Why is there such a taboo surrounding the scientific basis of the intellectual disparity between the races?
So evolution can affect everything but aptitude and cognitive function?
A few hundred years of 'oppression and slavery' had a huge impact but 65,000 years of evolutionary divergence made absolutely zero difference?
Other urls found in this thread:
independent.co.uk
genographic.nationalgeographic.com
aeon.co
biology-online.org
en.wikipedia.org
psycnet.apa.org
mbe.oxfordjournals.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
twitter.com
No such taboo, they just had other things to do. Just visit your local university and share your idea.
There should be a taboo for constantly making this fucking thread.
It's kinda amazing when you think about it. There are great mathematicians of all races. White, Aryan, White Arabs, Brown Arabs, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, even Pajeets. But not black. Funny. I don't get why it's a problem. Black people are good in running and all kinds of physical work.
Because blacks stayed in Africa and inbred while literally every other race got the benefit of hybrid vigor from our ancestors interbreeding with Neanderthals
Haven't you heard? Everyone comes from Africa. We're all black, just different colors.
>evolution can affect everything but aptitude and cognitive function
It could. It just hasn't in the recent evolutionary history of our species.
>Why is there such a taboo
There isn't any. The science is settled.
>A few hundred years of 'oppression and slavery' had a huge impact but 65,000 years of evolutionary divergence made absolutely zero difference?
Hundreds of years is peanuts. Population genetics don't change overnight.
Aside from that, there's a large amount of gene flow between putative 'races'. Because of that, genetic inter-individual variation within races vastly outweighs inter-racial genetic variability, and hence race is considered to be a social construct (inb4 Lewontin's fallacy, read some J. Marks). Of course there are genetic correlates of what is commonly referred to as race, but that also goes for many other traits that are not commonly considered to be as distinct as race. Before you respond, please also note that geographic phylogeny and 'race' are not the same thing.
>Why is there such a taboo surrounding the scientific basis of the intellectual disparity between the races?
Because there's no scientifically rigorous definition of "intellectual disparity" or even "intellect" for that matter. It's one thing to claim there are genetic differences between races, but another thing altogether to claim these genetic differences correspond to differences in intelligence, especially when intelligence is not well defined scientifically. Intelligence is completely subjective. The reason it's taboo is because nobody working in science would accept evidence that "proves" a subjective hypothesis.
We also came from fish. That doesn't mean we're still fish
But it has. Blacks are the least intellectually capable by any metric
>There isn't any
see
>Hundreds of years is peanuts
Exactly. And in 45,000 years we completely assimilated Neanderthals
I'm not OP, but I just wanted to point out that you'd be better off pursuing a different line of argumentation. You seem to be missing the fact that we can very easily operationalize intelligence in an objective way. The construct validity here is irrelevant to the question being asked.
...
>taboo
Why can't /pol/ keep their discussion of non-science to their own board?
>But it has.
You're ignoring genetics and the environment, which also influence cognitive ability.
I'm not about to open a news paper article. Cite the primary literature or have a nice day.
>ignoring genetics
epigenetics*
Because there's no real basis for saying anything scientific at all regarding that topic. Plus, nobody really gives a shit beyond a few neckbeards with superiority complexes.
It's valid only as a varying percentage, so it can never be a rule (never scientific, merely subjective). There are indeed civilized people in all races (race is the discrimination by appearance that we were taught we ought to believe in, over intelligence). Civilized people are the ones who do not identify with any specific race, country or psychopathic leader; are the adults, who were shown racism as a child and discarded it as mindless and blind hatred. Decent people focus on spirit, compassion and common sense.
People who present without common sense are always severely socially and mentally deficient. If you're intelligent, you'll notice the masses (most people of all races) are severely lacking in common sense. They're the 99.9% of the population and severely ADHD, autistic.
But if one is academically, emotionally and experientially intelligent, then most people are in comparison extremely unlearned, ignorant, arrogant, dirty, loud, rude and crude. Worse, they are offensive. You can't expect the cognitively impaired to want the truth, whereas the intelligent are confident enough and bright enough not to care what idiots babble; want only to look away and get away from them without being stalked or run over by them. Idiots are most dangerous when they're big and can't control themselves. It's a harsh truth, but one intelligent people must face.
