>>37243560 They're not actually 100% H. sapiens though. Recent studies have shown that niggers have a substantial admixture of several more primitive Homo species. And the admixture is MUCH higher than the 1-4% Neanderthal (a modern Homo species, btw) admixture in Caucasians. It's something like 15-20% if I remember correctly.
The author draws a lot of wrong conclusions, however and says "there may never have been a pure “human” type which expanded and assimilated archaic ancestry on the margins of its range." because it's clear that non-Africans are nearly 100% pure Homo sapiens given how tremendously low their non-Sapiens ancestry is.
The article also only says the admixture for the species tested is 1-2%, but I'm positive I've read it's higher. Also, at least one skull was found from about 13,000 years ago that shows strong admixture from West or Central Africa, so that's modern also.
And there is NO FUCKING WAY that this was part of a small band that just survived for millennia away from every other African lineage. I suspect if we actually study the fossil record and genetic makeup of niggers we'll find they're not rightly viewed as truly "modern" creatures in the Homo genus. Of course, that would require the truth to be permitted in academic circles beyond just "we found an anomalous skull".
>>37244333 trips of truth. im a little sad that i saved that overly simplistic infographic. but hey, i put it in my decay folder. everyone starts somewhere. who knows, maybe ill anonymously put that on the board in the lounge room at work someday.
genetic variance within a "race" massively dwarfs genetic variance between races
all of the of the SNPs and microsatellites used to track shared geographic origin to rough geographic locations are in non-coding regions (the genetic sequences being watched express no phenotype)
genetically it would make a great deal more sense to group humans according to phenotypes. ie, group the humans with genetic correlations to past individuals with high IQs and low rates of mental disorders than to group the idiots with the geniuses based on arbitrarily chosen SNPs
but hey, you can do whatever you want. just dont try and argue OMG ITS SCIENCE U DUM LIBRUL cuz it isnt.
>>37243560 Not sub-human, they're literally a different breed of human. Although, I wonder how many of these pure homosapiens exist, at the very least most niggers in the U.S. have some White blood in them so technically they count as the same breed as Whites
>>37245539 youre welcome. these represent maybe half the good and less anecdotal files in my basketball americans folder. also without backpedaling too much i still believe than a nigger has potential to be smarter, stronger and more capable than me or any other white man. i believe in the potential of the sentient being. but i also am not so retarded that i cannot see some fairly obvious consistencies that were stripped from the eyes of the public under the guise of equality.
>>37246001 What's to agree with? You're not allowed to disagree or agree. We're talking about genetic and fossil evidence here. You're literally like a creationist saying he "doesn't agree" that evolution is proven by the fossil record. Your loss, buddy. If you have one population that's 99.99% pure Human and you have another that's 85% or so Human and 15% H. erectus or H. ergaster or something, it's pretty clear what that implies.
Those numbers come from "African Americans" and don't necessarily mean there are universal differences amongst Europeans and Africans. There are differences between different populations, sure. Humans have been evolving faster than ever in recent history as we migrated across the planet, but arguing superiority of races with science was a thing people tried in 1870. The internet isn't making you smart.
Stop clinging on to your shitty world view and accept the truth. It is just in front of you and you refuse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy >The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population.
Populations have different traits frequencies. Not all arguments hinge on the individual especially when it concerns politics. Mating for example is strongly dependent on the individuals, not so when we talk about advocating policy for a population group.
>>37247007 Well yes the joke has always been on the blacks, but it's funny to see Euros get knocked off their high horses.
Read your link again. Then go back and read my post again. We divide humans into groups according to the utility of doing so. It is very possible to find genetic correlations for just about anything. Under some circumstances it might be beneficial to divide and group humans according to shared sequences in non-coding regions with similarity that indicates a shared geographic "origin." Under most circumstances it would be far more beneficial to group humans according to phenotypes, ie: intellect, aggression, productivity, etc.
