Is Alternative Hypothesis /ourguy/?

Has he pretty much destroyed our SJW run science academia as we know it? Has he ultimately proved that IQ and race are linked?

youtube.com/watch?v=7367vdii2Js
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-and-iq-related-genes/

Is the rest of the scientific world ignoring his redpilled science?


Is this handsome young man /ourguy/?

Other urls found in this thread:

thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/01/07/race-and-iq-the-case-for-genes/
youtu.be/ee2P7hSxzJE
youtu.be/hJk2dW6BOnA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>le dunning kruger says that if you think you know what you're talking about you're actually stupid xd
put it in the garbage

What the fuck is the context in that youtube video?

>if you think you know what you're talking about you're actually stupid

This is a reasonable statement thought.

well watch it

They youtuber, kraut and tea, famous for debunking SJWs and Feminists (high level intellectual topics), got shit on hard by the Alt-right (and associates) after he got triggered by another youtuber Rageafterstorm making a video about race realism.

Kraut, is now trying to prove himself by attacking the alt right.
The first of these Videos can be summed up as "Rightists believe liberals lay eggs" and in his next master piece Kraut straw manned one of the articles of "The Alternative Hypothesis", known for defending race realism.
Both of these Videos were not exactly well received by any one and even other """"skeptic"""" youtubers denounced these Videos.

After about two months of introspection Kraut released another one of his master pieces to as much critical acclaim as the others.

If you are not into racism or Internet Drama you can safely stay away.

So is there any truth to HA's claims?

>autistic weeb

sure

>race realism

You mean racism? Calling it a new hip name, does make it a new hip topic

I'd suggest you investigate yourself.
You could watch kraut and tea's videos and then AH's to come to a conclusion who is right and how valid each claim is.

Racism implies that one should act based on race realism.
There is a fundamental difference, but I don't really care and neither does anyone else.

>biology isn't real

Kill yourself.

>dude, all the scientists are compromised except for this guy who's conclusions I agree with, lmao

But no one argues that except for the retard OP.
The guy OP refers to even talked about "mainstream opinion on race", coming to the conclusion that he is not extreme in his position.

ITT:
>nobody watched the video or listened to the arguments made
>nobody read the article in question
>nobody bothered to research the debate further

Thanks, that was good shit OP. Added them to my video feed.

The "pop-sci" community really needs more rigorous logical argumentation standards, and less authoritative/pompus sounding dumbasses that got their egos blown out of proportion just because they managed to finish grad school and now think they're knowledgeable about everything.

sup HA, nice to see you in Veeky Forums

He has an incredible bias and use his time and energy to confirm what he already belive. Clearly not stupid, and knows more about the topic than anyone here, but I would never blindly accept what he says without some secondary opinions. There is a reason why i'ts not mainstream science. It being flawed in ways is a lot easier to accept than some grand conspiracy in the scientific community.

You're a brainlet if you unironically listen to nobodies on YouTube for insight on serious subjects.

Western societies are doing everything they can to close achievement gaps between the majority and minorities. For whatever reason, nothing seems to work. And obviously we have to ignore both IQ gaps and the heritability of IQ (both are very well replicated findings), because bringing those up is racist and therefore automatically wrong.

Look, I realize that pop-sci doesn't care about legitimate inquiry, but we're at a point where genome-wide assossiation studies are in the process of finding the actual genes that govern intelligence, and as it turns out, they're not evenly distributed (Piffer 2015). I get why nobody wants to touch this, but the evidence for genetic differences in IQ are overwhelming

>inb4 Flynn effect or elite sample bias

>all scientists deny race and IQ are linked
>who's

99% of the "scientific community" have nothing to do with any concepts of race, IQ, or their intersections.

>He has an incredible bias and use his time and energy to confirm what he already belive.
>projecting

>I would never blindly accept what he says without some secondary opinion
Do you understand what a self contained argument is? If I tell you "A implies B", and then I show you "A", are you gonna call bullshit and wait for """secondary opinions""" to validate the conclusion of "B"? Because it sounds like that's what you're doing.

