Is "race realism" real science or is it pseud shit?

Is "race realism" real science or is it pseud shit?
I see pic related posted a lot, does it hold merit?

Other urls found in this thread:

science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381
nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982205002095
science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564.full
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24032721
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14655871
nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7561/abs/nature14618.html?foxtrotcallback=true
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3514343/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC403703/
genetics.org/content/176/1/351.full
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It's pseud shit.

Picture 1 and 4 only look at two dimensions of a dataset with hundreds of thousands of dmensions (SNPs) where the actual real world dataset has hundreds of millions of dimensions. They're "not wrong" per se but they're only presenting at a tiny sliver of the data. The real situation could be much more complex (eg. hundreds of thousands of clusters). A better technique would be to use an auto-encoder but the goal of those papers was to corroborate some social science garbage.

2 is (bad) social science.

3 looks at phenotypes instead of genetics which isn't bad but its not strong enough to draw the sorts of inferences you're looking for (can't infer things about geneitcs because of shit like convergent evolution and other phoenomena). It's kind of the pre-genetics approach to doing things.

The skulls and the color chart as well as many of the comments are literally retarded shit not related to any of the papers (added in by dumb /pol/esmoekrs).

5 is social science and it explicitly studies race as a social construct (same as the other papers here but this one doesn't even try to talk about biology).

6 is ok but it's talking about population genetics and not races. Moreover the sorts of inferences you can draw from it are kind of limited since genes really just produce protiens and genetic data + epigenetic data + environment all factor into what that gene will do if it will even do anything. I will elaborate on this in the next post.

7 is also working with population geneitcs (hence why it's looking specifically at African Americans). It looks at a combination of geneitcs + environment + population meaning that the sort of inferences you can draw are limited by at least those things (even past/future are limited).

(cont.)

It's not something that is actively studied as it's too controversial and no one wants to commit career suicide. If you're asking if there are differences between races that contribute towards intelligence, behavior etc then the answer is probably.

the extent to which genetics can explain iq differences is 0.6-0.8. i think the american pyschology association has it at 0.7.

what exactly effects the last 0.3 portion isnt really well defined. maybe controlling for it can bridge the gap, maybe not; we don't have enough evidence to make a definite claim either way.

(cont.)

To be clear, no one on Veeky Forums ever says that all humans are genetically the same. That's a /pol/esmoker strawman.

Rather people on Veeky Forums understand that
1) There are countless different and incompatible ways to partition humans. Population genetics is a general approach for measuring genetic distance beween arbitrarily defined groups.
2) Genetics are complicated as fuck.
2a) Genes produce protiens. A mutation in a gene that produces a protien relevant to cell walls can have lots of unexpected side effects (like deafness) or no noticeable effects at all.
2b) You can't easily make inferences about genetics by studying individuals nor does there typically exist a "superior" genetic mutation (you typically have tradeoffs). A variety of corn adapted to a rainy region may do poorly in an arid region and vice versa, is one superior to the other? Corn has a gene that stops it from growing after a certain point. Mutating that gene can cause it to grow more but in doing so it can starve itself of nutrients or collapse under its own weight (corn already eats tons of nutrients as it is so its viability may depend on your means), is this a good mutation?
2c) Convergent evolution means that genetically distant things can appear extremely similar and genetically similar things can appear extremely different. Pic related, columns are genetically similar but rows are genetically distant.
2d) The above are all still stupidly simple. There's also epigenetic data and other variables that could make your inferences meaningless.
3) Polygenic scores are still in diapers and they're the only somewhat scientific way to relate IQ and genetics.

Literally the only people who push "race realism" are mediocre /pol/ dimwits who can't into science and are looking for something to tell them they're smart too. Race stopped being considered science a long time ago by everyone except social scientists who salvaged it as a "social construct".

Wrong

Correct

Of course it's real. But it's too taboo, so it doesn't matter how much evidence you come up with, people will never listen to you.

...

everyone knows this is true. the argument is about strawmen on both sides

how 'bout you ask yourself this question; even if there was 100% incontrovertible evidence proving how dumb them niggers are, what then?

you aren't committing genocide, you aren't stripping anyone of personal agency, you aren't going to use science as a justification to inflict misery on someone else.

it's about using it to say that public efforts we're spending massive amounts of money on to bring groups selected by race into different fields are misguided, saying that it is not a systematic process causing these issues

it doesn't matter if they are misguided from some generalized monetary efficiency standpoint. we live in an egalitarian society where everyone is given the benefit of the doubt and the exception is not treated as the rule.

