So, is race real, Veeky Forums?

I think people are caring too much about it, in a non-scientific as if it had some sort of metaphysical merit, which it doesn't. A human is a human, the minute you degrade them based upon biological makeup then you threaten the entire concept of humanity. Humans are humans, sure phenotypical differences among populations occur, because local populations breed with one another perpetuating the dominant phenotype. Does it matter more than biologically? Fuck no.

Don't listen to this guy. We don't avoid researching it because we are afraid we might degrade certain populations. The truth is that it is all very well-researched already and found to be biologically arbitrary. It is a social construct, end of story. Doesn't mean it's not "real." It's real to society.

I won't deny it. I'll say it isn't true because there are black people with higher IQ's than whites. Your statement implies all black people have lower IQ's. If you're talking about averages, environmental factors have to be considered alongside the validity of IQ tests themselves. If IQ was proven to be a completely accurate indicator of intelligence and 100% genetic, I would completely agree with you there are intellectual differences between the races, but it wasn't justification for discrimination, however, I've seen staggering proof that both of these claims are grossly wrong and the people who insist they're correct were usually robbed by a black person or want to feel superior to people or something like this. Its always a personal emotional reason like black people are scary to them.

>dont allow negroes in unis for decades
>dont allow negroes in schools for decades
>dont allow nergoes to vote unless they pass your brainfuck tests

Fast forward to present time:
>Yah see, dose goddam niggrs are BORN stupid! Its in they're gene chromosones DNA or something, right, Veeky Forums?

So are you saying there's an epigenetic factor?

This also has to be considered. Would have been better if you hadn't used racial slurs though.

Is your reading comprehension really that dreadful?

>Can you know anything with certainty about people from this?
I wouldn't necessarily say for 'certainty', but are you implying you cannot make accurate judgement about peoples propensity towards, say, health? If there are biological differences between races (there are, obviously) I don't thinking saying there could be an average of behavioral differences is so far fetched.

All humans can interbreed.
By the standard biologists use, there's a "race" and we're all members of it.

Yeah a little bit. Skimmed it too fast. Basically repeated you.

>I don't thinking saying there could be an average of behavioral differences is so far fetched

Oh yeah, sure, I agree with you on this, however those behavioural differences are not genetic, they're environmental and people who don't conform to those behavioural stereotypes shouldn't be rewarded or punished unfairly. There are white people in ghettos who attack people for no reason and black people at top universities who are physics professors. If most black people live in ghettos and most white people have better opportunities to become professors what would happen? The black professor for example shouldn't be subjected to discrimination because many black people are known to be violent.

>>/pol/

The debate itself actually isn't so bad, the problem is that it often degenerates into "All this manipulated data is true because of how much I hate black people/that one time I was robbed by that black guy/that black guy who beat me up at school/because I need to feel superior to large groups of people"

If the debate is had in a fair, rational and logical fashion though, its not that bad.

Yes, yes you did.

they are dumb and lazy. races are not equal.

>They're inferior dammit why won't you listen to me rrreeeeeeeeee

Cultures are not equal*

Culture is a byproduct of collective phenotype of the population that originated it. Everything boils down to genes.

*quantum mechanics

>[CITATION NEEDED]
I'm not saying I don't agree, but that is rather grandiose claim to assert so strongly without evidence.

>Oh yeah, sure, I agree with you on this, however those behavioural differences are not genetic, they're environmental
You seem to have this black and white view of environment vs genetics though. For instance, imagine a child living in a household with an abusive alcoholic father. The father had a certain gene or genes that led to him having a greater propensity towards alcoholism, which in turn led to a negative home-life for the child. Would you blame environment or the genes that made the father more likely to produce a harmful environment?

>There are white people in ghettos who attack people for no reason and black people at top universities who are physics professors.
I don't think anyone is saying there aren't though. Outlieres do not negate general trends

>If most black people live in ghettos and most white people have better opportunities to become professors what would happen?
Yes, but the question is WHY black people on average produce ghettos? Is it genes, or historical reasons? I don't think anyone would deny ghettos have negatives impacts on people.