If a mathematician shows you a trivially simple math proof for some obscure, unimportant and unpopular theorem, are you just gonna wait there and tell the mathematician he's bias until some big shot mathematicians take time out of their own research to publicly soothe your own feelings of unease? Because I can assure you, that's not how shit works. Mathematicians will tell you to man the fuck up, learn to read and write proofs, and prove it for your own damn self. Same reasoning applies here.

If you don't know enough about the arguments, and can't make heads or tails about them, then just don't bother commenting on them unless you're asking questions actually trying to understand something. Because this sort of armchair skepticism about literally anything and everything is a really retarded ass meme.

AE annoys me because of how obsessed with race. His channel is literally 90% race realism and little else. I mean Jesus fuck, don't you have other things to study? Is comparing yourself to black people your only interest in life? The actual info he presents is solid, but put in overall context it's pathetic.

>muh sjws
>muh alt right
>muh race (((((realism)))))
>muh youtube e-celeb who's assertions reinforce my own beliefs
>muh /ourguy/ may may

>Einstein annoys me because of how obsessed with physics. His channel is literally 90% the theory of relativity and little else. I mean Jesus fuck, don't you have other things to study? Is comparing E to mc^2 your only interest in life? The actual info he presents is solid, but put in overall context it's pathetic
Here comes pop-sci with the useless ad hominems that could be made about anything

here comes the guy who compares einstein and relativity to some autist on youtube screeching about white genocide.

He doesn't talk about white genocide though

Seems like everyone who discusses who isn't Charles Murray likes to think there is simply one matrix of variables behind Race and IQ correlation, and they seem to think that the current census of data will stay the way it is simply because it is.

I can't tell you if you're being serious. Obviously I don't think that their work is of equal value, I was just showing that that shitty argument can be applied to anything

>they seem to think that the current census of data will stay the way it is simply because it is
And what is the "current consensus"? Right now, there is a large amount of experts who think that the gap is genetic

>The role of genetics in the black-white IQ gap has been particularly controversial. The question regarding this in the survey asked "Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of black-white differences in IQ?" Amongst the 661 returned questionnaires, 14% declined to answer the question, 24% voted that there was insufficient evidence to give an answer, 1% voted that the gap was "due entirely to genetic variation", 15% voted that it was "due entirely to environmental variation" and 45% voted that it was a "product of genetic and environmental variation" (Snyderman and Rothman 1984)

>This report examines expert opinions on causes of international differences in student assessment and psychometric IQ test results. Experts were surveyed about the importance of culture, genes, education (quantity and quality), wealth, health, geography, climate, politics, modernization, sampling error, test knowledge, discrimination, test bias, and migration. The importance of these factors was evaluated for diverse countries, regions, and groups including Finland, East Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, Southern Europe, the Arabian-Muslim world, Latin America, Israel, Jews in the West, Roma (gypsies), and Muslim immigrants. Education was rated by N = 71 experts as the most important cause of international ability differences. Genes were rated as the second most relevant factor but also had the highest variability in ratings. (Rindemann, Coyle, Becker 2013)

I never browse Veeky Forums

lol I assumed you guys would all have found race realism self evident.

tfw random /pol/tard is less delusional.

> Genes were rated as the second most relevant factor but also had the highest variability in ratings.
> 45% voted that it was a "product of genetic and environmental variation"

So some matrices of genes affected by environmental factors? This is inconclusive, it merely imply that the gap of individuals in gene expression, but the cause for gene expression seems to be environmental.

>So some matrices of genes affected by environmental factors?
Well then it would be an environmental factor (see also: heritability, and how it's studied)

Also, the point is not that expert opinion proves something, I was simply replying to than one user who seems to think there is some kind of expert consensus, when in reality there might not be, at least not in the way that he imagines it

I am that user, and you seem to have read me wrong
> current census of data
is very far from an expert consensus, I am talking about long term data trends, especially so with increasingly normalized factors between groupings.

>is very far from an expert consensus, I am talking about long term data trends, especially so with increasingly normalized factors between groupings.
I wasn't trying to "rebut" you or anything, I'm just saying, many people imagine that there is a consensus against genetic differences in intelligence, when in reality there isn't. But you're right in that trends change, and I can't imagine egalitarianism gaining more ground as we learn more and more about genetics.