>>37246541 >>37246541 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy#Response_to_Edwards while Edwards's argument is correct it does not invalidate Lewontin's original argument, because racial groups being genetically distinct on average does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population. Nor does it mean that races are not social constructs as is the prevailing view among anthropologists and social scientists, because the particular genetic differences that correspond to races only become salient when racial categories take on social importance
>>37247273 I think you're actually agreeing with me. I was saying that the liberals were so retarded they were trying to say that because Lewontin was a fucking moron and made a fallacious argument that now they think that's proof that genes can't affect behavior, which by the way was addressed in this video: >>37245896. He calls out liberals for this exact thing.
Euros have up to 4% Neanderthal, the highest around the world, followed by East Asians. Africans have no Neanderthal (Sahara barrier), but do have genes from a separate, unidentified other homo species, that no other race group has.
Look at northern africans (above Sahara) vs southern, theres a very distinct visual distance, especially in the shape of the skull. Southern tends to be much rounder, vs a more narrow facial structure in the north.
>>37246956 You're welcome. It's a shame almost nobody ever actually views the video when I post it. I think the reason is because it pisses off both simple-minded conservatives AND liberals and since most people are simple-minded, it's not very popular.
>Implying you couldn't have genetic markers for behavior even within races. Fucking. Retarded. these people...
Genetic variance within races massively dwarfs that of variance between races.
That means that one racial group could be 5% more likely carry some genetic sequence that correlates for aggression than another group. Between both groups there is a shared subgroup, the millions of individuals that share the sequence that correlates for aggression.
Now which is more accurate, to say "X race is more violent" or to say "X subgroup is more violent?"
>>37247566 You people are literally retarded. I swear to god. You do realize what ancestry is right? You don't just acquire genes from fucking osmosis by proximity to someone else who has them. Genes are carried through BLOODLINES you fucking colossal retard. You have to GET them from someone. You don't get sickle cell genes or Tays-Sachs from anyone other than niggers or jews respectively. If you have those genes there are niggers or jews in your woodpile. Period. The same goes for genes that affect behavior. Genetics isn't a fucking democracy where someone votes on a genetic marker and then everyone gets it. They originate in specific populations and only the DESCENDENTS of those populations carry them. Is that really so fucking difficult to understand? So, YES, moron, if niggers exhibit a gene for violence or retardedness, they exhibit it BECAUSE they're fucking niggers and only their nigger offspring or mixed offspring with themselves as its ancestors will possess those genes.
>>37247830 Because when you start talking about facts, you start proving that certain races are inferior in one way or another, and that would contradict this whole cancerous "everyone's a winner" bullshit America teaches its youth.
A little bit of bullying never hurt anyone. It helps with assimilation and to keep people from turning into complete degenerates. Now you could do anything you want and just cry hate-crime for someone not liking your lifestyle.
>>37247733 >There is more variation of height within men, that there is between men and women. >that there is between men and women Let me help you out. The fact that there is a difference in the average means there is more variation between men and women than there is amongst men.
>>37248036 Well, I disagree that assault should be permitted in public schools. Frankly, that shit is a disgrace to the American education system. But you're right about the reason idiot liberals can't accept genetic realities.
>>37247830 >same or analogous genes are expressed by many unrelated species >BLOODLINES Do you think the differences in genes made some people "better" than others. What does that fucking mean? The genes expressed for people in different environments and different diets (which is what most of the evolution has been for recently) made them the most fit in each region. It didn't put them into different socioeconomic statuses.
>>37248085 Blacks have large noses because of the humid, hot air in Africa and their need for more oxygen. They had to run at times for survival. And fainting from lack of oxygen would be the death of them.
Whites have smaller noses because their environment is much more moderate. >what is evolution >you are retarded
>>37248120 I didn't make the image, but you can easily find enough smart black people to fill up a page. The image was probably made by a troll anyway. I was just trying to show having biased pics with no source doesn't help if you are trying to have a serious discussion
>>37248285 >Do you think the differences in genes made some people "better" than others. If a gene codes for you being less able to control your emotions and more aggressive or less intelligent, the answer is an absolute "yes".
