Weekly remind that race is a determinant of intelligence

(not giving you a (You))
Not it isn't.

Nobody has lower intelligence because their race is some arbitrary race. That's fucking retarded. The thing that controls their intelligence also controls their race, the two are unrelated.

Are humans smarter than chimps?

>Weekly remind

That post was a determinant of your retardation.

>sutile

You're spelling is as bad as your beliefs regarding race.

Quick reminder that correlation is not causation, and every scientist knows this.

And of character, natural propension to crime, etc.

Well, given this statement, you can't prove anything to be caused by environemental factors either.

Sorry, I'm Russia :)

Are you implying that the difference between races is the same as the difference between two species?

>You're spelling

The fucking irony.

And that's a legitimate frame of thought for dealing with data. Direction of causality is no longer a concern so much as observing a variable and whatever you're trying to associate it with at different points

You are denying the possibility of empirical science. That's retarded.

I'm asking if humans are smarter than chimps

no shit

>that decisively affects the nature or outcome of something.
>not knowing that a determinant is a type of factor but not every factor is a determinant.

Please. Go take a basic logic or set theory course before you decide to shitpost on Veeky Forums, fucktard.

How about instead of asking questions with obvious answers, you make an argument, or fuck off?

I'm trying to get there.

Are humans smarter than chimps?

Define factor

Fuck off.

Get to your point, or no more (You)s.

Why are humans smarter than chimps?

Wood is a factor in creating a fire.
Does wood decisively create a fire? No. So it's a factor, but not a determinant.

Now go and shitpost somewhere else.

Fuel is a factor in creating fire

Fuel decisively creates fire

No fuel, no fire

Let's try a different route: Why are you asking this? What relevancy does this have? What information are you trying to gather? How does this relate to the topic at hand?

>Fuel is a factor in creating fire

How fucking retarded are you. Do you not understand that just giving an example of a factor that is a determinant does not prove that all factors are determinants?

Also fuel does not decisively create fire. You don't see fuel tanks randomly burst into flames.

Yeah the only reason blacks in the US are on average stronger and have better genetics for sports, when provided the proper training and nutrtion , because they were selectivly bred by whites to work for their slave plantations and would only buy the best and not the weakest. Also in the long run looking back in the past on things no negro civilization ever amounted to jack shit. They are dead last on any improvements society wise and were simply so far behind. Others civz like the brits came over it they just raided and took advantage of their land for resources and people then they left that shit hole. The genetic code for an African just has lazy fuck all over it. They sit in the sun get burnt blacker and hope a lion doesn't t eat them. Honestly the african environment does not require intelect.

Well all dog breeds are the same species but we have bred them to have many different personalities , physical proportions and different mental abilites depending in the breed. By help of the slip gene of course .So yeah a negro maybe the same species but his race and past lineages definitely are just closer to reverting back to monkeys than towards being a man.

Hourly reminder that /pol/ needs to fuck off.

I'm asking what process or processes is it that made us smarter than chimps

>t. furious negroid

So why did the cuacasion race have to drag every african black into the new age with us lol. They have no culture other than dancing and throwing sticks at animals. It's sad but their genetic and environmental factors just make then lazy fucks in a group together. They're minds are wired to be more animalistic because thats the only way they came to survive in Africa.

This is all true but you see the way blacks have flourished creatively in the United States and it seems to imply that their environment created almost a source of asceticism that brings them closer to the 'soul'. Supposedly they have more developed pineal glands. They may lack certain manners, but it really seems the majority of black people that I've come into contact with are smarter in a 'real world' way. They have a higher social intelligence perhaps. And the way a lot of white people look at them is somewhere between baffling and autistic. The white person seems like a solid while a black person is more of a liquid. They're both very bad at being each other. I tend to feel more comfortable smoking weed with black people. Weed really extinguishes whiteness from one's psyche but many whites still don't know what to do at that point. When I'm high around blacks it's like reality starts to flow whereas with whites everyone gets quiet and paranoid

Holy shit dude the smoking with black friends thing is soo true. I could not have said it better myself. I know what you mean.

That's an extraordinarily complicated topic, which doesn't have many simple answers. You could summarize it with "evolution!", but that doesn't leave you with much more info.

Of course, it's not as if chimps existed, and then humanity came along; we come from a common ancestor.

Human races were not significantly isolated from one another for 65 thousand years, so no, evolution is not enough to make a difference. But then again, racists don't understand how speciation works, so its not a surprise.

Also the pineal gland being physically better from good genetics really helps explain to me at least why alot of negros are very spiritual in the US. Like not white people in church listening to a lecture but theyre a straight up singing they're own gospel with theyre heart and soul fully in it and i can see that they really do get a sensation of being in tune with their soul more so than the average white.