It's maximum pseud shit. They refuse to prove that race exists and refuse to give dividing lines between who is and isn't a nigger, and they dick ride IQ like it's actually a valid form of measurement.
There's also the common argument that "Black people aren't different because of culture. Look at how rich white people act different from rich black people." as though being rich is going to make all people not treat you like you're black anymore.

Picture 2 - "Red and yellow are not the same color." Neither are blue and green in America, but they are in China. Trying to associate a fucky subjective linguistic concept to a fucky subjective cultural concept is stupid, but it wouldn't really help your case if it wasn't stupid. At least with colors we can draw a dividing line. Is a tan person from Germany niggerer than an albino person from Africa?

i agree, we should focus on individuals as individuals

these programs at companies like google and funded by the US Govt, etc. focus specifically on race for groups they view as underrepresented based on their numbers in different sectors

I've heard "free trip back to Africa" a lot. As if I was actually born there, or my parents or their parents for that matter.

Hahahahahaha How the Fuck Can Someone Not Believe in Race hahahahha Nigga they have Different Bone structures and Grey matter Densities like Nigga even their Teeth and Brain Volume Differ Haha

>actual explanation and exposition is wrong
>what reaffirms my feelings is correct

The probability that the qualities of each race as an aggregate group are identical is astonishingly small, because the variation between even individuals is massive.

The fallacy of (((race realism))) is in the interpretation of statistics. Do they take into account economic status, cultural tendencies, shared cultural identity, exploitation, preferences and specializations towards other valid niches, and educational opportunities for instance, simultaneously and accurately? No.

They draw conclusions to fit their feelings and emotions of racism, they don't look at the data and see where it leads

It's a middle ground leaning heavily towards "race realism is bullshit" but not quite reaching the "absolute 100% bullshit" end of the scale, because that's just unrealistic.

>my rambling was long so you have to take me seriously
you didn't really say anything in that long ass rant of yours. be concise, especially if you aren't even saying much

to deny differences between race is to deny reality. this shit is shunned in modern society because it flies in the face of the blank slate equality structure of everything, but that's the beauty of science: it doesn't stop existing just because you don't believe in it.

New user here, but it depends on the frame of reference for deciding what you might call genetic differentiation. In the case most commonly looked at, it's the ratio of the genetic variation within a population to the genetic variation between populations that determines subspecies. The reason this is the most common measure is because it's the only measure that accurately controls for the specific breeding patterns/generation time of a species, and merely looks at how deviated a population may have become holistically via selection.

Think of it like this. You have a species with an incredibly long generation time, like elephants, and you try to compare that with, say, ants. Among the ants, due to the fact that there are many generations, and large numbers within populations, there is going to be an incredible diversity of genes, as there's a possibility for any one of the offspring (with many offspring occurring in a short period of time) to be born with a mutation. Thus, there's a greater genetic diversity within the population, compared to elephants which will be relatively homogeneous, with a lot more evolutionary dependence on physical events that split populations, bring them together, and the sort for there to be any kind of genetic diversity/new alleles in the gene pool.

It'd be pretty retarded to then say that because ant #132529 and ant #134000, which have a greater total # of genetic differences from each other, yet live in the same anthill as a part of the same population are separate subspecies, on the basis that Asian and African elephants are considered separate subspecies though they have less total variation.

Science is so beautiful, yet so tricky at the same time. On one hand, it is a truly amazing tool for analysis of the world. On the other, if you look at it on a surface level, without understanding, you can misinterpret so much, and come out of it more retarded than if you'd never encountered. Poor thing.

To add on to this post:

For your education, at your leisure;
science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381

nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982205002095

science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564.full

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24032721

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14655871

nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7561/abs/nature14618.html?foxtrotcallback=true

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3514343/

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC403703/

genetics.org/content/176/1/351.full

/pol/tards and non-sciencefags might not get this, but there's no quantifiable genetic way that isn't arbitrary as fuck to split humans into racial groupings. The genetic variation between populations of humans is LESS than within, meaning that two European white people on average would be more genetically dissimilar than a white person and an African.