>Aside from that, there's a large amount of gene flow between putative 'races'. Because of that, genetic inter-individual variation within races vastly outweighs inter-racial genetic variability, and hence race is considered to be a social construct (inb4 Lewontin's fallacy, read some J. Marks). Of course there are genetic correlates of what is commonly referred to as race, but that also goes for many other traits that are not commonly considered to be as distinct as race. Before you respond, please also note that geographic phylogeny and 'race' are not the same thing.
/pol/ btfo
Epigenetics is speculation at best at this point. Somatic mutations explain such changes much better
I'm not ignoring anything.
Poor whites do worse than rich whites
Poor blacks do worse than rich blacks
I'm saying that genetics is *A* factor, not the only factor
>Epigenetics is speculation at best at this point.
Are you retarded?
>Somatic mutations explain such changes much better
Oh really? On what loci?
>I'm saying that genetics is *A* factor, not the only factor
Stating the painfully obvious. Intelligence is an inherently polygenic trait, and genetic differences between 'races' in and of themselves (by virtue of aforementioned reasons, which you ignored) cannot account for racial gaps, whereas environmental factors most certainly can.
>Are you retarded
Translation: I can't actually address what you're saying so let me insult you
>On what loci
Eurasians interbred with Neanderthals who had larger cranial cavities. This also drove hybrid vigor. It's not a coincidence that the higher the percentage of Neanderthal DNA a race carries, the higher their average IQ
>genetic differences between 'races' in and of themselves (by virtue of aforementioned reasons, which you ignored) cannot account for racial gaps, whereas environmental factors most certainly can.
>A few generations of poverty can account for everything while the races having diverged for 1/3 the time that modern humans have existed can account for nothing
Who's retarded again?
I don't get what's the big deal about race research. To prove one group is smarter than the other? Okay, and?
To seek the truth. Not all science need to have direct application and foreseeable consequences.
>Translation: I can't actually address what you're saying so let me insult you
I insult you because your stupidity is insulting. You entirely missed the point of me mentioning epigenetics and responded with something utterly nonsensical. So I returned the favor.
>It's not a coincidence that the higher the percentage of Neanderthal DNA a race carries, the higher their average IQ
Jesus, you don't even know what a locus is. You ignored the question. Aside from that, the above statement is complete nonsense. There is no such thing as 'a percentage' of Neanderthal DNA, that's not how it works.
I'd love to be proven wrong by a reference to a paper. But there isn't any.
Well if we could admit there are differences, we could change the way we try to educate them and place them job-wise
I think the science is settled because it's outlawed in my country to suggest racial superiority.
When one side is outlawed from beginning, there can be no science. Only fanatical beliefs.
There are foreseeable consequences though. You'd fuel interracial hatred on both sides. And for what?
They're still humans. Human rights still apply.
Retards will either tell you ur racis or that it then means that one race is superior. I don´t care if one particular race has a higher IQ, the difference is still not a big deal.
All races are able to produce geniuses. It's just that the genes that define that are differently spread among the races. Once we are able to isolate the genes, race won't matter.
>It's just that the genes that define that are differently spread among the races.
Horse shit. Citation or gtfo.
But that too is taboo in the west, only chinese researchers have the liberty to look into it.
>I insult you because your stupidity is insulting
Coming from the guy who thinks divergence has played zero part in racial differences
> There is no such thing as 'a percentage' of Neanderthal DNA, that's not how it works.
genographic.nationalgeographic.com
>A team of scientists comparing the full genomes of the two species concluded that most Europeans and Asians have between 1 to 2 percent Neanderthal DNA
>1 to 2 percent
>I'd love to be proven wrong by a reference to a paper
Hard to get published when 'muh bigotry'
Yes and people with Downs are humans. We don't give them medical school scholarships because they have Downs.
Asians are being rejected at a higher rate because they require higher scores while blacks are being accepted at a higher rate because they require lower scores
>Coming from the guy who thinks divergence has played zero part in racial differences
See, this is why I think you're stupid. I never implied anything of the sort.
>genographic.nationalgeographic.com
>independent.co.uk
Again, cite the primary literature or have a nice day. I don't care what national fucking geographic has to say, because it's not scientific literature. Last chance.
I remember some guy posting here a table showing that the genes that affect intelligence positively are less common in african people, a bit more common in europeans and most common in asians. If you are genuinely curious, research. I'm sure that there are plenty of sources confirming that.