I have to disagree, minority IQ levels (in the USA) have seen a spike in normalization in recent years, most likely due to improved diet. To address the divergence of Asian IQ, diets high in fats and niacin in early life show a direct correlation with improved cognitive function in later life, and as it so happens, most Asiatic cuisine is high in both nutrients. Noticeably so more than western diets. Nordic countries also have a high fatty acid and niacin consumption, and also have higher cognitive function on average.

Genetics is the very fundamental basis of intelligence yes, but with unrestricted gene flow (which we have) and, again, normalization of external factors (which is happening), this will return to a mean.

>I have to disagree, minority IQ levels (in the USA) have seen a spike in normalization in recent years, most likely due to improved diet. To address the divergence of Asian IQ, diets high in fats and niacin in early life show a direct correlation with improved cognitive function in later life, and as it so happens, most Asiatic cuisine is high in both nutrients. Noticeably so more than western diets. Nordic countries also have a high fatty acid and niacin consumption, and also have higher cognitive function on average.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that IQ gaps can be explained by diets? It's obvious that environmental factors can and do affect IQ, but I've seen no evidence that diet would explain the differences (though I am curious, do you have any studies to this effect? That it both exists and is statistically relevant?).

Whether or not IQ gaps between majority and minorities are actually closing is a debated issue. Suffice it to say, it's highly contentious, and even if IQ gaps have been closing, it's apparently stopped now, and gaps still remain.

As for the diet hypothesis, IQ in Nordic countries is very close to normal white IQ. If they have a diet that is as beneficial as Asian diet, why is there such a gap between Asians and Nordics? Does the dietary hypothesis also explain Jewish/non-Jewish white IQ gap? Also what about different cognitive profiles? There are "racial" differences in the patterns of IQ tests (I don't like the word race, but I'm sure everybody gets what I mean by it). Do diets also explain the different racial patterns in IQ subtests?

> Do diets also explain the different racial patterns in IQ subtests?

Wholly? No, but early dietary needs are huge concerns for epigenetics

>pol shit on sci yet again

>Wholly? No, but early dietary needs are huge concerns for epigenetics
I looked up what I could find on diets. Maybe I didn't do proper research since all I could find was pop-sci crap, but apparently researchers have indeed found a weak correlation between diet and IQ. But if that's all there is, then it seems highly questionable.

First of all, correlation does not prove causality. IQ is associated with a wide variety of positive outcomes. Is it possible that intelligent parents simply tend to have better diets, rather than better diet causing intelligence?

Second, if diet is so relevant, why is there only a weak correlation?

Third, has there ever been studies that show that this is statistically relevant to racial IQ gaps? If we normalize for diets, do the differences disappear?

I don't mean to argue (or rather engage in dialectic) in bad faith, and I am happy to consider new information as it is presented to me. But is there more info on this? Especially dietary links to epigenetics?

Race realism is the acceptance of the biological reality that is race. Racism, on the other hand, is a prejudice against someone due to their race alone.

Why is this so hard for people to understand? If you struggle with this concept, you have an IQ below 120 and should not be on this board.

Take note everyone; this is what it looks like when someone wants to refute their opponents arguments but can't. The result is always ad hominem.

...

Who cares

Does race have an effect on IQ? Maybe but there are a lot of variables that influence IQ.

So basically the only claim is that science is a conspiracy theory and the "SJWs" are somehow hiding the truth, and all the scientists are lying to everyone... except for these few papers that don't say what the youtube channel claims, but only some retarded youtubers are smart enough enough to draw these conclusions?

Get out brainlets

>So basically the only claim is that science is a conspiracy theory and the "SJWs" are somehow hiding the truth, and all the scientists are lying to everyone..
No. He claims the exact opposite.

>except for these few papers that don't say what the youtube channel claims, but only some retarded youtubers are smart enough enough to draw these conclusions?
Again. He argues the exact opposite.

>So basically the only claim is that science is a conspiracy theory and the "SJWs" are somehow hiding the truth, and all the scientists are lying to everyone
There is no conspiracy, you simply do not understand intelligence research. If you want to know what scientists think, read As for the meat of the matter, both IQ gaps and the heritability of IQ are very well replicated findings.