And if the argument becomes "b-but we can have a counsel cherrypick phenotypes and assign weights to them based on some arbitrary perception of societal benefit", fuck outta here bud, you're becoming the pseudoscientific sjw that believes in more than 2 genders based purely on perception of the world and one's own desires clouding their judgment.

nations with darker skin averages tend to also have a lower IQ average. It's not a perfect gradient, sierra leone does quite well despite being very dark, but it's a very statistically relevant correlation.

this is completely distinct from race by the way; the rule applies to blacks, asians, and caucasians alike. you could argue that historically people living in hot climates where a dark skin pigment is required, would have less use for intelligence due to easier living conditions.

there's also the recent idea that light skin actually developed alongside and as a result of the agricultural diet, which would in a way peg lighter skin as a side effect of higher intelligence.

both idea A and B could even come together in that the harsher environments of A would require the development of B's improved agriculture, and thus higher intelligence to adopt the agriculture and the inevitable whitening as a result.

>let me make another long ass rant without saying anything, and then do a huge infodump
you don't have much to say. make your posts more concise and cut the nonsense.

>there's no quantifiable genetic way that isn't arbitrary as fuck to split humans into racial groupings
in the US, there is an accepted standard for splitting people into ethnicities, used by government and private institutions alike. you're familiar with it as well, "caucasian", "african american", etc. it's arbitrary as fuck, but to act like it doesn't exist and it's not what people are talking about is dishonest

noooooooo that's not how ants work
all worker ants are clones and they're infertile

I said in the post, new user.

And yes, nobody is claiming race doesn't exist. Just that it's not biologically quantifiable in any non-arbitrary, meaningful manner. Race is, for all intents and purposes, a social construct.

Yeah, I realized that after half-tiredly writing it a while ago, but haven't been assed to change it to a more relevant insect. Glad someone noticed though.

everything is a social construct. science is a social construct.

the only thing you could claim is not a social construct is maybe the object of study of math, not even math itself. even the object of study of science (observations) are social constructs

there are problems with that though when it comes to application. to give a politically incorrect example, let's say one of the genetic variances between australian aboriginals and europeans is that the aboriginals have measurably lower intelligence in the vast majority of cases. While the number of variations between the two is smaller than variations between two members of the same group, the smaller number of changes have a much larger impact and are rooted in long-term changes between the two groups.

you can randomly pick europeans from a lineup until you get two with absurdly similar genetics, even if it takes an incredibly long time, but you will never be able to do that with a european and an african because many of their differences are inherently separate.

That's certainly true, however when we talk about social construct in this sense I'm fairly certain it implicitly refers to a construct within the construct that is the study of society, rather than conflated with any and all social constructs.

It doesn't have any relevance in the systematic study of biology, is all. Incidentally, it likely doesn't belong on Veeky Forums at all.

That's true, you can segregate populations based on genotype differences, but picking and choosing which genes to select for in deciding how to classify populations by 'race' would be a sociological issue of arbitration, rather than a statistical comparison across all non-arbitrary points of differentiation between genes. AKA not science.

Also, your last assertion is incorrect- on average, two individuals (one from Africa and one from Europe) will have either a higher, or non-statistically significant similarity in total % comparison of similarity across genomes than two within the same population. The links I posted earlier include some of the studies, which are both rigorous and inclusive.

No, it doesn't belong on Veeky Forums.

As soon as you refer to ideas such as "social construct" you're no longer restricted to whatever specialty you wanted to address. You can't talk about social constructs from within a social construct, just like you can't talk about language from within language. (That last line is self contradicting nonsense that you're capable of understanding because reasons)

>you could argue that historically people living in hot climates where a dark skin pigment is required, would have less use for intelligence due to easier living conditions.


That's bullshit though.

It's pretty easy to distinguish and create groupings. It's just not something we are keen to do. People do not think rationally when it comes to humanity, we intrinsically ascribe a sense of divinity or separation from nature to ourselves as a group, even atheists, which makes it almost impossible to rationally look at ourselves.

>as though being rich is going to make all people not treat you like you're black anymore.

It's funny seeing the "just be rich/not poor or not act 'black'" and then complete ignoring the massive amount of people who did that and got treated like shit (and even worse because they thought they should be treated like equals) and some people actually died just because they weren't submissive, unsuccessful, docile negros..

>It's pretty easy to distinguish and create groupings

Not really because there's mixing, gradients, "same differences" and "different sameness" etc.

I think I recall the analogy being like how if you're inside a room, you can never see all of it at once. Systems can only ever be analyzed externally.