People with Downs are 100% unlikely of being geniuses. Black people are just not very likely, but they still can. Drop your stupid comparison
The problem is that people use it to justify unethical (and otherwise destructive) behaviours and actions.
> I never implied anything of the sort.
33 minutes ago
>genetic differences between 'races' in and of themselves (by virtue of aforementioned reasons, which you ignored) cannot account for racial gaps
>Again, cite the primary literature or have a nice day. I don't care what national fucking geographic has to say, because it's not scientific literature. Last chance
>I don't like you disproving me, stop it!
>>genetic differences between 'races' in and of themselves (by virtue of aforementioned reasons, which you ignored) cannot account for racial gaps
Yeah, this is correct and fully compatible with divergence playing a role in racial differences. But it cannot account for *intelligence* differences. Read.
>I don't like you disproving me, stop it!
The thing is, you didn't disprove anything.
>But it cannot account for *intelligence* differences
So intelligence is not determined in any way by genetics?
I've refuted you every step of the way
>So intelligence is not determined in any way by genetics?
Of course it is. It's in large parts determined by genetics, more so later on in life than early on. But that's exactly the problem. It's too polygenic; it would require vastly more inter-racial variation in genetic makeup for it to explain racial differences in IQ. The inter-racial variance in genome cannot account for the inter-racial variance in IQ, because there is too little variance in genome between races to do so. This should be stating the blatantly obvious given my first post in this thread, but apparently to you it isn't.
Note also that you've completely side-stepped the fact that 'race' isn't even a valid genetic construct. Again, see my first post.
>I've refuted you every step of the way
You really haven't, but unless I spell out every little thing (like above), you simply miss the point. It's like arguing with a toddler.
>But it cannot account for *intelligence* differences.
What a religious belief you have there
>assimilated
wat
try again but with an argument
>it would require vastly more inter-racial variation in genetic makeup for it to explain racial differences in IQ
You mean like one sub-population having interbred with an entirely different sub-species of human?
>The inter-racial variance in genome cannot account for the inter-racial variance in IQ
I never said it was the only factor but to pretend it's not a factor at all is retarded denial
> there is too little variance in genome between races to do so
See aforementioned heterosis with Neanderthals
>You really haven't.
Yes, I really have. You know just enough to suffer heavily from Dunning-Kruger and now you're out of your depth
>benefit of hybrid vigor from our ancestors interbreeding with Neanderthals
Is there any proof of this at all? Neaderthals never formed a civilization or farming for that matter. Even abbos have neanderthal dna.
Downs is a genetic disorder. Race isn't.
Neanderthals didn't go extinct. The ancestors of whites and asians bred them out of existence.
Neanderthals were making art, music, tools and performing ceremonies 50,000 years ago
Name a civilization from modern humans from 50,000 years ago
How do you measure intelligence?
How do you measure race?
As a leftist I'll go out on a limb and say racism isn't necessarily a bad thing, but prejudice is bad. Don't confuse the two. You can say Japanese statistically score better in school, which is racism. But to say "OH, you're Japanese. That means you get good scores" or to say ALL Japanese people get better scores. THAT is prejudice and is bad.
>bred them out of existence.
To a certain degree, but there are many factors that contributed to their extinction.
You are the one without arguments, you claim intelligence cannot vary between human populations because its polygenic when the most blatant human variation to the naked eye is also polygenic.
You argue like a religious person.
>How do you measure intelligence?
How about "Has this group invented the wheel?"
That counts as a civilization?
>sub-species
There is no such thing.
>I never said it was the only factor but to pretend it's not a factor at all is retarded denial
This is where science comes in. The radical interpretation is that we have two contrasting (but non-mutually exclusive) hypotheses: 1) IQ differences between races are genetic. 2) IQ differences between races are not genetic. We have empirical evidence to support hypothesis 2, but no evidence to support hypothesis 1. Therefore we must reject hypothesis 1, until other evidence comes forward. That's why I asked about loci, i.e. show me what exact genes contribute to racial differences in IQ. Then we're really talking. But you haven't.
>See aforementioned heterosis with Neanderthals
This is irrelevant, because there is no IQ data on Neanderthals. If anything, indirect evidence suggests that the only reason Homo Sapiens were able to out compete them is because Neanderthals were less able to cooperate. Cranial volume is highly related to muscle mass (and Neanderthals were bigger) because muscles require the most neurons to coordinate. It's why men have larger brains on average but aren't smarter. And most relevant of all, you haven't cited any research papers at all.