Most people assume that el sciens completely rejects genetic gaps in IQ, when the truth is completely the opposite.

That is exactly what this youtube video has done.He used the phrase "dumb scientists" a few times when describing bodies of research he doesn't like.

When the other guys tore apart his false interpretations of one of his cited papers individually, he claimed they weren't "look at it as a set."

"Race realsm" is 100% making assumptions that are listed in scientific papers and making an ad hoc argument that tons of unrelated papers are connected to make a claim. For example, you can say IQ is heritable. You can say there is an IQ gap. However if you try to claim they are related you have to provide evidence for it. All this guy does it collect a lot long list of papers he can interpret in his own way and tries to connect them to a body of "evidence" which is actually an ad hoc of unrelated evidence to his claims, and as these other guys pointed out all you have to do is read the papers and see how each individual paper doesn't support the claims of this moron.

Few people reject a gap in the US, but the claim that the cause is genetic has no honest scientific basis. There is no conspiracy to cover this up.

>Few people reject a gap in the US, but the claim that the cause is genetic has no honest scientific basis. There is no conspiracy to cover this up.

There is plenty of scientific basis. Heritability of IQ is pretty well established. We can go into the details if you want, but that should be the starting point.

>Various studies have found the heritability of IQ to be between 0.7 and 0.8 in adults and 0.45 in childhood in the United States.[6][18][19] It may seem reasonable to expect that genetic influences on traits like IQ should become less important as one gains experiences with age. However, that the opposite occurs is well documented. Heritability measures in infancy are as low as 0.2, around 0.4 in middle childhood, and as high as 0.8 in adulthood.[7] One proposed explanation is that people with different genes tend to seek out different environments that reinforce the effects of those genes.[6] The brain undergoes morphological changes in development which suggests that age-related physical changes could also contribute to this effect.[20]

>A 1994 article in Behavior Genetics based on a study of Swedish monozygotic and dizygotic twins found the heritability of the sample to be as high as 0.80 in general cognitive ability; however, it also varies by trait, with 0.60 for verbal tests, 0.50 for spatial and speed-of-processing tests, and 0.40 for memory tests. In contrast, studies of other populations estimate an average heritability of 0.50 for general cognitive ability.[18]

>In 2006, The New York Times Magazine listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies.[21]

Heritability of IQ in general does not infer differences in heritability between populations just because averages in IQ aren't the same.

Sure, but transracial adoption studies suggest that it does. In addition to that, there are no known environmental factors that could account for the gap. Also, there are the GWA studies which suggest that the gap is genetic

>He used the phrase "dumb scientists" a few times when describing bodies of research he doesn't like.
Yes. It is actually possible to disagree with people.
Just because you think that some subgroup of scientists are wrong does not imply that your views are somehow fringe.

>"Race realsm" is 100% making assumptions that are listed in scientific papers and making an ad hoc argument that tons of unrelated papers are connected to make a claim. For example, you can say IQ is heritable. You can say there is an IQ gap. However if you try to claim they are related you have to provide evidence for it. All this guy does it collect a lot long list of papers he can interpret in his own way and tries to connect them to a body of "evidence"
This is also known as science. Not every scientist is sitting in a lab and gathering data.
Data also needs interpretation and that is apparently what you are criticizing, statistics gives methods to related different data and come to some conclusion.
I really do not get what you are trying to argue here, that someone is wrong because he looks at different sources and comes to a conclusion based on these different sources?

There are several known environmental factors, such as poverty, education level of your parents, etc. Are you trying to claim IQ is 100% genetic?

You clearly do not understand what a GWAS is. GWAS attempt to find genes, not make the claims you think they do.

You don't understand how science works. It's not about making assumptions because you like them and connecting dots that aren't related. You are flat out trying to tell me "I can interpret it however I want!" which is false.

Let's say I wanted to prove milk causes cancer. That's an outrageous claim. I would have to provide a large body of evidence for it, which would include not only correlations between cancer and milk but also demonstration of the methods by which it happens in terms of biochemistry and genetics.

The youtube's entire premise is "we don't need to find any genes, just trust me because I make youtube videos and I'm smart."