Philosophy that deals with the meta like epistemology and metaphysics is fun though, gotta say.

No, it's not, except by arbitrary counsel. You might say that a society can dictate what phenotypes are important enough to add extra weight to, but that is doing exactly what you say- it's ascribing some kind of separation or abstraction from nature in order to fit societal needs better. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, and not giving any value judgment, just pointing out that that's not science, it's sociology.

If we were to take it in full (which, contrary to your belief apparently, most of the respected scientific community does), then we wouldn't make arbitrary distinctions, and compare purely based on the differences in genes between and within individuals and populations. Those studies, which have been done without bias (as any look into the links I've shown you will display), indicate that there is no non-arbitrary way to separate human populations into sub-species or races.

I don't understand why you seem insistent on saying that this is an issue of people's feelings, or that people are covering anything up. Most scientists don't give two shits about what's politically or emotionally correct, and will dive into these studies with the pure intent of uncovering the truth- which is what has happened, and the evidence suggests something other than what you're saying.

Not all hot climates are readily hospitable, like egypt, but again you run into the issue where those same groups from harsher climates had lighter skin tone.

Harsh climate = higher intelligence = agricultural diets = lighter skin tones.

Higher intelligence has been linked to both harsher climates and lighter skin tone across almost every ethnic group.

>scientists don't give two shits about what's politically or emotionally correct, and will dive into these studies with the pure intent of uncovering the truth

But studies on forbidden topics regularly get denied or have their funding slashed. It doesnt matter if scientists are impartial if the groups allowing the studies are incredibly partial.

That's not true. If a study can show that the results are either publicly important, or important for business/industry, it will be funded. There isn't much funding for sociology in general, so of course there isn't much funding for race studies- however, ethnic studies is becoming a larger field than it was ten years ago, and out of it has come quite a few relevant studies that lead to cutting down on crime on a city level, allocating resources in a more accurate way (instead of affirmative action type 'throw money at it til the problem goes away', there's a much larger focus on trying to figure out core issues of how people learn), and many other fairly interesting discussions in the field.

Still
not Veeky Forums, so get the fuck out.

>The genetic variation between populations of humans is LESS than within, meaning that two European white people on average would be more genetically dissimilar than a white person and an African.
This literally doesn't make an lick of sense. You're saying a black person is closer to a white person than a white person is.

>two European white people on average would be more genetically dissimilar than a white person and an African

this fucking guy

On average that is absolutely true. It's emphasized as less, however the exact figure is less by a non-statistically significant margin, meaning that for all intents and purposes you can say that the genomic similarity is the same, but I digress. The number of total differences in the genome between two white people who aren't directly related to each other by more than few generations will, on average, be greater than or equal to the total differences in the genome between a black person and a white person.

There are only a few differences genomically between people, and no statistically significant differentiation between populations. I think the exact figure is like 1 in every thousand base pairs is different, but that remains true regardless of what two individuals you compare, for the most part- of course there will be some incidences where people are closer or further, but through statistical analysis of the differences between vs. within populations of humans, it has been shown to not significantly differ.

It would only not make a lick of sense if you were scientifically illiterate, to tell you the truth. It's exactly because the data shows that a black person and a white person will be more or the same similar than a white person and a white person that the conclusion which follows is that race is not biologically defined, and can not be biologically defined.

>he keeps posting

pls refute the sources that user posted instead of meme posting jesus. it is a very common occurence in science that youre intuition isn't correct, doubly so when it comes to things the human brain isnt inherently good at like probability.

>youre intuition isn't correct
How did you manage to fuck it up this much, mate?
And how fucking retarded do you have to be to say that 2 whites will be more different that white/black.
And then add "on average" as if it wasn't retarded enough.

Consider the following situation: Three proteins are changed by adding premature stop codons in prominent morphological genes, from person A to person B, drastically changing the skeletal structure of B, causing a change in skin color, and perhaps affecting hair type/hair color.

There are only 3 differences in the genome between A and B, but they look (and will develop) completely differently. They are still far more similar genetically than even a biological brother or sister is from A, as there are many thousands of differences in genes between siblings, and only 3 between A and B.

It's simplified so you can easily see how phenotypic difference can not at all be compared to genotypic difference in terms of intuiting the genetic similarity between two individuals.

/pol/tards are just too retarded to grasp what their emotions can't get butthurt over, and what their eyes can't see.