>I never said environment wasn't a factor. I said race is also a factor
>Within any one race, the rich outperform the poor but between the races poor whites outperform rich blacks.
You're conflating correlation with causation. If your race were really intelligent, you wouldn't be making this stupid argument.

>proud of doing drugs an getting high
you're no better than a nigger kys

this.
it never fails to amaze me how /pol/acks can't comprehend that different processes have different effects under different conditions on different timescales.

So then humans are smarter than chimps because we split and evolved down a different line

The ancestors of whites and asians left Africa around 65,000 years ago for Europe where they interbred with Neanderthals. Blacks sat around Africa stagnating and inbreeding.

ITT retards like OP conflate social concepts with genetic concepts.

>inb4 laughably incorrect claims that race can be used to make inferences about genetics.

Causality is simply about achieving sufficient degree of correlation.

See: Hume's problem of induction.

When controlling for sufficient factors, race can be determined to be correlated to genetic so much so that it implies a causal relationship.

Let me put it this way: twin studies have already proven a genetic component in success with estimates between a 30 and 50% affect on intelligence.

Han Chinese people are the least genetically diverse people on Earth, so consider the following:

Within the entire range of healthy individuals, approximately half of the difference in intelligence between the smartest Han Chinese male and the dumbest (healthy) Han Chinese male. I want you to consider how vast a difference in intelligence the dumbest vs the smartest Chinese man in China would be, 50% of that is due to the small variance in their genetics.

So why is it a leap to conjecture that the genetic difference between two races is sufficient for a difference in intelligence?

>The genes for height, weight, health, pigmentation, hair proteins, eye colour could all radically diverge within the 65,000 year timeframe that races divided.

>None of the thousands of genes that could affect intelligence (many of which are undiscovered) don't.

Honestly the mental gymnastics required think this way astounds me.

If DNA can change enough to radically alter appearance, it is extremely naive to believe they wouldn't change in any way that affects intelligence.

It's because PC lefties believe the universe is actually run by a PC god who made sure all races were equal.

...

So?

So we need to go back to segregation

I'm too tired to give a shit about the context but 65000 years isn't an important amount of time. Evolution can happen at a wide variety of speeds with some species remaining pretty much the same over millions of years.
>science.jrank.org/pages/2612/Evolutionary-Change-Rate.html
Please read at least one serious article about evolution before posting about evolution.

>Honestly the mental gymnastics required think this way astounds me.
It's actaully much simpler. The scientists dealing with genetics will generally believe that genetics is very relevant to violent behavior, intelligence and other manners of social interactions. Then there is another type of (((scientist))), the type that sees dumb black people chimping out, destroying property, violently assaulting innocents and even disregarding grammar and decides that there is no relation between personality/intelligence and genetics.

Segragation is actually progress
thefederalist.com/2016/11/16/university-michigan-protesters-demand-separate-equal-safe-space-black-students/

How do you even define race?

by that logic the ones who should be the most intelligent would be south americans, as they evolved from asians. But casually you also consider them to be inferior.
Seems like theres a problem

Asian master race checking in you white trashes.

They're descendants of Ameri-Indians (West Eurasians), not East Asians.

There is no East Asian populace that synchronizes with Ameri-indian DNA

>raiding and shitposting on an imagine board will change the physical laws of nature and observable facts of human genetics

back to /pol/

Also, the average Hispanic IQ at 60% European ancestry is likely around 93-95.

Does direct observation of the world really tell you that we are all the same?

>I don't understand how genetics works, and I believe skin = brain

>Either we are all clones or we need nazism, there is no other way!

>skin

Dude, I wish.

>The genes for height, weight, health, pigmentation, hair proteins, eye colour could all radically diverge within the 65,000 year timeframe that races divided.
None of those things "radically diverged" within the context of race.
>If DNA can change enough to radically alter appearance, it is extremely naive to believe they wouldn't change in any way that affects intelligence.
You do not understand genetics, nor the definition of "radically". There are minor physical differences between different racial groups. There are no races with an extra set of arms or eyes or a pair of wings.