It's cancerous threads like these that destroy sci and turn it from what could be an open, intellectual environment to one that is racist, clannish, basically giant circle-jerk of white men with high IQs sucking their own and each others cocks.

There is no conclusive evidence that the IQ gap between various races and societies is a genetic and not cultural. Get the fuck over it. I know you want to find a reason to look down and pity racial minorities, but you don't, and you come off as pathetic losers, scrambling to find a way to justify your superiority complexes because in a world where IQ is only part of the picture and you're severely lacking in other aspects you want to be able to continue to feel superior when in reality you're literal human trash.

>You are flat out trying to tell me "I can interpret it however I want!"
No I am not. Have you actually read what I wrote?
I said that one part of science is looking at data and connecting it, if the data disagrees with your model you are wrong and you need to adjust your model.

>I would have to provide a large body of evidence for it, which would include not only correlations between cancer and milk but also demonstration of the methods by which it happens in terms of biochemistry and genetics.
Why?
Think about radiation sickness, a person finds a highly radioactive stone and proceeds to get sick after being close to it for a few days, the same happens to a few other persons.
Then a doctor is called to investigate, he puts the stone in a barn with multiple cows and they all die.
Can you conclude from that that the stone causes radiation sickness?
No of course you can not, it is completely impossible to make any judgement from that, it would probably be advisable to stay very close to the stone, after all physicists have not yet discovered what causes radiation and how it causes damage to the human body, therefore all data which suggest that high doses of radiation are dangerous are irrelevant.

Same with magnets, Maxwell is trying to formulate his Laws, therefore he makes experiments with magnets, which suggest certain relations between electric and magnetic fields.
But his equations are completely worthless and can never be used by used by physicists or engineers at that time, since no one of them can explain the quantum mechanical process which causes these laws.

And why end with "you must find the genes", unless you can describe the quantum mechanical processes which perfectly describe how these genes function in the human body you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING and you can draw no conclusion.

You are wrong about science, have you seen a University from inside?

You need to find the genes because that's the main claim of racism. You claim that differences in IQ between races is solely caused by genetics (genes). The evidence we currently have doesn't support this, but people like you still insist on trying to make assumptions and then claim 'we don't even need to find the genes!'

>I know you want to find a reason to look down and pity racial minorities
I actually do not.
I just don't want to live with them together.
Even if I wanted to feel superior by this I would be failing hard, since I would have to admit that Jews and Asians are better then me.
And it would be kinda to do something to feel superior when I argue for science that admits that large groups of people have a higher IQ then my group.

No, this has nothing to do with superiority.
It is enough to establish that groups are different.

I don't know if you're being serious here. Are you trying to intentionally misunderstand what I'm saying here?

>There are several known environmental factors, such as poverty, education level of your parents, etc. Are you trying to claim IQ is 100% genetic?
Yes, there are some known factors that influence intelligence, but their influence is so small that they cannot account for the large gap that we see. For more information, read thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/01/07/race-and-iq-the-case-for-genes/

>You clearly do not understand what a GWAS is. GWAS attempt to find genes, not make the claims you think they do.
Yes, just because A is correlated with B, that doesn't prove A causes B. But you'd have to be pretty disingenuous to deny GWAS. GWAS proves that there is a correlation between those gene variants and IQ. Given the predictive validity, it cannot be a random correlation. So please, do tell, what causes this correlation? What is your explanation? People just become intelligent due to whatever environmental factors, which then causes them to spontaneously sprout the corresponding genes?

>You claim that differences in IQ between races is solely caused by genetics (genes).
No. I do not.
I am not insane and delusional.
Africans gained ~15 points when coming from Africa to the US, of course environment plays a role.

>You need to find the genes because that's the main claim of racism.
Why are the genes necessary? You can know that something is "genetic" without knowing the genes.
You know of a certain monk doing experiments on heritability long before people even had the Idea that genes might be a thing?
We learned that stuff in highschool...

>this thread

>I just don't want to live with them together.

Can you flesh this idea out more for me?

Suppose that there was conclusive evidence(there isn't) that the IQ gap is due solely to genetics. What would this do to the black community? We would push an already subjugated minority further down, we would be validating all the white supremecists and racists who feel superiority, we would be telling the black youth "it's ok that you're not doing as well as your white peers, it's just in your nature", thus demotivating them to try to succeed, and the list goes on. It would be an absolutely abhorrent outcome for the minorities effected.