Lmfao. Spot on, user.

i looked it up myself; his belief was the case in 1972, but improvements in genetic sequencing has changed the belief a bit. These are the 'current' chances that 2 individuals will be more alike when chosen randomly.

So yeah, on average no. But always? also no.

your intuition about it NEVER being the case was wrong mate, you can grow from this experience or nah.

The case isn't just in the 1972 studies, I'm talking about one of the recent ones in the links I posted that compares genomes holistically, rather than just along the bases of the microsatellite markers used in that study.

Those are typically used in order to determine phylogenies, particularly in order to establish a rough history of genetic isolation events- the data you're posting is a different dataset than what I'm talking about. That compares along the basis of how much populations have diverged among a relatively few select points in the genome, as opposed to whole genome comparison.

That isn't to say that's bad data, or that it doesn't give credence to putting together a genetic map of bottlenecks, interpopulation flow, and generally creating a history using genetics. Just that it's a separate criteria from trying to establish wholesale differentiation between populations vs within populations.

Yes, that makes sense, it's probably true for a small percentage. Definitely not more on average.
>your intuition about it NEVER being the case was wrong mate
What made you assume that that was my intuition?

>what made you assume that was my intuition


>And how fucking retarded do you have to be to say that 2 whites will be more different that white/black.

damage control in full effect i see

lol, left this containment thread right after posting. Thought I'd check in and realized I forgot to post the pic related.

If you want to try and understand where he's coming from, try looking up 'Lewontin's fallacy'.

The alternative hypothesis also covers this quite well and comprehensively.

To answer your question OP, 'races' are a tricky matter in that it's hard to determine how to divide and categories them.

However, make no mistake, to state that no significant divergence has occurred in humans - a species 200'000 years old (some say older) that has inhabited literally every environment on the planet for at least 40'000 years (save for Antarctica), you'd have to essentially deny the theory of evolution in order to not agree with race realists on some talking points.

>Only using a number of markers in the 10^2 magnitude.

Baka

"modern" homo sapiens sapiens may be just some tens of thousands of years old, homo sapiens in totality are possibly as old as 600k yrs.

>only using markers of an arbitrarily defined sample
Is it at all possible to you that there are scientifically definable genetic markers which present clearly across phenotypically separate populations?
Are you incapable of weighing the possibility that your opinion is not entirely correct?
Why are you (and people like you) emotionally invested in somehow proving that different ethnicities are all as equally capable in the same things?

race isn't real because my fee-fees

>Why are you emotionally invested in equalist doctrine?

I'm not anymore, however I was for a time. During this time, I felt guilty for seeing this truth. I thought, to some extent, that I was a bad person for believing in these ideas.

I believe that different races have adapted to their environments. This is why Africans can run short distances faster than Europeans, and why Northern European's strongest men are also the world's strongest men.

My only issue with 'race realism' is trying to understand how to classify the races - clearly there is great diversity in humanity - but so is there in the colour spectrum.

>Is it at all possible to you that there are scientifically definable genetic markers which present clearly across phenotypically separate populations?

Perhaps, and although this way of thinking may work for European Whites (due to Europeans clearly defending territory and low immigration into Europe's gene pool), it doesn't necessarily apply to mutt populations. Classifying Central Asias or Northern Africans into racial categories, for example, is difficult (at least from what I've seen).

However, if you have studies on this I'd love to see them. I'm still learning by all means.

>I believe that different races have adapted to their environments. This is why Africans can run short distances faster than Europeans, and why Northern European's strongest men are also the world's strongest men.

With regards to environmental adaptation, there's something called 'Allen's Rule' which states that animals adapted to cold climates have shorter extremities relative to body size to minimize surface area, while animals adapted to warm climates have longer extremities to maximize surface area. Heat transfer depends on, among other things, the surface area of the body. Lower surface area helps to conserve heat since less is lost to the environment and this is adaptive in cold climates, while large surface area allows excess body heat to be lost more quickly, which is adaptive in warm climates.

The fact that Allen's rule applies to humans is uncontroversial in modern anthropology and discussed in college textbooks. Africans have the warm-adapted body type with its proportionally long legs, Europeans have shorter legs, and East Asians have shorter legs still, as well as other cold adaptations such as epicanthal folds. The obvious implications that these differences in proportions have for athletics, however, are rarely discussed.

