Isn't inequality between races basically a scientific inevitability?

Why would they have diverged, though
There's no situation where being more intelligent wouldn't be evolutionarily advantageous, on top of which the human race is incredibly inbred
Any two birds of the same species you see in your garden are likely to have more genetic differences than any two humans
Besides which, 'intelligence' depends greatly on culture, and if you're measuring it via standardised testing then it's affected by an absurd amount of arbitrary shit like how recent your last meal was, what it was, how much water you've drunk, what time of day it is, etc.

>conclusive genetic proof about other """races""" (if you can define them to begin with)
Wow, an anonymous Veeky Forums user proved Darwin wrong

Triggered?

I don't know the details regarding every race or ethnic group in the world but it's pretty well established by now in scientific literature (non-liberal literature at least) that those of African descent are genetically prone to being physical geniuses. By that same token, their average IQ (if you want to consider this a valid metric) is on average lower by 10 points than their Caucasian counterparts. The real question you should ask yourself is: does it really matter?

Wow, an anonymous Veeky Forums user doesn't fucking understand Darwin at all, let alone the hundreds of years of genetics research between him and us

>There's no situation where being more intelligent wouldn't be evolutionarily advantageous, on top of which the human race is incredibly inbred

Right, but there are situations that require more intelligence than others

Surviving a snowy winter requires more planning, self control and abstract thinking than survivng in Africa where hunting and gathering are viable year round options and resources are plentiful

Sure, you need intelligence in BOTH situations, but in the first situation, the more intelligent members of society are more likely to survive and reproduce

>Any two birds of the same species you see in your garden are likely to have more genetic differences than any two humans

That's true in a sense, but not totally

It is true that human races are more similar than most animal species that have sub-races, but not all

For instance, Elk have a variety of sub-species, yet they are just about as genetically dissimilar from each other as the human races are

>'intelligence' depends greatly on culture, and if you're measuring it via standardised testing

Actually, intelligence does not depend on culture, many standardized IQ tests are used regulary around the world

For example, if IQ tests where biased, how could Chinese students score higher than the white students whose cultures designed the tests?

They couldn;t if the tests were biased, yet that is not the case

Intelligence is not variable over your lifespan

From the end of Adolescence to the onset of old age IQ is remarkably stable, this is a basic, consensus fact in cognitive science

Are you 16?

If Darwin didn't believe in the races of man, why did he right about how the weaker races would be replaced by the stronger races?

So, populations. Race is much too general a classification, unless you're bundling a bunch of different populations into a "race" category incorrectly. This is the reason populations genetics has supplanted racial pseudoscience, because populations are very different from each other, and by populations, we don't refer to billions of people.

Nobody argues that. People argue that there is something inherent to the ancestry of certain populations that makes their "intelligence", whatever that means, different from each other. There is no genetic proof however, ergo it's meaningless to talk about it. A thread on this should be made when relevant genetic research comes out.

Actually population genetics is just another name for "racial pseudo science"

Population genetics uses the term "continental ancestry" instead of race

Obviously the colloquial definition of race used by so called "racist pseudo-scientists" is roughly synonymous.

Intelligence is about 40% heritable in individuals and 50-80% heritable in adults (according to the APA)

This does not mean that between group differences are similarly heritable, but it is strong evidence that this is the case especially as increases in standard of living around the world do not produce similar increases in IQ scores

As to the existentialist argument, obviously no thinking person would judge an individual based on their group membership as groups are not monoliths but consist of varied individuals who's traits are distributed according to a bell curve with significant overlap between groups

> when cities started developing in the middle east, people started migrating into cities. They must have been more intelligent, more ambitious and more inclined to civility then the people who decided to stay nomads in the desert.
This is beyond retarded. Maybe the people who were good at desert survival saw no need to change anything. The people who couldn't hack it went to the city to be minimum wage cucks.

And why should we treat anyone any differently or unfairly judge a person based on skin color? I don't see you judging all those blonde Chads are literal retards getting by on looks and family money.

Another 16 year old :)

Have you ever read about nomadic societies?

Do you think life was comfortable out there?

