Is there an objective way to compare human races?

Fallacy of composition already exists you fucking faggot.

Arabs are idiots too, desu.
The correct ordering is probably
Ashkenazi > Northern European elite = East Asian elite > other whites = other East Asians = Persians > indians > arabs = Africans = native/indigenous peoples = Pacific Islanders

no
middle east ain't a race
ashkenazi, persians, europeans, indians arabs aren't races, in fact that would be 1 race
native/indigenous peoples can be australian or american those 2 different races
>inb4 some of those aren't pure
doesn't really matter

good question

you take some SNP's, run a clustering algorithm(something like k-means) and you get this

I prefer k=5, since it matches continents, seems most meaningful

start by observing the differences, collect some data, then cook it with statistics until it backs up your original observation

>putting indians so low
>putting whites equal to asians
This will hurt.

rs10457441:
European avg: 0.53 South Asian avg: 0.28
rs10119:
European avg: 0.71 South Asian avg: 0.79
rs11584700:
European avg: 0.23 South Asian avg: 0.25
rs4851266:
European avg: 0.39 South Asian avg: 0.25
rs236330:
European avg: 0.77 South Asian avg: 0.9
rs17518584:
European avg: 0.63 South Asian avg: 0.49
rs7923609:
European avg: 0.51 South Asian avg: 0.48
rs17522122:
European avg: -0.51 South Asian avg: -0.56
rs2721173:
European avg: -0.54 South Asian avg: -0.41
Average Mexican frequency: 0.496666666667
Average European frequency 0.524444444444
For comparison - Average East Asian frequency 0.608
Source: 1000 genomes project

So basically the difference between east asians and whites is bigger than the difference between south asians(poo in loo etc) and whites - WHY would that be??
here's whynow the question is - is it possible that the biggest contributors (in GWAS) are all distributed in this way by coincidence, is it probable that some other less important intelligence genes are distributed in a completely different way - the answer is NO it's not a coincidence and NO it's not probable

>Strawman fallacy
The existence of the center line does not contradict the claim that "not all X are like that."

You are surprised?

I wasn't surprised.

Still, I saved the OP pic to use when someone mentions Newton whenever the high East Asian IQ is brought up.
As a joke and a meme.

This is completely circular:
>Use IQ tests to determine genes that correlate with intelligence
>Use genes to determine IQ

What if IQ is environmentally determined, then:
>Africa is shitty
>Africans have lower IQ as a result
>Some genes that have a higher frequency in Africans are then correlated with lower """Intelligence"""

Well, I am hoping people who did the study knew how to control for confounding such as race. For example you can imagine you only study people of the same race, living in the same environment to find out which SNP's made a difference.

Still, there is no causation proved. Just pointing out the differences between south Asians and Europeans are most likely environmental, however you want to look at it. And there's only 3 ways to look at it - either it's all environment, all genes, or both. Obviously it can't be genes between these two groups - Euros and south Asians. The post wasn't meant to address Africans.

Oh boy the daily /pol/ bait thread

IQ or crime rates, lmao

...

>only 9 snp's
I'm guessing those were collected to make a point about 'muh niggers are inferior though' OR your data just isn't that recent.

Here you go.
ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Phenotype/Locations?db=core;name=Cognitive function;ph=5713;r=12:56086299-56087299;v=rs877636;vdb=variation;vf=624831

I'm not the guy you're replying to, but this is the orginal publication
>science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6139/1467?sid=4609c5bc-0a69-4728-a31e-e62291c04153

>make a point about 'muh niggers are inferior though'
>data just isn't that recent
Neither, actually. But some of the numbers from this article made their way to alt-right shitposting sites, who then proceeded to misinterpret them entirely.

dailystormer.com/iq-and-skin-tone/

what's with you /pol/tards not understanding that correlation =/= causation?

>just a coincidence, goy!
dailystormer.com/average-iq-in-france-has-fallen-by-4-points-per-decade-due-to-biological-causes/

> correlation =/= causation?
I'm not that guy but the infographic explicitly notes the problem of causal inference in the footnote.

And sometimes (not always) you really do want to be looking at an empirical correlation rather than theoretical causation.