So why are you pushing for this? You don't have conclusive evidence, yet you're pushing the argument? Why are you doing that?

My hypothesis is that you're a racist pig, but feel free to convince me otherwise.

>It's cancerous threads like these that destroy sci and turn it from what could be an open, intellectual environment to one that is racist, clannish, basically giant circle-jerk of white men with high IQs sucking their own and each others cocks.
>There is no conclusive evidence that the IQ gap between various races and societies is a genetic and not cultural. Get the fuck over it. I know you want to find a reason to look down and pity racial minorities, but you don't, and you come off as pathetic losers, scrambling to find a way to justify your superiority complexes because in a world where IQ is only part of the picture and you're severely lacking in other aspects you want to be able to continue to feel superior when in reality you're literal human trash.
Yeah, we can't have our open intellectual playground be contaminated with wrongthink. That's why we must resort to ad hominems in order to stifle discussion.

>You need to find the genes because that's the main claim of racism. You claim that differences in IQ between races is solely caused by genetics (genes). The evidence we currently have doesn't support this, but people like you still insist on trying to make assumptions and then claim 'we don't even need to find the genes!'
Is this bait or are you just stupid? Google heritability

>Suppose that there was conclusive evidence(there isn't) that the IQ gap is due solely to genetics. What would this do to the black community?
I do not care. I would also never claim that the IQ gap is soley genetical, there is a lot of evidence against that.

>So why are you pushing for this?
Because it leads to the logical conclusion of segregation, either on a national level, meaning that you have a country for whites and a country for blacks.
Or on a sub national level where you have specific parts of the country which are white only and black only.
It is the obvious solution to stop almost all racial violence.
I do not actually want to harm or hurt people, but from the conclusion that there are fundamental differences between groups of humans and that these differences are the cause for violence, it follow that it is best for different groups of humans to not occupy the same space together.

>My hypothesis is that you're a racist pig
I don't care what you think I am.

It's not "wrongthink", it's just a subject that has no current conclusion and the fact that you try to force a conclusion where there is none, and where your desired conclusion would cause extreme upset all over the world leads me to think that you are bigots.

So you want to have segregation.

You want there to be a country for blacks, and a country for whites.

You're a disgusting person.

>So you want to have segregation.
Yes.

>You want there to be a country for blacks, and a country for whites.
Not necessarily. I provided another option.

>You're a disgusting person.
Because I want to solve racial violence and end racism?
I don't really care what you think of me but voluntary segregation sounds a lot better then continually escalating racial violence.

>Segregate society by race
>End racism

Top kek

Are you fucking retarded?

Leave Veeky Forums.

/thread

Looky here man. I get it, this topic is taboo and it hurts feefees.

But the thing is, our societies are hellbent on eliminating "systemic racism" and "white privilege". The only evidence for the existence of those things are the disparities in outcomes between different groups. This whole line of thinking is clearly delusional to anyone who knows anything about the subject matter (from heritability studies to transracial adoption to GWAS).

What's more, western societies are undergoing a rapid demographic transformation that is based on these false ideas that all people are completely equal in every way. Now I'm not saying that all less intelligent minorities have to be dragged off to gas chambers (obviously they don't). But what I am saying is that all of this matters. It might mean that, for example, when Europeans import Muslims, then integration might be impossible in so far as it is tied to IQ. If people still want to make the case for immigration, that's perfectly fine, but we cannot delude ourselves about the facts. You can ignore reality but you cannot ignore the consequences.

Furthermore, even if you assume that IQ gaps have no genetic basis, the fact is that we cannot change those gaps. Functionally they are almost completely genetic.

PS. Do I even have to explain to you why ad hominems are invalid? Surely you understand why?

Of course that would end racism in all meaningful forms.
There might still be prejudices, but they would be entirely irrelevant since most people do not have to deal with people of other races.
Racism is the result of different groups of people living closely together, all racial conflicts become irrelevant if you do not interact with other races.

...

