is it controversial

It's not. There are a number of physiological differences between races. Although it's not entirely true that there may be intellectual differences; there are too many social factors that may influence intelligence, such as poverty.

These types of discussions are only inflammatory when groups like "race realists" misuse the research to claim other races are diminutive and deserve fewer rights. Although racial trait differences happen, they don't occur *conclusively* in all people of specific races, nor are they considerable enough to matter. There are genius-level individuals of all races.