>You know just enough
Kek, my PhD says otherwise. Stop projecting.
See above.
>Epigenetics is speculation at best at this point. Somatic mutations explain such changes much better
>aeon.co
I believe I asked for an example of a homo sapien civilization from the same time period
>Has this group invented
Nope. Asia has higher IQs ,statistically, but they don't have the creativity to invent new and novel ideas. You can't measure intelligence with just IQ also
>because its polygenic
Just to add: because it's *too* polygenic. It's a matter of degree, and that is non-trivial.
>There is no such thing.
biology-online.org
>We have empirical evidence to support hypothesis 2, but no evidence to support hypothesis 1
But that's still wrong. Whites and asians of all economic standing outperform blacks
>This is irrelevant, because there is no IQ data on Neanderthals... cranial volume
Again, it's called heterosis. Africans were stuck in Africa after a huge population bottleneck and inbred in their own stagnation while Eurasians got the benefit of increased gene flow
>My PhD
Yes, I'm sure a guy who isn't even aware of the effects of hybrid vigor has a doctorate
>but they don't have the creativity to invent new and novel ideas
They did though
>2) IQ differences between races are not genetic. We have empirical evidence to support hypothesis 2
Literal lies,black people born in western countries still underperform, adopted black children into white couples still underperform and black children born into rich households still underperform.
Why are you blatantly lying? you are not just wrong you are spreading missinformation with an intent.
>you are not just wrong you are spreading missinformation with an intent.
I meant a genuine civilization. Neanderthal ancestors diverged 400,000 years ago and moved into Eurasia and stagnated.
I was thinking more among the lines of a troll, calm down /pol/
Yeah and modern humans didn't have any civilizations 50,000 years ago either.
Civlizations really only cropped up in the past 12,000 years and it's been among, surprise surprise, people whose ancestors interbred with Neanderthals
Ah, that is some serious correlation! That means causation right?
Oh wait, could it be because of reliance on agriculture? Hmmmmmmm
>Oh wait, could it be because of reliance on agriculture
How and why were they able to take advantage of agriculture?
but not neanderthals themselves?
>biology-online.org
Fucking kek, like I said, stick to scientific literature. The word exists, sure. But not as a concept used in science. That's all that matters. Are you referring to order, family, genus? Homo sapiens is part of the same branch, and there aren't different branches for 'races'.
Here's a hint:
en.wikipedia.org
>Whites and asians of all economic standing outperform blacks
Environment.
psycnet.apa.org
>Again, it's called heterosis. Africans were stuck in Africa after a huge population bottleneck and inbred in their own stagnation while Eurasians got the benefit of increased gene flow
Bottle neck is evident in the genome of everyone, regardless of 'race'. It occured before our species even existed, i.e. it occurred among a group of Australopithecina as they transitioned into Homo erectus. There were no more recent bottlenecks. mbe.oxfordjournals.org
>Yes, I'm sure a guy who isn't even aware of the effects of hybrid vigor has a doctorate
Yup.
Because they were homo sapien and thus extremely adaptable. It was a necessity because the hunter/gatherer lifestyle didn't work as well in Eurasia.
So which sapien civilization existed 50,000 years ago/
They were all hunter gatherers, but humans could advance and adapt better than Neanderthals.
>But not as a concept used in science
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>Union of Species as Subspecies
>Environment.
>A few hundred years of colonization and slavery made all the difference while 70,000 years of divergence made no difference
This is what retards actually believe
>Bottle neck is evident in the genome of everyone, regardless of 'race'. It occured before our species even existed
Less evident in Eurasians thanks to heterosis
After that post, I'm entirely convinced that you're purposely being as stupid as possible just setting up knock down arguments to help me prove my point
I appreciate it but the evidence speaks for itself.
>but humans could advance and adapt better than Neanderthals.
Apparently not. The only humans not to have interbred with neanderthals still live in mud huts and throw pointy sticks
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Thanks for proving my point. Doesn't mention the word sub-species. Note that genus =/= species.
>This is what retards actually believe
That's why I referred you to empirical evidence supporting that notion. Faggot.
>psycnet.apa.org
>These cross-sectional analyses suggest that consideration of demographic, health-related, and experiential factors greatly attenuates racial differences in late-life level of cognition
>Less evident in Eurasians thanks to heterosis
No, non-existant.