Whitey can't oppress blacks in a country where everybody is black

I too can substitute arguments for images.

That's the best pop-sci can do? Maybe you should go back to watching Rick and Morty, that seems more appropriate given your level of intelligence

>The only evidence for the existence of those things are the disparities in outcomes between different groups.

Let me explain something to you, because you're missing some fundamental shit.

The existence of racism and white privilege isn't because of the fucking IQ gap.

Humans are naturally xenophobic. When the Europeans and Americas found the African Natives and enslaved them, they justified it to themselves with essentially this logic "They look differently, they don't have our modern technology, therefore it is OK to exploit them because they're barely even human". When the reality is that they stayed in Africa because they had everything there that they needed to prosper as a people. While those that moved north had to adapt to the cold environment, which triggered technological development.

Anyway, we then proceeded to enslave them by the hundreds of thousands, and these people were enslaved for several generations. They lost their culture, they lost everything they had, and they were treated like animals. This treatment had a profound psychological effect, which didn't just magically disappear when they were freed. Also after they were freed, they continued to be shit upon by society until the civil rights movement when they were given "equal rights" although they continue to get shit on in many ways until today.

So you have these black americans where are only two or three generations away from slavery. Their grandparents, or great grandparents, had ZERO education and were treated like dogs. It's NOT surprising in ANY way that these people continue to suffer the consequences off what we did to them. They continue to live in the ghettos with subpar education and a fight or flight inner city culture. Yes it's a violent culture, and for good reason. It's not in their GENETICS, you fucking idiot, it's just a simple cause and effect. They often don't eat well, they don't necessarily value education, they're constantly of ...

continued..

...being killed by each other or by the police. And you're surprised that we see a difference in IQ? No, obviously it's just genetics!

You need to take a hard look in the mirror. You need to educate yourself into what has happened to the african americans so you can have some perspective on this subject.

Segregation is NOT the answer, it NEVER WAS the answer, and IT NEVER WILL BE THE ANSWER. So please, just stop.

If you're arguing that we shouldn't mistreat minorities, then yeah, I completely agree. If you're saying that everything Europeans have ever done hasn't been completely kosher, then yeah, I completely agree.

>So you have these black americans where are only two or three generations away from slavery. Their grandparents, or great grandparents, had ZERO education and were treated like dogs. It's NOT surprising in ANY way that these people continue to suffer the consequences off what we did to them. They continue to live in the ghettos with subpar education and a fight or flight inner city culture. Yes it's a violent culture, and for good reason. It's not in their GENETICS, you fucking idiot, it's just a simple cause and effect. They often don't eat well, they don't necessarily value education, they're constantly of ...
African-Americans display similar levels of intelligence and violence as black Africans, despite being far wealthier. How does this fit into your unproven model of unexplainable residual effects of slavery?

There's a difference between racism and racial violence and prejudice.

If we segregated every society by race, it would end racial violence and it would end prejudice (due to the fact that there would be no interaction), but it would make RACISM much, much, much, much worse.

Do you understand what racism is?

this thread in a nutshell:
>my opinion is right
>no your opinion is wrong, my opinion is right
>hurr you fucking dumbnigger my opinion is right
well done

The education system in Africa is god awful.

You people are a lost cause.

youtu.be/ee2P7hSxzJE

Also, while we're at it, the reason why Europeans enslaved Africans was because slaves have been Africa's top export product for a long time. Europeans didn't go in there to capture the slaves themselves, they bought them from the native African tribes. I'm not saying that makes it right, all I'm saying is, slavery was a part of African culture back then

Furthermore, Ashkenazi Jews have been the target of genocide. Nazis tried to completely exterminate all of them. Yet today they have an average IQ of 115, and they tend to do extremely well in Western societies. Where does that fit in the egalitarian model?

>Do you understand what racism is?
It's redefined to often, so I guess you'll have to refresh my memory. I'm not pushing for segregation, but I am saying that it would end this nefarious systemic racism, wouldn't it?

>The education system in Africa is god awful
Well, it is run by Africans, so I suppose that is to be expected

>There's a difference between racism and racial violence and prejudice.
Is there?
"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." - google search

>but it would make RACISM much, much, much, much worse.
But it would also make it meaningless, if you are living away from people of another group it becomes irrelevant what you think about them.