If the nomadic lifestyle was in any way appealing when compared to settled civilized life, why does it no longer exist?

I love how perfectly describes all the liberal retards in the United States. History really does repeat itself

I know right?

Its amazing how grown men can compartmentalize their mind to such a degree that when prompted by certain triggers they regress to an adolescent state of mind

Let's not generalize extremely large groups of people. That would be retarded.

By racial pseudoscience I'm referring to the /pol/ types that use "race" in a very casual way, and often not well defined. The very term race was often used to refer to phenotypes rather than continental ancestry. This is the reason you'll see a /pol/ack get mixed up on what a "white" person is. Blond, blue eyes? Do Mediterraneans count? Do Slavs count? etc etc.

So populations genetics certainly is not another name for racial pseudoscience. Unless you individually tailor your use of the term race to strictly scientific terms, in which case a populations constitutes a race of sorts and so on.

>Intelligence is about 40% heritable

You mean IQ, a psychological, rather than biological metric. This is the reason people here want biological, genetic proof. The rest of your post opens up such a large discussion that it's not worth going into. It's been discussed to death in other threads again and again to no avail. When hard proof is obtained, we can talk about this again, in a thread that does not have a timed lifespan due to mods.

Actually, the only way to talk about groups is through generalization

Otherwise we would have to note the varying characteristics of every group member every time we spoke of the group at all!!

Oy Vey!!

>Africa is the most resource rich continent in the world
Africa is rich in rare earth metals which only become useful once you have developed an advanced civilisation something that is very difficult to develop is subsaharan africa

I love how liberal retards try to twist and degrade science to fit their shitty agendas, they are the ultimate enemy of science and this thread is likely to be deleted.
Oh, the decadence.

Races and populations are different things. Kill yourself and go back to your containment board.

IQ is not purely psychological and incorporates biological elements such as reaction time which has a well understood micorbiologic foundation

As for genetic evidence, just google, all the latest research is finding genetic correlates to cognitive ability

Here's a meta-analysis published this year in Nature (pic related)

nature.com/mp/journal/v22/n3/pdf/mp2016244a.pdf?WT.ec_id=MP-201703&spMailingID=53471396&spUserID=MTc2Mzc2MDA1NgS2&spJobID=1103517217&spReportId=MTEwMzUxNzIxNwS2

Natural resources also means food, of which Africa has more in readily accessible forms than any other continent

I can't tell if you are mocking me airing out Darwin's dirty laundry or if you are just stupid

Please clarify

>something that is very difficult to develop is subsaharan africa
Um, no. Every sub-Saharan African capital has functional cities, the environment in a non-issue, humans can develop civilization in extreme environments. Egypt and semi-polar places are worse than Africa.
youtube.com/watch?v=AfPkg8S4Fio

>I can't read

Are you saying that I'm misrepresented Darwin and therefore acting like the liberals types like me claim to hate?

You misunderstand, I don't mean general research into the genetic basis of intelligence, since that doesn't directly help your goal of proving that niggers are inferior. The research you need to validate your views is comparison between most African and many European populations, detecting different alleles and SNPs not just in genetic correlates but genes with documented and studied effect on brain development. THAT would be conclusive enough to validate a potentially white-supremacist view of the world.

What you posted is the earliest step conceivable. These correlates haven't been studied, and they're only a part of the much larger picture. Until then... the alt-right will have to wait.

Hahahaha the irony

Who built the cities?

With whose technology?

Who were the Architects?

Who were the city planners?

Who funded it?

Who created the governemnts that carried it out?

>Obviously the colloquial definition of race used by so called "racist pseudo-scientists" is roughly synonymous.
Looks that way but it's not. It's true that there are racists trying to legitimize racism through population genetics but population genetics isn't designed for that. It's a more general theory and it can be abused in lots of ridiculous ways if one wants to, but doing so requires contrived constructions in top of population genetics, the sort of which you are describing.

>genes with documented and studied effect on brain development

That's what the paper does if you read the abstract....

It has nothing to do with race

Also, what does studying IQ have to do with white supremacy, who's claiming whites are superior?