>The black professor for example shouldn't be subjected to discrimination because many black people are known to be violent.
No certainly not. There is too much variation in population to predict peoples behavior on an individualist basis, however when we're talking about whole population, average should be considered. An 160 IQ black professor shouldn't be used as an excuse to invite a quarter of Nigeria's population into a first world nation, unless your damn sure those immigrants can be brought up to standard.

There has never been a culture change within a society? Wew lad

>discrimination is ok for entire populations
literally hitler

>literally hitler
Won't deny that, but that still doesn't negate what I argued. It's just not practical to make judgments on individuals when talking about MASS groups of people. Even if we could there is no guarantee that the offspring of those outliers would be just as good as there parents. By the way we all discriminate, from height, to attractiveness, to social clique, soooo...... what's your point?

>Even if we could there is no guarantee that the offspring of those outliers would be just as good as there parents.
The fuck? Isn't that your whole argument of genetic determinism? They're successful because of superior genetics.

How about this: if all niggers were gased, would the average IQ of the planet relative to today increase?

>The father had a certain gene or genes that led to him having a greater propensity towards alcoholism
You assume the father had a certain gene which gave him a greater propensity towards alcoholism. Even if this had been the case, had he grown up in an environment/home where intellectualism was heavily favoured and alcoholism looked down upon along with having a decent upbringing, this would have been far less likely to happen.
>Would you blame environment or the genes that made the father more likely to produce a harmful environment?
Environment mostly, there may be some small genetic component. Crack and Heroin is available to people, its far less common to be used as its far less socially acceptable this, I blame environment.
>I don't think anyone is saying there aren't though. Outlieres do not negate general trends
Fine, I never negated this trend either, i said it wasn't genetic.
>Yes, but the question is WHY black people on average produce ghettos? Is it genes, or historical reasons? I don't think anyone would deny ghettos have negatives impacts on people.
Slavery, slaves were denied any form of education, continual discrimination, racism, often the most famous black people are the most stupid thugs you can possibly imagine like NBAYoungBoy and Chief Keef. All this shit builds up and leads to black people seeing becoming thugs as the only practical option.
>An 160 IQ black professor shouldn't be used as an excuse to invite a quarter of Nigeria's population into a first world nation, unless your damn sure those immigrants can be brought up to standard.
This is callous, but also would be valid if your standards for the average white person weren't so high, also this is under the assumption IQ is accurate.

Not that guy but the answer is obviously yes. They have lower IQ at the moment, there's no disputing that. However the Flynn effect shows that anyone can improve and the gap is closing.

My dude, you are entirely correct that everyone discriminates. But what I've been interested in is what actions specifically may be taken, by the wider society, against certain groups with "undesireable traits"(aggressiveness, low IQ).
>SJWs demand lower standards for blacks/low IQ individuals bcuz they are being punished for a trait that they could not choose and wasn't there fault for being.(see #BaketheCake).
>nonwhites shamed for "IQ privilege"
Also, it is possible for low IQ people to be good people and live decent lives(inside certain parameters)
(not him btw)

>Even if this had been the case, had he grown up in an environment/home where intellectualism was heavily favoured and alcoholism looked down upon along with having a decent upbringing, this would have been far less likely to happen.
But again, what would cause the parents to favor intellectualism? I thinks it's too assume more intelligent people would value education more, and I think intelligence is largely hereditary

>Slavery, slaves were denied any form of education, continual discrimination, racism, often the most famous black people are the most stupid thugs you can possibly imagine like NBAYoungBoy and Chief Keef. All this shit builds up and leads to black people seeing becoming thugs as the only practical option
And every race was a slave at one point, but intelligence average are still different. Asians were colonized but managed to retain there high IQ's. Also if I'm not mistaken there were slaves in ancient rome who were tutors to the children of their masters.

>This is callous, but also would be valid if your standards for the average white person weren't so high, also this is under the assumption IQ is accurate.
I wouldn't call them high, I just no what kind of societies whites produce. There are other reason than IQ to be opposed to non-white immigration. Whites are more favorable to free speech for instance here in the US. And IQ is extremely predictive of things like criminality and unintended pregnancies.

>My dude, you are entirely correct that everyone discriminates. But what I've been interested in is what actions specifically may be taken, by the wider society, against certain groups with "undesireable traits"(aggressiveness, low IQ).
Acknowledge that diverse societies are harmful to social capital and allow people to live with their own. Remember these open border enthusiast are the aggressors, not I. They're pushing for radical and fundamental changes of white nations.