>>37248432 >"Sickle-cell gene mutation probably arose spontaneously in different geographic areas, as suggested by restriction endonuclease analysis. These variants are known as Cameroon, Senegal, Benin, Bantu, and Saudi-Asian." >Variants In other words different mutations that produce similar effects. Still hereditary. And Tay-Sachs is absolutely an Ashkenazi-only trait.
>>37248517 >different mutations that produce similar effects >not biologically significant >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy#Response_to_Edwards How do you still not get it?
>You don't get sickle cell genes or Tays-Sachs from anyone other than niggers or jews respectively.
>"Sickle-cell gene mutation probably arose spontaneously in different geographic areas, as suggested by restriction endonuclease analysis. These variants are known as Cameroon, Senegal, Benin, Bantu, and Saudi-Asian."
so uh, you can get sickle-cell from a variety of different races then right?
so you were wrong?
the same guy calling people retarded because he knows so much about genetics was wrong right?
>>37248682 It doesn't need to, you idiot. You don't need a fucking journal to tell you what is desirable for a well-run society. Here, let's make it simple. Would you prefer a society of A: Intelligent and well-behaved individuals or B: Borderline retarded and hyperaggressive individuals? Can you make that judgment call or is that too "morally concrete" for you? You don't need a scientific study to understand this. If you're arguing about finding what genes CAUSE these traits, sure. But not whether or not they're desirable in a civilized society. If you want to argue that they're desirable out in the fucking jungle somewhere then you're literally arguing that people who behave like that should be shipped off to the jungle to rot, and I totally am in favor of that, whatever skin color the savage wears.
I just wanted to see if the anon would go through the effort to support his claim such as posting biographical information on each of the persons in the picture. It was mostly just to entertain myself but I see he doesn't want to go along, so I'll let it pass, I'm not going to pressure him any longer.
>>37248872 >His whole theory was predicated on the erroneous belief that there were special negro-only violence genes. Now you're just strawmanning. The argument was that there are genes that cause behavioral traits. And the original argument was that even disregarding race this was the case, but the fucking retarded liberals were trying to say because Lewontin "proved" race didn't exist that now genetics can't control behavior, which is totally unscientific and stupid.
>>37248896 >due to selective pressures on transatlantic trips on slaveships. What? Are you trying to claim that sickle cell evolved on the way to America? That wasn't even the point. The reason I originally named Africans wasn't because nobody on Earth had sickle cell outside of Africa - that wasn't the intention, but here in America, if you have sickle cell, you almost 100% got it from African ancestors. My point was that people don't just have genes that cross between different populations just because people want it to be that way. They have to come from a population and its descendants.
>>37248954 Oh my god, you're so fucking retarded. You don't even realize what your own argument was. You specifically asked "Do you think the differences in genes made some people "better" than others." Well first "better" is an abstract concept, so you'll have to set parameters by which the question could be answered. Since you did NOT, the default parameters I set for humans is "does this contribute to a peaceful and prosperous civilization or not?", and I answered the question accordingly. You weren't asking about "science", you were asking about a judgment and I gave one, and now you know exactly by which parameters I gave it. Happy?
>>37247415 You are a special kind of stupid that only an intelligent person can be. No shit the erected borders are slightly arbitrary but real scientist dealing with taxonomy encounter your supposed stumper all the time. Geographical or behavioural separation is used all the time to erect subspecies and intergrades are just accepted to occur. Sure there are a few ignorant lumpers in the community but they are intellectually lazy for politically convenient reasons. They either want to say a local population is not distinct so it does not merit protection or they want to ignore anthropological uncomfortable truths. Even if you argued most of humanity intergrades too much to define subspecies aboriginals from Australia should merit erection to subspecies level. They have been genetic isolated for 50000 years, since before the image ended.