I would think that East Asians are superior in their intellectual ability, wouldn't you agree?

No not really Africa's crops and domesticated grains weren't that decent in most cases. Only when trade increased were many parts of Africa able to get crops and grains that could give ample nutrition and support bigger populations.

Africans did not require domesticated crops to survive, hence none were developed hence the superiority of their natural resources

What's the difference between :genetic correlates" and genes?

How is continental ancestry different from the traditional races then(i.e. European, African, East Asian, Ect)

Europeans so generous :)

You didn;t read the abstract, SNP's are discussed, this doesn't have to do with race to show that cognitive ability is heritable

>That's what the paper does if you read the abstract....
No it's not. Do you even know what GWAS is? Studying a gene doesn't mean drawing an statistical association relative to a phenotype, it means assaying it on cell cultures to determine its function/location etc.

The paper you posted is about detecting gene loci that seem to account for general congitive function (g) variation in European populations. It's worth mentioning that g is a psychometric factor itself. This is not research on brain development. Some associations can be drawn between certain haplotyps and brain development conditions, but that's about it, nothing more quantifiable and usable for the time being. Please refrain from posting if you don't know anything about the science you're discussing.

Also if you read my post I said that it has nothing to do with race, it's just a starting point, so I don't know why you think I implied it had anything to do with race to begin with.

Many /pol/acks claim, look up IQ in the sci archive and you'll know what I'm talking about. I don't know if East Asians are genetically superior, from the friends I have, they just work a fuckton and have been raised doing science and math religiously, so they have an aptitude for solving problems fast. On the other hand they couldn't tackle a philosophical issue for shit, which shows their education makes them lack in other parts. But yes, the average asian is probably better at STEM than the average westerner.

Genetic correlates are loci, i.e. positions on a chromosome that contain MANY genes that partly/fully control a phenotypic trait. Genes are genes, they are the sub-unit.

>/pol/ needs Veeky Forums to make them feel better about dropping out of college while there are minority students out there who have actually attained academic success

Good thread OP.

It does draw a statistical correlation from a phenotype as it correlates g with likelihood of indulging in different behaviors, look at the link

Hahaha you didn't even read the abstract, you claimed it doesn't address SNPs and Loci, it discusses both, then you say it draws no statistical association relative to phenotype (it does)

Why even discuss the study if you aren't prepared to be challenge your biases?

>Africans did not require domesticated crops to survive

Every single hunter and gathering group got btfo by farming people every single instance.

I'll just paste it for you

). In addition, we utilized individual SNP lookups and polygenic
score analyses to identify genetic overlap with other relevant neurobehavioral phenotypes. Our primary GWAS meta-analysis
identi
fi
ed two novel SNP loci (top SNPs: rs76114856 in the
CENPO
gene on chromosome 2 and rs6669072 near
LOC105378853
on
chromosome 1) associated with cognitive performance at the genome-wide signi
fi
cance level (
P
o
5×10
−
8
). Gene-based analysis
identi
fi
ed an additional three Bonferroni-corrected signi
fi
cant loci at chromosomes 17q21.31, 17p13.1 and 1p13.3. Altogether,
common variation across the genome resulted in a conservatively estimated SNP heritability of 21.5% (s.e. = 0.01%) for general
cognitive function. Integration with prior GWAS of cognitive performance and educational attainment yielded several additional signi
fi
cant loci. Finally, we found robust polygenic correlations between cognitive performance and educational attainment, several
psychiatric disorders, birth length/weight and smoking behavior, as well as a novel genetic association to the personality trait of
openness. These data provide new insight into the genetics of neurocognitive function with relevance to understanding the
pathophysiology of neuropsychiatric illness.

Wut. It is very much widely believed agriculture arose out of necessity when hunter/gatherer became unsustainable. They were literally dying and desperate. It naturally led to more permanent locality and thus infrastructure and economy. It didn't become superior in terms of nutrition for a very long time (if ever).

> It didn't become superior in terms of nutrition for a very long time (if ever).

Lol domesticated plant life offer way more nutrition then wild counterparts because they were bred for it indirectly and directly (based o which crop) over time.

