Does human races/populations exist?

>empires crumbled to dust and the people scattered
There's more aspects to this than just that one

if you argue that there is no such thing as dog races then I think this is a respectable position
This position shows resentment and evil, just because you would want to holocaust inferior races doesn't mean everyone else would. See a therapist, you disgust me.

>1 bubonic plague kills 40% europeans and get invaded by nomads
>20+ european diseases kill 90% Amerindians yet they survive but the civilizations collapse
Amerindians had demonstrated even better behavior against such not-immunized diseases.

Amerindian higher development rate is also historical.

>you show resentment not me
Ok, bud. Race and IQ are still pseudoscience. Deal with it.

>nu-uh!

if I can't see them they don't exist

...

and still the white man achieved nearly everything worth mentioning.

why are they? is biology a pseudo science than? if u would look at humans as another animal u would certainly group them in races. there are even subspecies in other animial species that are more related than the human races.

go to pol fuckface

>shill for this kind of "knowledge", for political or ideological reasons.
The insistence that there is no such thing as race, which flies in the face of common sense and understanding, is itself a political and ideological stance and one which is without scientific basis or merit in my opinion. The divisions of race are clear to anyone who is intellectually honest and is routinely referred to in genetics. The only reason that genetics shills for the 'no race' interpretation is because our current political climate has been hijacked by the following political ideologies;
cultural marxism
relativism
multiculturalism
and political correctness

...

The only thing worse than /pol/tards is people who scream "go back to /pol/" when a conversation they find offensive is started.

go back

no u

Wow I sure showed you. Faggot.

>cultural marxism
You are deluded.

Already refuted.

IQ and race aren't science. Why do you keep denying reality?

IQ and race are pseudoscience.

>europeans:
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to solutrean:10000 years (30000BC-20000BC)
>from aurignacian-antelian to neolithic: 15000 years(30000BC-15000BC)
>from neolithic proto-agriculture societies to neolithic revolution: 6000 years (15000BC-9000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to copper and arsenical bronze: 4000 years (9000BC-5000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to bronze age and tin bronze: 5200 years (9000BC-3800BC)

>Amerindians:
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to clovis: 4000 years (15000BC-11000BC)
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to the start of crop development: 7000 years (15000BC-8000BC)
>from neolithic proto-agriculture societies to neolithic revolution: 5000 years (8000BC-3000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to copper and arsenical bronze independently: 2000 years (3000BC-1000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to bronze age and tin bronze: 4000 years (3000BC-1000 AD)
Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans. In other words, Amerindians had more civilization potential than europeans.

How is this hard to get?

SeeRace and IQ aren't science. They are pseudoscience.

So they developed faster and yet lost and got colonized and nearly lost their entire people?

Remove “again”

That's what not-immunized diseases do to dense populations. Even then:
>1 bubonic something wipes out 40% europeans and they get invaded by nomads
>20+ european diseases kill 90% Amerindians and destroy their civilization

Give me more detail no one wants blank statements.

>give
The burden of proof is on IQ and race supporters who claim that IQ and race are science. Which they aren't. They are pseudoscience.

And the proof exists, even if you refuse to admit it, you dumb shitskin

this is because you keep replying to it instead of reporting it

But they are. The evidence is undeniable. Scientists say there isn't such a thing as sub-species of humans because of politics, they're too scared to give racists any ammunition. The actual science is quite clear, even considering the fact that the topic is verboten and understudied. There are SIGNIFICANT intelligence differences in various populations around the world, and those differences remain even if the people are removed from their home countries and raised in wealthy ones (eliminating possible socio-economic factors).

Show the evidence.

you're welcome

General intelligence is one of the most solid and consensus positions in cognitive science.

IQ is actually a reliable measure of an individuals mental ability. The reason it has been thrown to the wayside is because it was giving results that made people uncomfortable. IQ being "unreliable" is a deliberate attempt to reduce the credibility of it because it was showing there are heritable intelligence differences between races and that was problematic.

Not that guy but I report every time and they do eventually get pruned. But they always come back...

The politicization of science is a big concern for everyone. Aren't you a bit worried that an obvious scientific fact like heritable intelligence is being swept under the rug because it makes people uncomfortable? It's like pretending your German Shepard is the same breed of dog as a Chihuahua because recognizing any biological differences between them would be not politically correct.