>Also, it is possible for low IQ people to be good people and live decent lives(inside certain parameters)
Sure, but practice what you preach. Are you prepared to live in a society where the averge IQ is 70?

>Genetics are tied to wanting free speech
Yo...

complete and utter strawman of what I was saying, but yes there are some political view that have a ~60% heritability, concluded by some twin studies.

Nobody except white people deny that

Didn't read your post

t. brainlet

>But again, what would cause the parents to favor intellectualism?
Going to good schools, having a good family before this, having friends who value it. All these things are major contributors and this is pretty straight forward.

>And every race was a slave at one point, but intelligence average are still different.
You're assuming the IQ's of all races have been the same throughout the history of mankind, this is completely ridiculous and unfounded. There are records of people saying Asians were dumb and lazy over 100 years ago. Also black people CURRENTLY have very poor education at schools where teachers do nothing have they have to worry about being shot by thugs and alongside possibly having serious issues at home.

>I wouldn't call them high, I just no what kind of societies whites produce.
Based on cultural expectations, opportunities, etc. If you're black, everyone tells you you're a dumb thug and you cannot get a job or a place at some education centre even at the education centre you may not be taken seriously because you're black and for these reason you're more likely to rob people if you cannot provide for your family any other way.

Also, I've been refuting your points, you seem to have a bias and inclination towards genetics. I'm not saying its impossible for there to be any genetic factor, I'm saying becoming a physicist in one of the safest areas of settle and going to a good school with a good family is far easier than becoming one in compton with an abusive family in a ghetto where you can be shot for looking at someone the wrong way and going to a school where teachers teach nothing. On top of the fact that if the guy from the ghetto maybe tries to go for science programs in better neighbourhoods its not unlikely they'll be discriminated against based on race and throughout their entire academic career if they keep going That's why its so fucking rare.

> Asians were colonized but managed to retain there high IQ's. Also if I'm not mistaken there were slaves in ancient rome who were tutors to the children of their masters.
Colonization=/=indentured servitude=/= chattel slavery
But yeah, we can't blame everything one slavery though.

>I wouldn't call them high, I just no what kind of societies whites produce. There are other reason than IQ to be opposed to non-white immigration. Whites are more favorable to free speech for instance here in the US. And IQ is extremely predictive of things like criminality and unintended pregnancies.
Conceding all this to be correct, would an IQ barrier be just, if not more effective?
>receive the cream of the crop of the 3rd world.
>IQ test is best predictive system, so we can have a high certainty that they will be model citizens and suitable for integration.

>Acknowledge that diverse societies are harmful to social capital and allow people to live with their own. Remember these open border enthusiast are the aggressors, not I. They're pushing for radical and fundamental changes of white nations.
I can agree with you on the principle of right to association. So was the whole IQ debate started to defend this principle? I mean if you don't want anyone stepping on your snake, and want to be with people like yourself to achieve this, I wouldn't fault you tbhfampai (given the racial environment in the West atm).

>Sure, but practice what you preach. Are you prepared to live in a society where the averge IQ is 70?
>implying I haven't for my entire life

Short answer: No, race does not exist as a biological concept.

Long answer: This is due to how we might classify race in a non-arbitrary way by phenotypic/genotypic change. Studies have shown multiple times that the genetic variation within a population either outweighs or is statistically insignificantly no different from genetic variation between human populations.

This is to say, if you were to design any algorithm that separated people based on their genetic differences, and grouped them based on whole genome assays, it would create no coherent grouping- nothing that looks any bit similar to how we define race as it is. The place where race realists and the people who debunk it find exception is talking about cherrypicking alleles and then claiming that race exists among those groupings, like taking genes that control for skin color/macroscopic change, and then using just the variation among those genes to define race. But at that point, it's arbitrated to a point where the only reason genes are cherrypicked is because they fit some societal qualification for being considered important. Ergo, race is, when you boil it down, a goddamn social construct- it's not an objective biological quantifier, and can only be used as one if there's heavy arbitration, which makes it defacto socially constructed.