>Causality is simply about achieving sufficient degree of correlation.
No it's not. Every time the sun comes up, the morning news comes on TV. These two events occur at the same time every day, to the correlation coefficient is high. So, by your reasoning, I have proof the sun causes the morning news.
>Let me put it this way: twin studies have already proven a genetic component in success with estimates between a 30 and 50% affect on intelligence.
No. There's a lot of data suggesting intelligence may have a genetic component, but there is no consensus as to how much. To prove the genetic component of intelligence, you would first have to find the genetic component of intelligence, then analyze how it effected performance over the course of a lifetime in a sufficiently large sample size, then you'd have to replicate the results.
>approximately half of the difference in intelligence between the smartest Han Chinese male and the dumbest (healthy) Han Chinese male.
This is a sentence fragment. Not trying to be a grammar nazi; I only bring it up because it's so egregious I can't understand what you are trying to convey. The rest of the paragraph is also barely coherent, so it's not helping.

>Honestly the mental gymnastics required think this way astounds me.
Your post has absolutely nothing to do with the one you are replying to. I think you're the better mental gymnast here.

evolution is 100% environmental

Evolution is not guided. It doesn't select for traits that humans like, such as intelligence. It's an emergent property.

Alright, what is the minimal difference of IQ you would consider "radical"?

The difference between Asians and whites + 1 :^)

hmmmm

Race does not exist, and science has come to a consensus on this. If you peddle anything about "race" you are not on the side of science.

>1991
Nice.

I have not once seen a report that actually contains this sort of chart with race and income.

I have seen charts with 'source: report x' written on it, but the actual source I've never seen. I've found such charts in blogs - but an actual report - nah.

Here's some data that's actually representative unlike sat's. And is more recent. And follows the trend through time.

:)

source:
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0138412#pone-0138412-t001

This. Race is too vague a term to be a useful taxonomy.

>Race does not exist, and science has come to a consensus on this
>Sub-species do not exist, and science has come to a consensus on this

Neanderthals are not a race.

>implying "IQ" is in any way a legitimate quantification of intelligence

If we had a way to thoroughly map neuron and biochemical patterns and interactions within the brain and somehow correlate them to "intelligence" (which is not an objective metric obviously) along with creating an analog model of the brain then maybe we could start looking in that direction but the fact that you're even bringing up IQ in this discussion pretty much just invalidated any credibility you had.

Over 100 points could be enough to suggest a radically different intelligence

more like "10th reminder of the day". we all know this /pol/ now go back to your torture chamber.

lul

the difference in dna between both individuals of the same race (whatever the fuck race means in this context) and individuals of difference races is too close to make any difference in this regard.

explain to me what the difference between a black persons dna and a white persons dna is that would make one more intelligent than the other.

you assert that because internal differences exist, external differences don't?
I have more in common (genetically) with my mother and sister than I have with random men. that must mean i'm a woman, right? Or are you so bold as to say sexes don't exist (which is laughably wrong btw)?

>you assert that because internal differences exist, external differences don't?
What's does Veeky Forums make of the correlation between racism and a lack of reading comprehension? Is it genetic?

lol no that's clearly not what I'm asserting (how did you come to that conclusion??)

external differences exist because of internal difference in dna, and we can prove it since we can identify genetic markers that determine physical features like skin color, predisposition to certain diseases, etc as well as cognitive deficiencies like down's syndrome.

what I'm saying is that if intelligence could be derived from race then we should be able to identify genetic markers in the dna that would reflect these differences and even predict them to a certain degree. but we can't because intelligence is not determined by race

I wonder how much of this change comes from renormalization of the scores due to changes in population demographics

>we haven't done it yet, so it can't be done.
hmmm
what did i expect from a reddit-poster?

>can't dispute his argument without a straw man
>better call him reddit-poster

>They're minds are wired to be more animalistic because thats the only way they came to survive in Africa.
citation needed

>what I'm saying is that if intelligence could be derived from race then we should be able to identify genetic markers in the dna that would reflect these differences and even predict them to a certain degree. but we can't because intelligence is not determined by race
if this doesn't say, "we haven't done it yet, therefore we can't" what does it say?

until the following article:
geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/06/07/finding-the-players-in-the-symphony-of-iq-genes/
there were no consistent genetic tests for intelligence.
you're a fool. stop posting

>we haven't done it yet, so I'll just draw conclusions now instead of waiting for the facts
ftfy

>and my conclusion is that it can't be done and never will be done, despite advancements in genetic mapping being faster than my narrow mind allows me to comprehend
thanks for clearing that up for me

>skin is literally the only thing different about people
if only that were true

Race is not a scientifically relevant taxon. Viewing humanity as being comprised of discrete races does not yield a very useful model. Scientists study human geographical variation as a cline.

Undoubtably true. The question is merely the amount, and which way it goes. Maybe blacks are, on average, smarter than whites because of their genetics, in an equal environment. We don't know. No one knows, because no one has sufficient evidence to make any conclusions here.

Why?

Truth. Probably the best post in this thread.