Real world has uncomfortable truths. Science should be completely unbiased and address them properly instead of just going "Oh no this data will offend black people, better pretend it doesn't exist"

I'm well aware of the science.

And yet you haven't addressed ANY of the data in the OP and just pretend it doesn't exist?

This user is right when he says it's a pretense for wanting to exterminate people, that's literally the position of the alt-right and after you get pass the political point scoring of "race realism" thats what it turns into.

Honestly you just need to expose them on, that's why they keep screeching "address the data" because they to give the impression that's what they care about.

They also employ emotional manipulative language such as "caring for ones own children", don't you think kind ol' grandpa Jared should care for his children more? You wouldn't want to be an evil anti-white cultural marxist sjw when we decide to kill all the filthy subhumans in America, right?

Actually there where several diseases (wiki): Numerous other diseases were brought to North America, including bubonic plague, chickenpox, cholera, the common cold, diphtheria, influenza, malaria, measles, scarlet fever, sexually transmitted diseases, typhoid, typhus, tuberculosis, and pertussis (whooping cough)

Plus if they had higher potential to create a civilization, why didn’t they? (Pic)
They created 5 all to gather. Plus creating a civilization isn’t the same thing as creating a civilization that works.

>these are different races. This is what poltards actually believe.

/pol/-tards are not scientists, and their campaign is doing more harm that good to the chances of any substantive research being carried out on this subject. They do not care about science.

>correlations
Not science. Try again, brainlet.

Already refuted. Not science.
IQ is still not science.
IQ is still pseudoscience.

Try again, brainlet.

Did you even read my post? I said nothing about the legitimacy of IQ I'm just saying that it's just context for abusing people deemed inferior.

Quit trying to justify your racism with science, cuck.

Let's see your ancestors be enslaved for generations, drink lead-laden water, be systemically oppressed and see how much they care about getting high SAT scores, you sack of shit.

g (to the extent that it even exists) is incredibly polygenic. While skin color is still kind of polygenic, most of the genes determining it have been discovered and they aren't linked to g.

I'm not addressing the OP, seeing as it is a classic case of gish galloping, /pol/'s favorite tactic. I have been very willing in the past to go through studies, one at a time, debunking the info /pol/ cherrypicks from it. I take the time to do this and these threads STILL get made. I'm fucking done man.

>if i keep repeating myself it will eventually become true
>if i keep repeating myself it will eventually become true
>if i keep repeating myself it will eventually become true
>if i keep repeating myself it will eventually become true
>if i keep repeating myself it will eventually become true

Ok so what is your arguement against the kansas city experiment.
They donated and gave a majority black school more educational facilities but the gap only grew.

the only logical conclusion is racism

It was a study? Link me to it.

Be forewarned, it's already well-known that throwing money at a problem won't fix it. But I'll see what was involved exactly.

See the problem is when faced with evidence of racial intelligence disparities you squirm like a worm and try to blame any other factor instead. It's not blacks fault they perform poorly in education in the US, it's "institutionalized racism". It's not their fault they perform badly in the EU, it's prejudiced testing that doesn't take into account cultural differences (the left never explains why 'cultural differences' can influence basic pattern recognition, funny that). It's not their fault all their countries are 3rd world shitholes, it was colonialism.

We could use occams razor and answer all of these at once by saying that race does influence intelligence, or we can desperately try to deflect blame onto the west despite the fact that blacks have the same educational outcomes whether they're living in Zimbabwe or Detroit.

>Let's see your ancestors be enslaved for generations, drink lead-laden water, be systemically oppressed and see how much they care about getting high SAT scores
The Irish are doing just fine though

What matters is the truth user. If you become afraid of using reliable metrics like IQ because you think the evidence might be used for an agenda you disagree with it's time to take a step back. Pretending all people are equal has done more damage to western civilization than any other idea. Asia doesn't pretend it is true. Africa doesn't pretend it is true. Lets unshackle ourselves from the dogma that says we can't investigate racial differences because mean racists might get ammunition. If they do, so what? The truth is more important than what it is used for.

>Still doesn't address the fact that the position of many race realists/alt-right is simply to wipe the United States of all non-whites.
>Keep claiming this is about truth even though this is clearly a political movement

>saving low iq niggers is more important than the truth
How is that rational?