>Going to good schools, having a good family before this, having friends who value it. All these things are major contributors and this is pretty straight forward.
And your family shares a large part of your DNA, lol. Also peoples friends tend to be of the same race as them, which may not be as close as family, but are still apart of the same 'tribe'. You keep trying this radical separation of genetics from environments bro, every cell in your body is dictated by DNA.

>You're assuming the IQ's of all races have been the same throughout the history of mankind, this is completely ridiculous and unfounded.
Nope, but colonization of africa and asia by Europenas happened relatively close in human history.

>There are records of people saying Asians were dumb and lazy over 100 years ago
What people say is biased, you have to look at cultural/scientific/ literary/ artistic advancements of said civilizations.

>Also black people CURRENTLY have very poor education at schools where teachers do nothing have they have to worry about being shot by thugs and alongside possibly having serious issues at home.
Again, what causes these poor schools? We've tried throwing money at them it hasn't worked. Genes influence the environment people produce.

>I can agree with you on the principle of right to association. So was the whole IQ debate started to defend this principle? I mean if you don't want anyone stepping on your snake, and want to be with people like yourself to achieve this, I wouldn't fault you tbhfampai (given the racial environment in the West atm).
Yeah just lefties and internationals who want cheap labor wont' let me.

>Sure, but practice what you preach. Are you prepared to live in a society where the averge IQ is 70?
>implying I haven't for my entire life
my mistake, its just most people advocating for mulitracialism almost always live in monoracial neighborhoods.

this: was meant for u:

are you retarded? its a species. SPECIES
fuck off to reddit

>We've tried throwing money at them it hasn't worked.
That sounds pretty half-assed. You need a multi-faceted approach to address many simultaneous needs.

honestly, it should be.
I'd like to breed specimens in order to create several different humanoid races by selecting and encouraging certain behaviours or particular mutations.
Ethics can suck my dick, it would be fucking interesting.

And now I remember why I stopped doing race thread debates.

I've refuted all of your arguments, Your counter argument to every refutation has been, "Its genetics"

This the never ending story of the race intelligence debate.

>What people say is biased
Fucking clearly, you're proving this now.

Everything has to be looked at collectively, all facets, I've gone over the many facets which contribute to the differences you've mentioned. Every single reply has been "Well what causes that? (Insert whatever bullshit you like here in this case genetics) " I fucking said, a large amount of environmental factors. You can use this same logic to make any arbitrary and unfounded claim.

This will be my last reply, you're clearly biased like most racialists and this debate will go nowhere.

If this was a troll you wasted a good amount of my time, but sadly it probably wasn't, you're probably just another biased racialist.

The reason for the "its genetics" is that has more influence than environmental factors.

A goldfish can not get a better memory than a human no matter what it does.

LOL, you haven't refuted anything. You just keep saying it's environment! it's environment! I made the claim that your peers most often share a large part of your genes. Are you trying to say that your genetics do not influence behavior? IQ gaps still persist even when controlling for a multitude of factors. It's not a troll by the way, and I have no idea how you're concluding I'm the bias one when and if I spoke out about my belief I would be fired and ruin relationships. YOU are on society side promoting egalitarianism, and it's YOU who is the biased one. Your trying to make the argument that despite various population of humans evolving in radically different environments for THOUSANDS of years that they some how managed to come out exactly the same except for skin color. Evolution does not produce equality bud, sorry I know it's a hard pill to swallow.

>Yeah just lefties and internationals who want cheap labor wont' let me.
So would you prefer for soft self--segregation without the burden of being demonized by the public or go full ethnostate. I only ask because the latter seems like it would be a logistical nightmare to start.
>my mistake, its just most people advocating for mulitracialism almost always live in monoracial neighborhoods.
Understandable, I guess. (Wander if there's a racial component to us producing the best sprinters :^) ) But on the previous point, wouldn't having IQ barriers on immigration solve that problem?

Also what's to be done with low IQ persons (in general, of all races)? I mean, if IQ is based on genetics and little can be done to change it, what, if anything do can be done to ameliorate the social ills of certain multiracial countries.

>So would you prefer for soft self--segregation without the burden of being demonized by the public or go full ethnostate. I only ask because the latter seems like it would be a logistical nightmare to start.
Well I would like to for a peaceful self-segregation but considering migrants would probably rather live in a 1st world than 3rd it might be difficult to separate. When in history has population replacement ever ended peacefully?

