Can we have an ACTUAL scientific discussion on the racial intelligence divide?

Can we have an ACTUAL scientific discussion on the racial intelligence divide?

No

Why is it taboo? I thought science was supposed to be impartial

It isn't taboo on 4c. But we know next to nothing about "racial intelligence divide", because we haven't studied neurogenetics adequately and we can't even quantify intelligence or aptitude. So we can't have an "ACTUAL" scientific discussion because there is no hard scientific data to talk of.

Well a gap exists, the only discussion or argument is what caused it

Left wingers will say it's ALL due to a few hundred years of oppression.

Realists will say it's ALSO due to 65,000 years of genetic divergence including the hybrid vigor that Europeans and Asians got from interbreeding with Neanderthals in Europe

Which one are you?

>Lolol you're Hitler for implying that everyone isn't exactly the same in magical fairy land

Completely true. I really hate that. For science we should be stepping boundaries for purely knowledge gaining purposes, to discover what is.

Its Okay to not "mention" that blacks have lower iq, they clearly have, but we should collect data of anything.

Race doesn't exist. Deal with it.

Race exists, you've just had it hammered into your head that those poor brownskins are just the victims of white oppression.

...

A gap exists in IQ, not intelligence, which is why I inserted the bit about out inability to quantify intelligence in the first place.

>Left-wingers
you mean liberals, considering you obviously live in the US. Also, left-wingers don't deny that evolution affected different populations at different times. Read below to understand.

Thing is, culture and environment have already proven to be very powerful effectors of apparent intelligence or aptitude. Asian countries in general or the four asian tigers for example. Imperial Russia vs late USSR. Unless you can conclusively show us which genes differ between blacks and Caucasians and affect intelligence (define intelligence and measure it, good luck with that) differently, then the "realists" have no ground in their claims that evolution and population wide genetic events in the past that could have conceivably happened actually kept blacks back. You need genetic proof. And we come back to my original point, the science isn't there yet, the data doesn't exist.

Disregarding muh /pol/ boogeyman, here's what bothers me.

When did whites progress so far ahead of Africans? Rome wasn't built in a day, no one magically gave white people knowledge and a civilized society. Are you really ascribing all of it to environment? Surely South Africa (for example) isn't an absolute hellhole where nothing can flourish?

IQ is specifically a metric of intelligence

>Thing is, culture and environment have already proven to be very powerful effectors of apparent intelligence

...

A bottleneck causes reduced genetic variability

The ancestors of whites and asians left for Europe 65,000 years ago

They ran into and interbred with Neanderthals, who had larger cranial cavities so much so that Asians are up to 4% Neanderthal

This drove hybrid vigor

Notice the most 'oppressing' that whites ever did of Asians was the few that straggled in and worked on the railroad. Never, ever, did they go to mainland China and enslave jack shit

The problem with viewing the history of civilization through racial glasses is that it doesn't conclusively prove anything. Europe progressed because everything started in the Middle East, Sumerians, Babylonians and Assyrians. It wasn't "white" people that started civilization. Also, civilized European society started from the Greeks, not Romans. Both of which are not white according to many race realist /pol/acks.

Maybe it happened because there was something about the geography and environment (Fertile Crescent) that made it special. Maybe it was completely random. We'll never know if it was because Middle Easterners had intelligence genes that blacks didn't. So no evidence there either.

IQ doesn't use biological data, it's a psychological metric. Intelligence, what it is and includes has not been solved, so how can IQ be an accurate metric of intelligence?

Also, a reminder that you're misrepresenting my point AGAIN. Nobody says 65k years DID NOT make a difference, they're saying that we DON'T KNOW if those 65k years made a difference in specific intellectual capacities and kept blacks back. WE DON'T KNOW. And it's entirely plausible that your 65k years ultimately made only a negligible difference, compared to environmental effects at least.

That's a hypothesis. A plausible one. Hybrid vigor is when you obtain traits that make a difference, fitness wise, through interbreeding. We know that humans and Neanderthals share DNA, we don't know if the shared DNA made a difference intelligence wise. Also, larger cranial cavities does not necessarily lead to more intelligence. All of these are under investigation, aka inconclusive. It's a VERY long way from definitively claiming blacks (in America) are inherently dumb because you saw a bunch of nigger thugs on the street. Hypotheses are nice, but legislation doesn't rely on hypotheses alone.

>made only a negligible difference,

Name a black society that has independently invented the wheel

So let's see, you're implying that the independent evolution of blacks kept them from acquiring genes that would make them smart enough to invent the wheel? Genetic proof required. Isn't that one of dem fallacies you worship over at the politics board?

Again, studying the history of civilization through race is not reliable at all. There are many stimuli that lead to the progress of a civilization, it's too complex to study. You can call me a cuckold here and end this discussion.

So you can't even provide a black culture that has the wheel

Check

>Can we have an ACTUAL scientific discussion on the racial intelligence divide?

We settled this last millennium

>pic related