Yeah, I can see how that shaped out.
Still in the same post you responded to I think I've made my point clear, making the whole damage control response needless.

>science
the races of the earth are often fit for slaugter, but the white race has done the best job of survival. Whereas the other people of teh earth fall like a candle that burnt too bright. Even after the fires of rome are reduced to embers, their sparks ignite in Whites who are descendants of Rome, as in citizens. Which is proof of race as a theological and legal concept as the Roman Empire was pious and holy from its inception.

"race realism" is just racism with pretty graphs.

fuck off and go back to your nazi safe space

You all know its true and it shows in the degree to which you resist it. Can't wait till we break this stubborn taboo.

Batshit insanity. Total poppycock. Utter retardation. /pol/ is never, ever right.

>science is a social construct
spotted the brainlet

Yes, FELLOW SCIENTISTS. I do think that other races are inferior to my own! And that is certainly because science says so and not because I am a socially alienated low IQ brainlet who has made nothing of his life who projects his own self-loathing onto blacks and da joos. No, certainly not!

I mean it would be RIDICULOUS to suggest I spend all the time I don't spend on /pol/ debating whether jews or muslims are more degenerate watching anime, playing video games and masturbating to rape porn, because of all the SCIENCE I do! Just look at this SUPER SCIENTIFIC graph that is totally not fabricated or from a discredited study that proves that black people are inferior to white people.

I am CERTAINLY NOT a sad and hateful little man whom the actual Nazis would have killed for being a mentally deranged unemployed layabout posing as a scientist.

In defence of the nazis, essentially their first priority was to get these people employed so he'd have a construction job or military position. Fascism for its overwhelming faults would ironically prevent this phenomena.

Thanks user, gave me a good chuckle

Where were you when we invented nihilism and post-modernism.

Well, do you believe that everyone is exactly the same, or are there significant differences between races on average?

How much stock do you put into the research done on the subject over the last 50 or 100 years?

Yes, there are differences. But they are not large. The majority of our higher functions as human beings are already required simply live, breathe and walk in a straight line.

Like all social science concepts it should be laughed at at best, and viewed with suspicion at worst. Because of /pol/ race 'science' is the only time social science isn't laughed off the board because of muh superiority. It's in teh same tier as IQ circle jerking

The genes that differ between 2 whites are completely different than the genes between a white and a black, they will also differ more from person to person as opposed to a black who's differentiating genes will have very similar outlook when compared to basically every white person.

But group A and B do not genetically overlap due to those changes. Members of each group despite having laege flexibility in differences can and often do overlap.

if black people aren't inferior then why are they inferior?

I would say it’s real, the fact there are (speaking in generalizations) differences between bone structure, skin color (obviously), as well as diseases such as sickle cell or CF which affect blacks and whites (respectively) in a disproportionate manner than other races.
There’s also iq, which I know a lot of people dismiss, but it does show a difference at the very least

Not an argument.

Seeking truth is done for the purpose of seeking truth.

People focusing on phenotypes and shit are missing the point. We just need to know the extent to which IQ is hereditary.

Racial superiority/inferiority is inherently flawed because there is a bias in favor of our own race in a healthy human being.

I believe in race realism, but shy away from discussion of superiority/inferiority because I recognize this inherent bias, I like to think each race is better suited to their own native environment than others, of course that doesn’t really matter as much anymore with modern technology

Not an argument.

At least we can all agree on which is the worst

Yes :^)

It doesnt matter because no one can explain why the simian skull humans in Africa are always at the bottom of the barrel in every society they exist in.

Scientist already proved why niggers act the way they do and its because of their prehistoric frontal lobes(that basically dont work) making most of them mentally retarded psychopaths incapable of living in a civilized society at all. I cant only imagine how hellish daily life was in those african kingdoms.

That omits all history. Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans.

/pol/ needs to stay in their containment board.

The makeup of any modern individual human person is way beyond that of just genes. If you took the child of the smartest, whitest people in the world, and the child of the two dumbest niggers in the world, isolated them on separate islands from birth but made sure they had some way of being fed until reaching an age where they could fend for themselves, they would both be equivalent to cavemen, and they would stay that way; neither would be able to grasp a language beyond the capacity of literal retards if reintroduced into society after the age of 5.

Good genes help, but it's the memes that make a person a person and not a hairless ape.

Africa had agriculture. It was a skill that humans already had.