>mbe.oxfordjournals.org
>Both genetic and anthropological data are incompatible with the hypothesis of a recent population size bottleneck. Such an event would be expected to leave a significant mark across numerous genetic loci and observable anatomical traits, but while some subsets of data are compatible with a recent population size bottleneck, there is no consistently expressed effect that can be found across the range where it should appear, and this absence disproves the hypothesis.
>I appreciate it but the evidence speaks for itself.
The irony is almost too much to handle.
>All I know is stereotypes!
Not sure what you mean, this group also farmed and performed iron working independently in the fraction of the time Neanderthals have been around and Neanderthals got their shit kicked in by humans with pointy sticks tens of thousands of years ago.
libcuck or black?
>Doesn't mention the word sub-species.
>ctrl + f subspecies '59 results'
>These cross-sectional analyses suggest that consideration of demographic, health-related, and experiential factors greatly attenuates racial differences in late-life level of cognition
Still not understanding that I'm not saying genetics is the only factor. You might actually be legitimately retarded
>No, non-existant.
You act as if a few million years ago is a massive gulf in paleontological time. How do you think we know a bottleneck occurred at all?
>The irony is almost too much to handle.
The projection is exactly as expected
>A colonized country
>Representative of the black standard of living
I know you are baiting but you know this picture is taken in the same city right? are you seriously using Lagos to defend black people? come on bruh
>ctrl + f subspecies '59 results'
Fair enough, I'll give you that one.
>Still not understanding that I'm not saying genetics is the only factor.
I understand full well. Go back and read the article because you missing the point is becoming the theme of the day.
>You act as if a few million years ago is a massive gulf in paleontological time.
What?
> How do you think we know a bottleneck occurred at all?
The evidence is inconsistent with a bottleneck more recent than at the transition from Australopithecina into Homo erectus. That's literally the main point of the article I cited. The bottleneck you're thinking of, it didn't occur. Get that through your thick skull.
Just proving the guy wrong. Slums have existed in every single culture ever at some point. Nigeria is still a developing country.
Race is a social construct.
Their brains were bigger, but that's because they had better senses, and senses require a lot of processing. Cognitively, we are still better (their brains were flatter than ours).
>I understand full well.
If you understood then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
>What?
Australopithecenes lived ~4ma ago
>The bottleneck you're thinking of, it didn't occur.
See previous comment regarding evolutionary time
Do you even understand how evolution works? Then this would be self-explanetory. I do believe you being in denial, as you seem to reject any new information due to your all-knowing PH.D.
Yeah but they had more cranial capacity to work with
That worked in our favor
>If you understood then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
...
We're having this discussion because you cannot seem to understand a fucking abstract.
>Australopithecenes lived ~4ma ago
Yeah. Before modern humans were around. If that was the last bottleneck in our lineage, there necessarily wasn't a bottleneck after we started populating Eurasia.
Australoids have also interbred with neanderthals (as much as asians) and they are pretty much like africans.
>Do you even understand how evolution works?
Yes. Do you?
It is more spesifically different brain structure sizes. The hippocampus etc is larger in the white population giving the strength of long term problem solving. Having some large neuron structures does not produce significant intelligence strengths, yet some produce immense strengths.
The vast majority of Lagos is a slum.
We're having this discussion because you're in denial regarding the importance of genetics
It didn't have to occur in modern humans to affect modern humans. I never said there was a bottleneck after out-of-Africa. That was my point. Africans sat there inbreeding while we found a source of increased gene flow
meant for this
not this
>I never said there was a bottleneck after out-of-Africa.
>Because blacks stayed in Africa and inbred while literally every other race got the benefit of hybrid vigor from our ancestors interbreeding with Neanderthals
Fuck off.
>We're having this discussion because you're in denial regarding the importance of genetics
If I'm in denial about something, you're welcome to change my mind with empirical evidence. In fact, I'd actually like that. But instead you're jerking around and fail to grasp even the simplest things.
>the intellectual disparity between the races?
Wrong way of looking at it.
A smart black person is equal to a smart white person.
The intellectual disparity is between the groups of smart and stupid people.
Did you even read my post? It's not just about cranial capacity, it's about developing the right areas. People with Down's Syndrome also have large heads but they are still dumb as fuck.
Oh it must be because they're retarded then. Choosing to live in slums rather than a nice city, kek.
Mumbai is mostly slums as well.