There is no comparison between what happened during WWII of the course of a few years to what can happen to a culture over the course of a few generations. There is absolutely no parallel there whatsoever.

Didn't even watch the video, eh? Its okay, brainlet.

are you seriously that fucking dense? You have absolutely no listening/reading comprehension whatsoever. You are literally just hearing what you want to hear, because everything you're saying was clearly disproved in the video. There is an ENTIRE FIELD of legitimate research devoted to studying what you claim is "ad hoc unrelated evidence". You might as well be saying Darwin was a bias bullshit artist that just connected a bunch of as hoc unrelated evidence.

if you actually had some comprehension ability, I'd suggest doing some more research, like of the papers and explanations cited here:
youtu.be/hJk2dW6BOnA

But since you're hopeless, I'd suggest just giving up and stop trying to politicise things just because you don't understand them.

>It's not about making assumptions because you like them and connecting dots that aren't related. You are flat out trying to tell me "I can interpret it however I want!" which is false.

Wow, you are a literal brainlet dumbfuck. Just give it up, you clearly neither comprehend English, not science.

Race is defined purely by physiological traits that were observable in the 18th century and earlier. If nothing else it would be a huge coincidence and very surprising if those traits that were observed happened to be intrinsically tied to general intelligence, which wasn't even vaguely quantified at the time.

I do believe that different populations can exhibit higher intelligence than others, but there's no reason to expect the lines to be drawn exactly where we decide the races end. I'd expect you could have an ethnic minority within a racial grouping that could be considered an extreme outlier with respect to every other ethnic population.

>You need to find the genes
So mendel and darwin were just memes back in the day then.

>that's the main claim of racism.
I have no clue why you're so obsessed with bringing racism into science. Racism is clearly irrelevant to the idea that there are reliable heritable differences among the human population. If racists are more accepting of this research because they use it to suit their worldview, then whatever, all that means is that you're more closed minded than a racist. Einstein's work was used to make the atomic bomb, but it doesn't mean relativity was warmongering.

>It is the obvious solution to stop almost all racial violence.

who cares about stopping just *racial* violence, why not optimize for lower violence overall?

At that point, it would make far more sense to segregate based on IQ and personality trait clusters than race. The main reason race is a silly segregation heuristic is because it's too broad of a brush, and will hardly improve anything that significantly. What you want, is to literally separate the dumb people away from the smart people, but even Ashkenazi Jews have a lot of dumb people among them just like any other race. Not to mention that you'd still be leaving the intermingling of totally conflicting personality traits in place, leading to the same "left"/"right", "individualist"/"collectivist", "libertarian"/"authoritarian" political shenanigans we have today, since political opinion is so closely tied to personality dimensions.

So does Ryan Faulk actually know what he's talking about or is he just wikipedia popsci tier? I am a brainlet I can't tell. Anyone ITT actually educated on genetics n shiet?

>What is Guo 2015

Race is real and also happens to fall along socially-defined lines. Weird, its almost as if it is blatantly obvious when two individuals are from very separate races. If you want to argue the nuances between a Franconia and a Bavarian, I'm all ears, but the second you try to say "race is arbitrary" when comparing an African with a European, we all know thats something only a fool would say.

it can still be arbitrary
consider this: the number 7 and the number 512 are radically different, but only arbitrarily

/thread

But are you going to pretend that race isn't defined entirely according to superficial traits that were apparent before the field of genetics even existed? If we scrapped the concept of race entirely and instead classified humans by what we determined to be genetically significant, I think we'd end up with something significantly different (though probably still with a lot of racial overlap).

Can't ignore those dubs, now, can I? True, but as you say, there would be a significant amount of racially-defined overlap. In fact, it is much more effective just to analyze matters in very basic, racial terms. It would take one-millionth of the effort of that level of categorization yet have the same effect.

I'd say you're right about the effort, but not about the effect. I would say if we were going to do anything of that sort, it makes more sense to draw the lines at the ethnocultral level, since I'd expect populations classified that way to have tighter breeding pools (due to shared language, values, etc.) and so have more in common than an equivalent sampling of an entire racial classification.