>>just a coincidence, goy!
That reminds me, what's with you /pol/tards not understanding that correlation =/= coincidence, and that biological =/= genetic?

>dailystormer.com
back to >>>/mlpol/

>I'm not that guy but the infographic explicitly notes the problem of causal inference in the footnote.
Yeah, only to follow it up with a non-sequitur. The profoundness of correlation =/= causation is ridiculously undercut by that. It implies that you can literally not conclude anything causal from the graph.

>And sometimes (not always) you really do want to be looking at an empirical correlation rather than theoretical causation.
That's trivial. But whether you want to or not depends on your hypothesis, and it just so happens that the claims these /pol/tards make don't call for correlative methods, they call for causative investigations.

>No! Don't post facts that go against my beliefs! I might actually have to question them then!
Cuck

>C-cuck
Cuck, short for cuckold, is the automated response given by the /pol/ user when it gets confronted with something it does not understand. This confusional state often results in frog posting and further incoherent ramblings about "muh white genocide", or "muh cultural marxism". The /pol/ user will then often retreat to a safe environment, such as /mlp/, although it is on occasion also observed to 'double down' on its muddled and often prolix confabulations. This latter phenomenon is why the /pol/ user is widely regarded as a archetypal sufferer of double down syndrome.

There are no races you nazi bastard. Accept that white people are inferior and must die out. We fight for equality after all. Allahu akbar smash the patriarchy!

...

...

...

...

...

...

kek

Are you implying the white race isn't under attack in the west you cuck?

...

...

Oh yes glorious redpill, let me know the truth! You are amazing user! Doing all this research and in-depth study to create cartoons us cucks can understand! Thank you ;_;7

There it is! Double down syndrome in its most unvarnished form.

...

Of course. I'll take a look at all the mentioned SNP's later. There's regional frequencies too.
>muh repdill though
He posted all of that because he got mad at people for posting actual genetics.

I understand him fully.

>ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Phenotype/Locations?db=core;name=Cognitive function;ph=5713;r=12:56086299-56087299;v=rs877636;vdb=variation;vf=624831
This whole list is composed using just two separate studies, one of which studied cognitive impairment in diabetics, and had an N of 550, which is rather on the low side for a GWAS study. Moreover, a lot of those SNPs don't actually survive correction for multiple comparisons in the GWAS analysis, but are included in the list nonetheless.

I'm not saying the whole list is nonsense, but its empirical foundation is rather thin.

right
the other is N of 50k+

here's some more SNP's

ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Phenotype/Locations?db=core;name=Educational attainment;ph=26069;r=6:98136357-98137357;v=rs9320913;vdb=variation;vf=5140739

>When you live in an echo chamber

We must secure the future of white children! Dehumanize yourselves and face the bloodshed!

>(((Rosenberg)))

>right
>the other is N of 50k+
Yes, I know, but both studies support individual SNP's.

I had a quick look at the second study as well and there are definite criticisms that I could bring up methodology-wise, but something tells me you're not interested.

Jews are the master race and the only race that should be allowed to do science. Other races are just cattle.

come on now /pol/, now you're just going full autismo anal blast

It gets more interesting yet. Other than "Educational attainment", "Cognitive function" there's also "Information processing speed".

Here's some more SNP's.

ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Phenotype/Locations?ph=5887

What tells you I'm not interested? I am interested.

Outline your criticisms.

>What tells you I'm not interested?
Well, the fact that ignored most of the bigger concerns and then went ahead and posted another list.

>Outline your criticisms.
Will do. But in like half an hour. I gotta eat first.

This but unironically
Shabbat shalom you filthy goy

Nice photos! Let me give you a few more fallacies related to your photo

>AXALT (All [X] are like that) fallacy

The belief that the distribution is centered tightly around the mean with zero variance; in its extreme forms, believing that a 2-sigma example appears only in single-digit numbers among a population of millions.

>ADAG (All distributions are Gaussian) fallacy

The belief that every property of every population is fit well by a bell curve.