>Good genes help, but it's the memes that make a person a person and not a hairless ape.
africans have both shit genes and shit memes

>isolated them on separate islands ... they would both be equivalent to cavemen, and they would stay that way
mother nature has basically already carried out that experiment on a time scale of thousands of years, and look at the results. there are clear, significant differences between races and what they are capable of and how efficient they are and how they carry themselves

>there are clear, significant differences between races and what they are capable of and how efficient they are

So you admit Amerindians and Asians should run the show. Don't even get me started on Polynesians. But whites are basically negro-tier.

iirc they looked at adoption studies for that and it found a lot of heritability

>amerindians
who likes tomahawk massacres?

>Asians
famous for being drones.

>whites are basically negro-tier.
nice b8 you absolute fucktard

Heritability includes environmental factors, like being black in a racist society.

top kek

>amerindians
Fastest progress of civilization in all of human history
>Asians
Highest IQ

Wait, forgot about
>Jews
Easily the most successful and decorated, plus IQ.

Then Polynesians, then maybe whites.

its always kek when race realists bring up how only IQ matters, then when you point out asians to them they talk about asian culture being inferior to whites.

the cognitive dissonance is so strong

>Fastest progress of civilization in all of human history
any reason to think this is meaningful, and not just due to the conditions of the time?

>Highest IQ
famous for being drones.

certain breeds of jew are v smart, but they are only like 0.1% of the global population. calling whites nigger-tier because of that is something you would only to bait people.

>any reason to think this is meaningful, and not just due to the conditions of the time?
>famous for being drones.
Look at this grasping, jeez
>but they are only like 0.1% of the global population
Why does that matter?

>calling whites nigger-tier because of that is something you would only to bait people.
No, because it's obvious to anyone who considers the other races in the world.

>Look at this grasping, jeez
You're the one who's grasping. Those are perfectly valid points which you're dismissing for no reason.

>Why does that matter?
Because then you'd have to consider 99.9% of the world population 'nigger tier'. Which is obviously ridiculous. Nigger tier should be reserved only for niggers.

>No, because it's obvious to anyone who considers the other races in the world.
Incorrect.

There are race realists who dismiss retarded drone arguments and point out the Chinese and Japanese's rich history and powerful geopolitical presence as a clear byproduct of their superior iq.

>there are clear, significant differences between races
Doesn't even matter. Anyone with a bare minimum set of genes (ie. not vegetable retarded) such that they can utilize the memes originated by others can be "brought up to speed" via education. This is exactly what happened to Europeans during the Renaissance, rediscovering, learning from, and building upon arabic, roman, and greek texts. You don't have to be gauss or einstein to understand math or physics. You don't need western european genes to utilize the memes produced largely by western europeans. The lifting has been done already. The genetic evolutionary landscape, is completely flat and has produced very little in the last few thousand years since the dawn of civilization. All evolutionary progress since then has been on a purely memetic basis, which is why it happened so fast; genetic evolution is SLOW. The people with the most fit memes flourish, but memes are not bound to one specific race; they're accessible to any conscious human via language.

The reason why discussion of the obvious differences in absolute average intelligence between races is avoided or discouraged should be obvious: quarantining these groups off in their own worlds allows for a different set of memes, potentially both less "intelligent" but at the same time more *fit* (see radical islam, stereotypical "dumb negro" culture as good examples, "catchy" and dumb) to arise and challenge "our" own; and they very well may be able to come out on top; they are still completely capable of absorbing the information western society has invented (above) while retaining the "catchy" memes like religion that keep average people obedient and out of the way of leadership. You never hear white supremacists talk of weeding out white folk who fit the "dumb nigger" caricature in terms of intelligence (they DO exist), so why weed out the members of other races who *exceed* this baseline based on the fact that their race's average is lower?

All I see in this thread is /pol/ getting completely facefucked by someone who actually knows biology

>Those are perfectly valid points which you're dismissing for no reason.
Saying
>b-b-but they're d-d-drones
is not a valid point (and completely ignores the huge media giant that is Japan, and the technological powerhouse of South Korea).
>Because then you'd have to consider 99.9% of the world population 'nigger tier'.
What the fuck? You realize Asians have the highest population right? Asians, Jews (who have diminished pop due to holocaust), and Amerindians (who have diminished pop due to whitey diseases) make up far more than 0.1% of the world bro. And would probably rule the world if not for those mentioned factors.
>Incorrect.
Not an argument

Wrong?