>it's about finding the truth! Just pure academic interests!
>"kill all those filthy low IQ non-human niggers"

You haven't answered the question. Why do you support niggers over the benefits of a nigger free environment, to the extent that you want to suppress scientific findings which might tangentially motivate anti nigger sentiment? You're not a nigger yourself, are you?

Perhaps. Whatever the case, the difference exists.

So what? You think we need to deliberately block all scientific inquiry on a subject because you're afraid what might happen if we get results on it? Harden up you massive softcock. Science is about objective fact, learning the truth supersedes all other concerns. An attitude of "b-but what if it proves the racists right" is absolutely disgusting. You're so invested in a lie that you're terrified of it being revealed, get a grip.

>If I keep talking about truth and science hard enough he'll accept me as someone who only interest is truth and science even though the backdrop of this is literally
That's the whole point of "race realism" it's not about understanding the differences between people, it's all about wanting to kill subhumans.

The fact that you're still attempting this emotional manipulation in order side-step the more important issue in the context of "race realism" is pathetic.

>niggers and Europids are the same breed
Fucking retard.

Yes or no question. Do you believe the motive of a person seeking the truth can be a reason to deliberately obfuscate the truth? Do you think it's better to live under false assumptions than know the truth if you think the truth will be used to push an agenda you disagree with?

>These are different races. This is what poltards actually believe. There is only one race the DOG race and anyone who says otherwise is a bigoted nazi

The problem with your argument is that your implying race realists are researchers when they aren't, AltHypothesis, JF-Gariepy, Millenial Woes, Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor, etc, etc, the entirety of /pol/ is political charged on this, the topic race realism isn't a scientific one but a political one.

I don't care whether or not they're right on this, you don't care if they're right on this because this isn't about "I want to learn the differences in how people work" because you wouldn't say shit like "This is the greatest lie the 'west' has dealt with".

You didn't answer yes or no user, please just give a yes or no response. Do you believe that the agenda of someone pursuing the truth is more important than knowing the truth itself. Simple question, answer honestly.

>Keeps trying to deflect the core reasons of this entire discussion into "you don't want to be stupid, right?" so he can eke a political score point against someone else

Yes, the agenda of person is more important than the truth, race realism devoid of ideology is just biology, there is a reason why nearly everyone who talks about the topic is discussing in a sociopolitical context. You said yourself "Pretending all people are equal has done more damage to western civilization" whether you'll admit or not this is a political statement.

You cannot do this "it's just about facts bro" bullshit when it's clear it isn't.

and also continue you repeatedly dodge the fact that this is a political movement given how many people who support this are politically active in one way or another.

>Yes, the agenda of person is more important than the truth
Well I'm sorry but that's not how science works. You can't be afraid to discover the truth because you're afraid of the implications. You're putting your personal politics first and claiming that anything that might conflict with them should not be pursued.

I'm different, I base my political opinions on facts. I don't start with dogma then declare subjects off limits because it might conflict with my carefully crafted worldview. I want the facts and then base my opinions off those, as should any adult. To this end I am interested in any quantifiable intellectual differences between races because that information can be used to guide policy.

Sorry if the fact that I don't bow down to your ideological alter upsets you, I choose what I believe based on what I know to be factually correct, not vice versa. You should too.

Can't politics and science interact? Do you think governments should not be implementing policies to stop climate change because it's infringing on science? I'm confused about the opinion that politics can't use science to inform policy. As long as the science is sound then surely we should be able to act on that knowledge. It IS just about facts. Then we use those facts to better our society. Whats the issue with that?

>To this end I am interested in any quantifiable intellectual differences between races because that information can be used to guide policy.

You realize you legitimized entire argument which is "race realism is a polticial movement" I do not care if someone wants to research genetics or even if it's uncomfortable but this entire topic is a political topic, I don't know what was the point of doing this dancing around "do you care about scientific inquiry" if you yourself just basically proved my point by the inquiry being entirely political.

Like I said the entire discussion on race realism is "Gas all the subhumans"

>You realize you legitimized entire argument which is "race realism is a polticial movement"
So is climate change...Or are we conveniently ignoring the politicization of that area of science because you agree with it

I disagree with your politics because it's basically "kill all the subhumans".

Ok? I never said you needed to agree with me. All I said is that we use scientific inquiry to find out if there are quantifiable intelligence differences between races and then we can discuss the political implications afterwards. The difference here being that you seem to be deathly afraid of allowing that to happen, I wonder why? If you're right and all races are the same in terms of intellectual capacity then you have nothing to fear, in fact hard evidence will put the argument to bed for good. I wonder why a person who knows that would still argue to disallow the research. Hmmm.