>Wander if there's a racial component to us producing the best sprinters
I would say most likely, people of west african decent usually have more fast twitch muscle fibers I think

>wouldn't having IQ barriers on immigration solve that problem
Not really, Asians still balkinize into separate neighborhoods just like lower IQ immigrants, and are still more opposed to absolutest free speech, whereas whites in the US are not. I don't want to be replaced by a foreign people whatever their IQ.

>Also what's to be done with low IQ persons (in general, of all races)? I mean, if IQ is based on genetics and little can be done to change it
Well I think there's little to do to change it in the individual, but over generation it can be changed, that's evolution, humans were not always this intelligent. You could employ humane eugenic(yes I know that word scares people) policies to try and improve the stock of your nation.

>what, if anything do can be done to ameliorate the social ills of certain multiracial countries.
either mix together where genetic differences are eliminated(may or may not be desirable depending on the person), or genetically engineer people to NOT behave tribal. I think humans to a large degree evolved to behave tribal so to to change that, you're probably going to have to alter the genome.

The Flynn Effect is not evolution in action. It's improvement of the institutions. You have to put the proper feedback loops in place to help a culture improve itself.

One off cases will generally return to the norm after a generation or two.

No, if phenotype variations exist, it's very stupid to think that genotype variations exist between races also :^)

Honestly, the videos he made were impressive and thorough. Truly beautiful.

One thing fascinating about race though is how much agreement there is among people when judging the race of different people. A powerful illusion.

It's almost a shame some science is counter-intuitive. More people would believe the facts if it weren't.

Genotypes don't determine phenotypes though. Exact same genotype in different species can easily result in completely different phenotypes.

Proven by who? Liberal social scientists? I should believe in that?

Do you believe molecular biologists?

How do you explain twin studies then?

Did you look at even one response?

Why do you ask?

They're not aging well.

Pre-natal and early childhood shared environment.

The best part about his videos is all the salt in the comments section. Who would have thought that all these calm and rational Internet warriors would get so emotional over someone deconstructing and rejecting their entire worldview? I specifically remember being told only SJW's and leftists get emotional over their precious little ideas.

Hmm...

It's quick to forget there's an infinite variety of stupid out there, and you should expect to see it everywhere. In fact, forgetting this is a symptom of your own stupidity.

Don't ever underestimate stupid.

>muh IQ only derives from environment
I'd really like to see what kind of environment people with over 150 IQ are living in. They must be doing something right!

Are you saying that racial stereotypes are disproven by the work of molecular biologists? Where you dropped on your head as a child?

>MUH EVIRNOMENT
>MUH NURTURE > NATURE
Why were black countries absolutely garbage for the entirety of human history excluding the time since they've been uplifted by whites?

Africans were living in mud huts while whites where building monasteries and chinks where building whatever the fuck it is that they build. Meanwhile, in Australia the abbos hadn't even invented the wheel. You're trying to tell me you can't make predictions about the traits of these clearly divergent peoples?

>>muh IQ only derives from environment
Literally no one argues that you fucking brainlet.

>I haven't done any research so clearly the answer is because black people are inferior.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

Idk, why did it take whites so long to actually start building civilization? They were wandering around Europe doing jack shit and fucking neanderthals. Meanwhile the Amerindians found their land of choice and instantly prospered.

You mean until they were absolutely btfo by whites and resigned to reservations until we felt bad for them?

Yes, the debate should be about if it's relevant

>The book attempts to explain why Eurasian and North African civilizations have survived and conquered others, while arguing against the idea that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, moral, or inherent genetic superiority. Diamond argues that the gaps in power and technology between human societies originate primarily in environmental differences, which are amplified by various positive feedback loops. When cultural or genetic differences have favored Eurasians (for example, written language or the development among Eurasians of resistance to endemic diseases), he asserts that these advantages occurred because of the influence of geography on societies and cultures (for example, by facilitating commerce and trade between different cultures) and were not inherent in the Eurasian genomes.
>When cultural or genetic differences have favored Eurasians (for example, written language or the development among Eurasians of resistance to endemic diseases), he asserts that these advantages occurred because of the influence of geography on societies and cultures (for example, by facilitating commerce and trade between different cultures) and were not inherent in the Eurasian genomes.
>When genetic difference have favored Eurasians
>He asserts that these were not inherent in the Eurasian genomes.