>>37249208 >There are genes with strong correlations for certain behaviors. This shouldn't be an "argument." I totally agree. It just should be accepted for what it is.
>So now you are strawmanning? I'm not strawmanning shit. Allow me to quote from the very article itself (again):
"This argument has been cited as evidence that racial categories are biologically meaningless, and that BEHAVIORAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS CANNOT HAVE ANY GENETIC UNDERPINNINGS."
That's THEY'RE argument, not my "strawman" of their argument. Refute this. Please.
>In no way states anything like that. The problem is, this argument isn't just about YOU. But I'll address your argument also, because AGAIN the article already addressed it, thusly: different races have a multitude of traits caused by different genes which distinguish them and if you use those multiple genetic markers you can identify different races with a high degree of accuracy. Now you can fucking argue that that's a "social construct" all you want, but then you have to refute any species classification between any two species which can produce viable offspring also, which even you realize is retarded.
>Who are you referring to? The article, dummy.
>Do we agree on the post here? Sort of yes and no. Yes, that each GENE refers only to a subpopulation, but no if you think we should only judge race based on one gene alone. There is no "race gene" as you libs are so fond of saying. What few of you seem to realize is there isn't a "human gene" or a "female gene" or a "tongue gene", yet all of these things exist.
>I do this stuff for a living and it is sort of important to me. Then god help us. I sure hope you watched the Jonathan Haidt video and keep in mind what he says. We sure as hell don't need anymore people in the biological or anthropological sciences trying to "prove" that race doesn't exist and everyone is "created equal" when we're not.
>>37250338 We are superior while african's sat there and threw sticks we improved we grew you stagnated also no we should not be thankful to you because we were you and then bred with neanderthal's and became something much better
So it sounds like we more or less agree with each other, I think both extremes of the debate are so radical that it makes communication difficult.
The most ardent stormfag would argue that the offspring of a white + half-black/white pair was still a "nigger." Genetically it is possible for this offspring to receive all the "white" chromosomes from one parent while receiving only the white ones from their other parent, thus making it 100% genetically white (barring mutations, inversions, crossovers, etc during meiosis.(also the odds of this are one factorial 23 squared, i think?)) Point being, science doesnt matter to them when it comes to blacks.
On the other end of the spectrum you get the lovey dovey, "why cant we all get along" liberal types that say "we are all human!" despite the fact we are all, even identical twins, genetically unique.
As with most things in life, the truth is somewhere in the middle and far more nuanced.
My argument is that yes, genetics are massively important in behavior and yes, genetics are hereditary. The fact that we see the exact same behaviors expressed to varying degrees between races makes it scientifically more accurate and provides greater utility to group people according to their genetic phenotypes as opposed to "race (and this is without even getting into the difficulty of creating a meaningful scientific delineation between races)."
>We sure as hell don't need anymore people in the biological or anthropological sciences trying to "prove" that race doesn't exist and everyone is "created equal" when we're not.
The "we are all created equal" thing is vestige of our founding fathers and an idea to aspire to, not a scientific reality. Give everyone an equal shot and let them end up where they will. Not holding kids back due to assumptions and no making excuses for failures that had their shot at life. Equality of opportunity, not of outcome.
>>37250546 >My point was that "better" is defined by fitness I understood that, but you're missing the forest for the trees. We're not talking about some random animal living in the jungles of Northeastern Australia. We're speaking of hominids and their ability or lack thereof to create and be a part of a decent, well-run civilization.
>We can use your definition too. Except when you use my definition then you have to accept that some people ARE better than others in regard to being decent people and contributors to an advanced culture.
>Where is the science on what you are saying about race and genes. Again with this shit. What are you even asking? Are you asking if genes determine behavior? Are you asking if niggers are inferior to humans in creating civilizations? What, specifically are you asking for scientific evidence for?
Most of the blacks on the right are of Horn or West African origin, which any knowledge of the study of haplogroups will confirm will be mixed with caucasoidal populations.