Hunter gathered have to deal with unstable food supplies due to the environment where droughts and flooding happen randomly.

Races:
>Divided based on vague descriptions of physical characteristics and social criteria.
>Proponents used to use said divisions to make assertions about other social criteria. Later when such approaches were confirmed pseudoscience they attempted to "fix" this by claiming one could make assertions about genetics and that through genetics one could make assertions about social criteria. Later this was once again confirmed as pseudoscience thanks to theorems in convex analysis regarding convergence of clustering algorithms and research into polygenic characteristics showing that such approaches (making assertions based on tiny amounts of genetic knowledge) were ridiculously insufficient.
Population genetics
>A general theoretical framework that allows one to more rigorously compare genetic distance between different populations (which can be given by arbitrary definitions).
Racists using the language of population genetics
>Once again attempting to justify racism they attempt to approximate "traditional races" by using flexible criteria with largely arbitrary justification. Moreover they once again attempt to make social assertions based on genetic criteria but they do so only suggestively (since only ridiculously overpowered genome wide polygenic scores computed over small, largely similar populations, from the same generation, under the same social circumstances, have had any sort of success at giving non-shit tier predictions about things only social science cares about).

The thing you described is hardly rigorous and those quacks are largely pseudoscientists. Population genetics itself is useful and powerful when used appropriately.

Are you guys actually retarded?

>between most African and many European populations
This was the focus of my post, not the SNP and locus identification, obviously. Anyone who talks about GWAS has to talk about loci, it's part of the study. The study however doesn't compare african and european loci, it identifies some loci and SNPs BETWEEN european subjects. Again, do you know how these studies work? The SNPs are scored and their impact on a phenotype is calculated by how much variation they account for in that phenotype, in this case g, ALL OF WHICH I SAID IN MY POST. WHERE DID I DENY THAT THE STUDY DRAWS STATISTICAL CORRELATION BETWEEN LOCI AND PHENOTYPE (g) ?????

>Studying a gene doesn't mean drawing an statistical association relative to a phenotype
>drawing an statistical association relative to a phenotype
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS STUDY DOES. This study DOESN'T assay the genes that it detects, it draws an association, which I LITERALLY SAY TWO LINES AFTER. Reading comprehension.

Holy shit.

>the alt-right will just have to wait

The alt-right wants the provably functional model of a monoracial state. It is multi-racialists who should have to prove that it works conclusively better than monoracial states. They don't.

Sorry for the chimpout, I'll explain the thought process because I'm viewing this from a scientist's pov and you might have some confusions/ term misunderstandings that I did not account for.

Your goal (or a white supremacist's goal): Prove that niggers are dumb with respect to genes and brain development.

The research you posted in is a GWAS study. It studies how much certain loci and nucleotides affect intelligence, as measured by the psychometric factor g, which is a construct of psychology, not brain development or neurons. This is one of the problems I identify in . The second problem is that the correlates in the study are just that - correlates. The genes contained within haven't been studied (i.e. assayed, this is what "studying" a gene refers to in biology) and their function with respect to neuroscience and the brain have not been ascertained. The third problem with this study is that it doesn't compare europeans and africans, it's simply a first step to detecting certain genes that SHOULD be studied to elucidate their function with respect to cognition, which itself is not understood biologically. Therefore this paper is not enough/relevant for race discussions, which I assume we agree on. The reason I'm pointing out these problems is because they are some of the things that should be accounted for in a paper that studies racial differences in intelligence.

And with this, the discussion is concluded. There's nothing here yet to justify a white supremacist viewpoint, regardless of whether that was your purpose or not. Genetic differences between populations do exist. But the science behind neuron interaction and brain development is not there, and neither is the robust association between loci and cognition. Your own study states that the SNPs identified have miniscule impact size.

physical characteristics = continent of origin

BATHE IN YOUR RAGE AND LET IT CONSUME YOU.

No at all.