Wow, really made me think.

Yeah because they started tens of thousands of years later. It takes a long ass time to fucking walk to the Americas. But when they got there, they were very quickly a mere centuries behind. The timing of the Eurangutans was extremely lucky. They had invested ships and guns JUST in time to stop the Amerindians before their clear dominance. At the rate they were going they'd be colonizing the solar system by now.

>Idk, why did it take whites so long to actually start building civilization? They were wandering around Europe doing jack shit and fucking neanderthals. Meanwhile the Amerindians found their land of choice and instantly prospered.
>Yeah because they started tens of thousands of years later.

Why are there so many brainlets in sci these days?

He's referencing genetic resistance to disease developing as a byproduct of their circumstantial context, you stupid fucking brainlet. He's denying anything that was "inherent" to the European. You have the reading comprehension skills of a 14 year old.

Because reddit

There is no inherent anything in genetics you fucking glorified ape. Everything you are was built upon by your ancestors and so on. Of course Europeans where never INHERENTLY superior. They became superior, intellectually and genetically because of their conditions. This brainlet you cited is arguing over the course by which Europeans became dominant and pretending that means we're equal now. Perhaps it's by no fault of their own, and rather due to circumstances, that blacks are intellectually inferior and overly aggressive, but that doesn't change the fact that they are those things.

In conclusion, your citation has no relevance to the discussion.

They walked over multiple continents. The Europeans sat there doing nothing.

Look Veeky Forums I don't want you to say black people are dumber and white people are smarter.
However, will you admit two populations of the same species in completely different environments such as the savanna and northern Europe over thousands of years of divergent evolution are astronomically unlikely to have exactly all of the same genes for mental development expressed in the same frequency?
You could argue that black people are smarter because they lived in a harsher environment it doesn't bother me, but just at least admit its unreasonable to assume that these two populations will have zero differences in brain development.

It's literally basic genetics. I can't fathom anyone with a functioning brain stating otherwise to be honest.

Nobody has outright denied this. However, we can test genomes, and humans have been found to be incredibly similar, more than things like dog breeds. And the differences we do find do not break down into race as we know it. That's really all there is to it.

>no one
Wasn't there a scientist who got doxxed to hell because he said something along the lines of, "there's no reason to believe seperate groups of people evolved to have the same genetic disposition for intelligence.

I'm pretty sure most Libtards will outright deny it.

Pretty sure you'll be hounded out of academia for stating that racial differences in intelligence exist.

I agree with you that humans are similar, more so than domesticated animals that underwent artificial selection. It may not take too many genes to go from an IQ of 85 and 100. However those 15 points of IQ matter immensely in terms of creating and sustaining a civilization.

Scientists are retarded in talking to the public. If he simply said the differences are miniscule (which is true), nobody would really care. Saying there is clear inferiority advocates for forced eugenics.

I don't condone doxxing no matter what though. I also am not going to let the way people react to things sway my thoughts.

>scientists are retarded in talking to the public
No the public is retarded in understanding science.
Science does not cater to your feelings. You shouldn't need to dance around a subject using subjective terms like minuscule to pacify the rabid dogs of anti-intellectualism. He stated something that was objectively true and for such an outrageous thing, he was ostracized.

No.

inb4 "all the scientists are lying and its a massive jewish coverup!"

>However those 15 points of IQ matter immensely in terms of creating and sustaining a civilization.
You're only able to say that because the only permanent civilizations (an extremely new concept) have come largely from Europe and Asia so far.

Even Rome didn't sustain a civilization. Are you going to make excuses for them?

There were plenty of African empires comparable to pre-Rome Europe ones that had plenty of success. They all fall for whatever reason. Again, a civilization NOT falling is a completely new concept.

I never mentioned any races or that a species with an IQ of 85 can't create a civilization, I just implied it would be reasonable to assume a population of a species that has a higher IQ than another population would likely have a better civilization.

You jumping to conclusions and automatically assuming that I said black people are intellectually inferior says more about you than me.

It's what the thread turned into. I was just going with the flow of the conversation. I can't tell which posts are yours if any.