These include groups from the Near East (E1b, J1, and J2), Europe (E1b, R1a, and R1b), etc..
That means Somalians, Nubians, Tuaregs, Ghanians, and similar groups are all effectively mixed by default and have a light brown to dark brown complexion; as opposed to Central Africans who are pure black.
>>37250990 >The most ardent stormfag would argue that the offspring of a white + half-black/white pair was still a "nigger." I would agree with this, but even the most retarded stormfag realized that the child would be half-white. What I and that stormfag have in common is the view that that isn't White enough to be considered "White". We don't care if such an offspring is considered "Black".
>Genetically it is possible for this offspring to receive all the "white" chromosomes from one parent while receiving only the white ones from their other parent, thus making it 100% genetically white Wow. There's such an insanely low chance of that ever happening I really doubt it ever has. Generally the offspring resembles a cross between the parents to some degree.
>Point being, science doesnt matter to them when it comes to blacks. Well, if we're discussing white trash nationalists, not much in the way of facts matters to them. I'm not one of them.
>On the other end of the spectrum you get the lovey dovey, "why cant we all get along" liberal types that say "we are all human!" despite the fact we are all, even identical twins, genetically unique. I'm starting to think we hold very similar views, except you're more liberal than me when it comes to race - though I'm probably more liberal than you when it comes to things like the environment or social structure.
>As with most things in life, the truth is somewhere in the middle and far more nuanced. Of course.
>not a scientific reality A lot of liberals believe it's an actual scientific reality and will argue it strenuously, even violently.
>Thanks for the thought provoking conversation. Sure.
>>37251830 Funny then, isn't it that the three groups with, by FAR the lowest IQs are also the ONLY three groups who have never created an advanced civilization. Caucasians have pretty much everywhere they've ever gone, East Asians have also, hell even Altaics (Native Americans have). But abbos? Nope. Niggers? Nope. Khoi-San? Nope.
>>37251852 >We don't care if such an offspring is considered "Black".
I am not a stormtard but I consider half white half blacks to be close to African Americans as they have 25-30% white genes. That is why a lot of half white half black have an easy time identifying with other African Americans,
>>37251885 Why would anyone say "race determines genes" when it's the other way around? That's like saying being female determines having double X chromosomes. I think what you're asking is how can I say that there is scientific evidence for races existing or that a given race can have similar traits that are different from another race. The answer to the first question is that yes, race really is a social construct. We have to determine who is what. Guess what though? That's true of nearly EVERYTHING. And it's not proof that race doesn't exist, because our definitions of it are the same as they are for subspecies of other animals - namely degree of relation and distinct differences, of which there are PLENTY in the Homo genus to separate different and distinct groups. If you're asking the second question the simple answer is "averages". I really shouldn't have to explain further than that. We know the average IQs of different races, we've tested many behavioral metrics in regard to different races, and they always come out the same. East Asians are slightly more intelligent and better behaved than Whites who are both vastly superior in both regards to niggers. There really aren't any circumstances where Whites and Asians come out behind Africans. You can only offer excuses for so long before you realize the differences aren't imagined or part of some literally cosmopolitan "slave culture" that's keeping the niggers down.
Western Rome didn't have a standing army after 400AD, and it wasn't overthrown - it gradually disintegrated and split off into seperate territories that maintained a similar culture to Rome before its "fall."
>>37252198 >>37252409 OP here I wasn't implying any superiority or inferiority. I was implying that I find it weird that people consider them subhuman when they are genetically more human than the rest of the earth.
>>37252276 The point that has been made over and over is that race, or regional backgrounds, whatever metric you want to use for sub-grouping along a social construct, is less biologically meaningful than variances in genetic populations that span all races. The whole argument you are making about niggers and asians being some distinct group is just fucking stupid. Where's the science.
>>37252605 >less biologically meaningful In what regard? It can't be sociologically, because anyone who looks at the evidence can easily see that niggers are cancer to any society that lets them in. It can't be medically, since every doctor knows that risk factors are different for different races - especially for those of African descent. My argument isn't stupid. You're just shoving marxist political views' fat ass into science.