How do you measure success with respect to racial homogeneity though? The US is a multi-racial, multi-cultural superpower, the world's only, so does that prove its unique functionality? Singapore is the same, and it's one of the most prosperous countries in the world, with the most well-performing and educated students. Also, the western European countries that seeked out for immigrants did it to fill cheaper worker positions and strengthen themselves economically, not out of humanitarian generosity. So, positive economic results there as well. Where do you draw the line?

What I suspect you have a problem with is Islam, and you're not alone. I also have my reservations about Islam's coexistence with the west, but that doesn't mean I have to advocate for a mono racial state to avoid the problem. That solution is THAT much more complicated.

And on that note, I'm off to sleep.

I don't understand the confusion here, the study simply provides evidence that g is correlated to specific genes

This correlation implies causation because we wouldn't assume that g determnes the loci, it could only be that the loci determines g

Why would you have to compare Europeans to Africans to determine whether genes correlate to cognitive function?

Why do you keep implying that I'm a White Supremacist, I am not.

IQ is distributed in a bell curve meaning that even if IQ between different races differ in their statistical average, there is large overlap between the 2 groups

Even if it is true that Black and White IQs differ by about 1 standard deviation, there are still many Blacks who are "smarter" than Whites

The race of a person does not tell you anything about their IQ

Yes

Black skin is a physical characteristic of Africans for example

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

Thank you based user

Will be screen capping this

>Why would you have to compare Europeans to Africans to determine whether genes correlate to cognitive function?
I'm not, I'm saying that comparing europeans with africans is the only way to determine "racial" difference in cognitive function. See below.

>Why do you keep implying that I'm a White Supremacist, I am not.
Ok then. In that case, I don't disagree with any of your points, but there are always people in these threads whose only interest is some scientific smidge to justify their race war. And the people that are specifically interested in this research are almost invariably of that caste. If you are the exception, I apologize for making the assumption.

kek, this is what pop science plebs actually believe

Even if we identified which genes contribute to intelligence, which is a lot of them with complex interactions, that still doesn't mean anything. You'd have to prove, conclusively, that different races have a lot of "worse" alleles on average of these genes.

I can guarantee you that due to the power of current GWAS studies and their failure to find highly influential genes, we will likely find 100-200 genes that might account for 1 IQ point or less each.

Given that, and the fact that we can already measure genetic variation and allele frequencies in humans it is impossible that large gaps in IQ would be due to racial differences. Humans are too genetically close to each other and lack the variation for a trait as large as possibly hundreds of genes to be that divergent. If it was, we would have already noticed it in patterns of human genetic variation.

tl;dr:
>Race and populations are different things.
>Formalizing race in the context of rigorous science is nontrivial because it's a largely garbage term with lots of definitions many of which have been repudiated by science and are regarded as pseudoscience.
>Pointing out that race isn't real isn't equivalent to arguing that there are no differences in genetics amongst human populations, largely because race has little to do with genetics.

Top zoz, /pol/niggers just got butchered.

This research is important for social policy

If there is a genetic component to cognitive ability that is significant and can explain social inequalities to some degree, we need to know about it

We can never have a more just society without a proper understanding of the problem

Can you think of an indigenous population with black skin that isn't of recent African descent?

>Given that, and the fact that we can already measure genetic variation and allele frequencies in humans it is impossible that large gaps in IQ would be due to racial differences. Humans are too genetically close to each other and lack the variation for a trait as large as possibly hundreds of genes to be that divergent. If it was, we would have already noticed it in patterns of human genetic variation.

What do you base this conclusion on specifically?

It's textbook knowledge. You can textbooks on human evolution and genetics. We've been studying this stuff since the 70s.

Some of the links here talk about it as well.

Whats a good textbook?

The links seem to say that about 10% to 15% of genetic diversity is between populations

If IQ isn't genetically based, why does the APA saw that heritibility is about 75% for adults?

You don't drop links then not tell people what they are meant to show and make them have to hunt for it themselves.

cavalli-sforza and svante paabo were some of the breakthrough geneticists that discovered or elucidated a lot of things about human genetics. You can just look them up on amazon. They have both made several textbooks.