>ADAF (All distributions are fixed) fallacy

The belief that a distribution must remain fixed throughout time; failing to acknowledge that, save for causal relationship between variables, the conditional distribution can and does change throughout time. Race is actually a good example of this. The folks on /pol/ often fail to acknowledge that the mean IQ among blacks has increased by almost 10 points in less than three decades.

Of course, we're all educated scientists in this thread, correct? No reason to worry about what those on /pol/ would say or do?

>and posted another list.
>another
Yes.
Key-word.

Eat well. I am sure you'll come back and disprove everything people have found and thus unequivocally show that all we need to know is what Richard Lynn tells us. Oh, and HBD too.

>I am sure you'll come back and disprove everything people have found and thus unequivocally show that all we need to know is what Richard Lynn tells us. Oh, and HBD too.
Look, I realize we're all on edge because of the hordes of /pol/tards sperging out here every single day, but I'm no one of them.

So to be clear:
1) I am not arguing that no SNP's relate to cognitive abilities. It's almost trivial that there should be some.
2) I am also not arguing that all cited studies in those lists that you like to post are nonsense.
3) I'm certainly not arguing for a genetic basis of racial IQ differences, so no need to go full blast on the autism attack by putting words in my mouth.

All I intended to do was to judge the empirical basis of that first list fairly, as an exercise in critical thinking. I would hope that you have the nuance to understand that this does not mean that I think that my criticism of said studies completely and unequivocally undermines the empirical validity of said list. Now, with that in mind, would you still like to hear what I have to say about this particular study?
>europepmc.org/abstract/MED/25644384

ooh, like that

all i'm saying is there's a lot of snp's discovered and not all of them are in this chart (purposely), since different races "win" on different SNP's and you'll have to do a lot more reading and counting and weighing(which i'll do at some point) since they account for approx about 0.03 units each

at most 50% of iq variance is explained by those anyways

either way /po/ is fucked

Sure, I'd agree with that. But keep in mind that these studies shouldn't be taken at face value.

As already pointed out by some here (and I think you are aware too) GWAS is correlational. That is in some cases remedied by careful sampling of the population / regressing out covariates / using partial correlation etc, but this isn't the case for every study, even recent ones. This is not per-se a problem, but it is often forgotten in review-type articles that subsequently draw wider conclusions than the data permit.

Aside from that, and arguable even more importantly, an often overlooked point is that the construct validity of the 'cognitive' measures that the genes are correlated with is questionable. Or more precisely, the construct does not align with the conclusions that are subsequently drawn as to the putative function of the SNPs. Literally all of the studies I've seen posted in this thread use a different 'cognitive' measure, for example. Again, this is fine as far as individual studies are concerned (i.e. they test individual hypotheses), but it becomes an especially prominent problem in meta analyses, which rather bewilderingly collapse across studies with radically different measures on the cognition side of the GWAS.

So yeah, have a close look at the study before you decide to put it forward in an argument. But I guess you already know that.

...

yeah, all good points
the one with the diabetics, 550 people is almost worthless

either way, populations like mexicans, south asians are most certainly not inferior, even on average

africans are the question, so i'll find out for myself

>inferior
If you are going on that journey, at least make clear for yourself what you are hypothesizing them to be inferior on, exactly. That's not as trivial as it seems, as evidenced by the literature.

Why are you so caught up on the hope that you can justify calling blacks inferior?

>master race
>need to manipulate moralfaggots for millenia to even come close to world domination

Because they are mentally inferior to us, they are dumb animals with opposable thumbs basically, and a homicidal savage wiring. That is what matters, I dont care how kind a nigger's face is, they are not like us at all.

0/10

A reply is an automatic 2/10

false.

Ancient Aryans were literally as dark as poo in loos (the northern variants at least)

Unless you want to disown them, which would require admitting that the entire continent of Europe got cucked HARD by shitskinned, dark brown eyed people.

0/10

DNA.

yes, but it provides results that aren't socially acceptable.

0/10

0/10

>NO U

I usually give one point per reply, plus extra for originality and humor, minus deductions for things like incorrect format.

0/(10^10)

Yes. The first step: stop browsing /pol/.

[math]\color{green} {\textbf{>NO U}\bf{^{10}}}[/math]