>>37252695 I mostly make threads to see other views and learn more, I didn't know that before the thread because I've always seen people on /pol/ say blacks are full homo sapien without it being challenged, so I asked the question to clarify.
>he implied that because blacks are human, they can't be considered inferior I've never thought this, you misinterpreted my view.
>and you're wrong. not all humans are equal in all regards. I know this too
>>37253039 Listen. Japanese borrowed from Chinese to create their culture, but East Asians as a whole created civilizations built from scratch, so did Caucasians, so did Native Americans. Niggers have never built ANYTHING that wasn't borrowed from another race and reproduced at a vastly inferior level. Kush, for example is just a VERY shitty, much less interesting version of a pared-down Egypt.
>>37253093 Well, you're asking about social science now, but seriously, just pick ANY nigger population anywhere on Earth and it's a rundown shithole. There are only a few places in the Caribbean where this isn't true, and most of those are mulattoes.
>>37253093 >>37253137 I'll clarify, so you stop repeating yourself. If you're asking "where's the science" on IQ, then there is a fuckload of it. Pic related, for one. If you're asking about niggers' inability to create advanced civilizations, that's already been addressed itt and it's history. We don't need science to reveal history.
>>37253098 You're illiterate. This is just pseudohistory and pseudoscience. Asians aren't a group anymore than Egyptians and other Africans, but you just make all this shit up anyways so it isn't important to argue about it.
>>37253208 >pseudohistory and pseudoscience In what regard? Which specific point that I've made do you take issue with? And no, I don't mean "thas rayciss!" I mean name one thing I've said that isn't true.
>>37253230 >Asians aren't a group anymore than Egyptians and other Africans >built civ from scratch >reproduced at a vastly inferior level you talk like you're making stuff up. and for the most part, you say stuff that isn't supported by facts.
>>37253237 Except, no, not really. The Aurignacians had woven textiles, actual houses and shell mines and had domesticated at least the dog and most likely even the horse about 30,000 years ago. The East Asians were similarly advanced - Jomon pottery is some of the oldest known. The Altaics didn't even cross the landbridge until around 13,000 years ago, so their past is a bit more recent for physical reasons.
>>37253269 Holy shit you butthurt niggerfaggot. There are REAMS of data on the IQ of the various races. I literally just picked ONE. How about America's own decision to change the IQ used to determine mental retardation because HALF of African Americans fell below the threshold? It went up an ENTIRE STANDARD DEVIATION! That's nothing to ignore. Niggers are dumb as shit. The average AA IQ is 85. In Africa it's even worse. Some populations have IQs in the 60s and even 50s. This is all fact. Look it the fuck up for yourself.
>>37245356 > technology to cut and shape diamonds yeah, stopped reading right there. literally all you need is another diamond attached to something that can spin and lots of patience HOWEVER Nubia was famous for its gold mines in antiquity. to say all of Africa was a shithole always is pretty stupid.
>>37253336 >Asians aren't a group anymore than Egyptians and other Africans That's literally just opinion. Nobody gives a fuck what you think.
>built civ from scratch What are you attempting to claim, exactly? That everyone owes their civilizations to niggers?
>reproduced at a vastly inferior level Again, true. Name one nigger "civilization" this isn't true of. And hard mode: name one that doesn't have OBVIOUS copious amounts of influence from a Caucasian civilization.
>>37245748 >Statistical significance is not definitive in and of itself. Chance means that there will be statistically significant clusters that nonetheless are random. They are indeed still unlikely, therefore “outliers on a distribution,” which I think gives a better sense of what “signficant” means in statistics. Statistical significance does not mean significance in ordinary language, what we might call genuine significance.
>The MOA gene variants were first distinguished as low activity variant and high activity variant. It was suggested that the statistically significant correlation between male Maori crime rates and the low activity variant was genuinely significant. There were apparently no hypotheses about why or how the gene and aggression did not significantly correlate in females.