Why are you being dishonest for?
>I do not care if someone wants to research genetics or even if it's uncomfortable but this entire topic is a political topic

So in what way would you like to discuss racial intelligence without immediately REEEing your head off about nazis. Cause there is research, and this is a science board, surely we can discuss the science?

>REEEing your head off about nazis
>I'm not a nazi you stupid sjw I just want to kill/oppress all the subhumans

The only reason why you're trying to avoid politics is because you don't want people associate your position with anything extreme, you can do your research and not act on it but you literally said yourself that you want to use it to guide policy.

Why wouldn't you want evidence based policy? I'm confused are you saying we shouldn't take scientific facts into account when devising policy or what?

Well science climate change is thing I think we should destroy all cars, trucks, trains and planes, destroy all farms, destroy all gas and coal fire plants and kill off every single living producer of carbon.

and that's just me being extreme with race realism there is only extremes.

fwiw I have not advocated anything even approaching genocide or concentration camps in this thread. That has you been projecting your own prejudices on me, ironically enough. All I want is proper evidence based policy that works around facts rather than fictions like the reason there are so many blacks in prison is because they're deliberately targeted by law enforcement and victims of racism rather than the simple fact they commit more crime. You don't need to go full Hitler to understand that working from the correct assumptions makes policy more effective. You're never going to fix the issues African-Americans face if you continually pretend that they're an oppressed underclass and not just the fact that by and large they're simply dumber than whites.

>Projecting a political stance unto me that I don't have because you don't want to admit the things you want to happen isn't extreme

>The insistence that there is no such thing as race, which flies in the face of common sense and understanding
Aeronautics flew in the face of common sense and understanding as well, quite literally in fact. "common sense and understanding" has no affect on whether or not something is scientifically valid - only its scientific validity can determine that.

Here
cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/money-school-performance-lessons-kansas-city-desegregation-experiment

So, if blacks are actually dumber than whites, I say we need to go much, much further on racially-based affirmative action and welfare to remedy this. America is supposed to be a meritocracy, and the genes you get nor if the public school nearby is good shouldn't determine your success, how hard you work should. Colleges need to start over-representing blacks more, and states need to start diverting funds from the public schools in white neighborhoods to those in black ones a lot more. White people can pay for private schooling anyways, (and if they can't, that's because they're lazy, not since they're stupid since they have higher IQs).

>America is supposed to be a meritocracy,
Right. How does that equal boosting people who don't deserve it because they are genetically inferior?

These statistics are horseshit, IQ and SAT scores are such a brainlet tier measure of intelligence.

merit doesn't mean how "hard" you work asshole, it's how much you achieve

>who don't deserve it because they are genetically inferior
People who work harder should get rewarded more than people who don't, intelligence aside, unless you value laziness. Intelligence and genes are just luck; giving out rewards based on that is just a lottery, we might as well give it out based on height, or how much hair is on your head.

Fair enough. In that case, how do you determine who contributes to society the most? It definitely isn't determined by intelligence.
You should also be notified that you're rejecting the principle that a person's value is based on their work ethic, and that even the most lazy people (e.g. whites), if they're able to contribute to society more than the most hard-working common people, should be rewarded more.

>People who work harder should get rewarded more than people who don't, intelligence aside,
No, the value of the work is what counts. Digging a hole in the ground takes a lot of work but if it's absolutely worthless it shouldn't be rewarded.

>giving out rewards based on that
You're not giving out any rewards, wtf are you talking about. I'm not for instating affirmative action for the intelligent. I'm for abolishing all forms of reward.

Stupid nigger.

Worker ants do not make a society prosper.

All arguments against it just seems to be weak attempts at deflection.
>race/IQ aren't accurate enough.

God I love these arguments the left loves to throw out. They're so easy to poke holes in.

No-one ever said meritocracy = pure hard work. A lot of factors are involved including innate talent. Your argument is akin to saying 99% of people aren't as genetically gifted at sprinting as Usain Bolt so they should be allowed to dope. A meritocracy simply allows the most meritorious to rise to the top. Hard work is one way to get there, being innately gifted is another.

Only the left care about bullshit like "equality of outcome". It's garbage.