As for your other question, how heritable IQ is has nothing to do with comparing heritablility between groups. Even if IQ was 99.9999% heritable, if we all had roughly the same genetics for IQ, which seems highly likely, than we would all have roughly the same genetic contribution. You can never ignore environmental factors, either.

It's also a commonly known observable fact that there is more within population diversity in humans than between population diversity.

Yes, you do. If you can't understand scientific literature you shouldn't pretend to be knowledge about the subject and make scientific proclamations about it.

This is how racist psuedoscience works. They find a few links that don't actually support their beliefs, pick out a single sentence or graph, then claim that science supports them. They expect people to be lazy, which most of their following is, and not check or understand the sources.

Africans have Brown skin though.

Asturalian aboriginals are far more related to Asians than Africans.

So if IQ was totally heritable, and there was a variation of 1 standard deviation between 2 groups, that wouldn't necessarily mean that the difference was genetic?

If so, what else could cause the variation then when the populations have very similar environments?

There is no such thing as "totally genetic" hence why I said 99.999%. The concept of nature vs nurture is a flawed anachronism. Environment can always play a part.

That said, you can never fully control for environmental factors.

It just seems like an excuse,

If something is say 75% heritible and there is a significant difference between 2 populations in the trait, It would seem likely that there is a difference between the populations related to genetics no?

Well, that's what science is about. It's about looking for evidence and not just making assumptions on what "seems likely." Just because you don't like the data we observe with science doesn't make it a conspiracy.

You might assume flamingos are pink due to genetics, but in fact it's their diet of shrimp.

There's a lot of south east Asians that have that trait.

My point is that genetic differences between the 2 populations is POSSIBLE, and maybe even PROBABLE

Would you agree?

Right, where did the trait come from?

Those links don't aren't sufficient to support the claims you're making. They don't even talk about genome wide polygenic scores or how to relate genetic research to social shit.

It is obvious you don't understand the shit you're talking about and your solution is to point at stuff you don't understand and claim it supports your position on the assumption that others don't understand it either. Gtfo of Veeky Forumsand kill yourself.

I thought it was settled science that if you use thousands of Loci to compare two continental populations, an individual from each continent will ALWAYS be more similar to his fellows than to those of the other continent

Is that not true?

You're refering to the 2007 Whitherspoon paper.

Read the conclusion of it if you can't understand the data. You can statistically correlation tons of small differences in genetic variation to make a likelihood of similarity and ancestry, but that doesn't mean those small differences, overall, are cumulative and mean people the people are very different.

mods!

No i was referring to

Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy" a 2003 paper by A. W. F. Edwards

"Edwards argued that while Lewontin's statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of different alleles (variants of a particular gene) at an individual locus (the location of a particular gene) between individuals, it is nonetheless possible to classify individuals into different racial groups with an accuracy that approaches 100 percent when one takes into account the frequency of the alleles at several loci at the same time."

His paper does not discredit Lewontin's data. That data is observable fact. Even Edwards admits that. His claim that "data doesn't matter you can still have race!" is also false.

Lewontin looked at single Loci

Edwards looked at multiple loci simultaneously

Edwards didn;t cherry pick

Lewontin did

Also, are you trolling? You can;t really think that can you....the Science is settled

No one on here actually talks about Science, you all just make baseless accusations and misrepresent facts to fit your preconceived narratives

All false statements. Science is verifiable. If you want to, you can take genetic samples from around the world, sequence them, and observe the differences in variation if you want. You're trying to say a single paper published by a biased source published in a mall Essay journal is more credible than decades of data.

Yes, the science is settled.

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins discusses genetic variation across human races in his book The Ancestor's Tale.[4] In the chapter The Grasshopper's Tale, he characterizes the genetic variation between races as a very small fraction of the total human genetic variation. He goes on to disagree with Lewontin's conclusions about taxonomy, writing, "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."

You must listen to your God Dawkins

So you agree then ?

Cavalli-Sforza agrees too, he mapped out the major Human genetic groupings as identical to Human races (pic related)

SNP haplogroups have nothing to do with race. That is not what Cavalli Sforza did. That map is showing human migration out of Africa.