>When it was discovered that one of the low activity variants was prominent in ethnic groups that were not members of discriminated minorities, the story changed focus to distinguish low activity variants from each other. Then it was decided that the statistically significant correlation between low activity variant MOA-2R and the was the one that was genuinely significant, setting aside any question as to why or how one low activity variant is significantly correlated with aggression etc. in Maori men but not in Chinese/Taiwanese men.
>>37255736 >Further it has been found that the greatest statistical significance was for correlation between low activity MOA and punitive discipline in youth with aggression etc. It is uncertain low activity in neurotransmitter degradation would contribute to the development. It is not even certain that the low activity MOA-2R gene isn’t simply activated more often so that the degradation is more or less the same, in a process analogous to polycythemia and other physiological changes compensating for hypoxia.
>Lastly, variations in the deleterious effects from the MOA-2R variant are hypothesized to be due to plasticity genes. I gather this is to explain (or some might say, explain away?) a kind of mismatch in the presence of the gene and the quantitatively variable results. That is, why some with the gene are violent criminals and others not. After all, 5.5% of the African-American population are estimated to carry the gene.
>I think we have here an example of science chasing spurious correlations. Each time further research loses the correlation, the hypothesis of genetic causality of crime is refined, or redefined, to preserve it. I think you can see the process at work in the history retailed in the OP. When the Ficks and Walman metastudy found a “marginal” increase in aggressivity, they were saying that it was not even certain there was a statistical significance! The alleged phenomenon, as expected in spurious correlations, is disappearing.
>>37255754 >Further, there are wide variations in the standard for criminal behavior. Gambling addiction counted in one study. Even the more careful studies which specified behaviors such as shooting or stabbing seem to be unclear as to how they distinguished the aggressors in fights. The worst thing of all is that crime statistics are suspect for massive systematic errors due to racial discrimination. It is a reasonable alternate hypothesis that gangs flourish where the police treat the population as enemies. I think you can reasonably say that quite a few CEOs engage in antisocial behavior, but their genomes aren’t analyzed for correlations.
>You don’t just falsify hypotheses (contra Popper) but choose the best. I think the whole process has started with a Mars effect like Michel Gauquelin found for astrology. This chance correlation has been pursued with all the elaborate methods available, in the same way parapsychology pursues esp. But statistical significance only serves as a control when the statistics are properly used, which means truly asking is the phenomenon is real. When it keeps moving somewhere else, as in this case, we can be pretty sure it’s not.
>>37253372 IQ is a pseudoscience. If you don't think so, please account for the Flynn effect (it's definitely not hybrid vigor, although contending that it is is basically also contending that Americans have gotten smarter because of race mixing, and even that the superior genetic fitness of Africans somehow matters), and explain to me how g is anything but a tautology. I'd also like to know exactly what intelligence is; Shalizi discusses problems with defining it in this article:
>>37255962 What's really interesting about the Flynn effect is that it's the test questions that are supposedly the least culturally biased, that is, those that measure abstract thinking skills, that Americans have shown the most improvement on in the last century. The questions you'd think would have the least cultural bias, those testing vocabulary, arithmetic, and general knowledge questions, had the lowest gains.
"Races" have had too much proximity to each other for us to have significant genetic differences. The geographic isolation that groups have had has been too short to make significant changes to the genome.
>>37255962 >Raven’s test is often said (without good evidence) to suffer little or no cultural bias. Isn't the burden of proof on the ones saying that Raven's test -is- culturally biased? They are making the positive claim, not Raven-supporters. I don't see how pattern recognition is culturally biased, other than selecting 'right' answers for a particular pattern but other valid patterns are 'wrong' because the maker did not conceive of that pattern due to their culture.
>>37257905 Learn to read: it's in the American Scientist link. The author also has the credentials to do the review since the issue is largely a matter of statistical analysis.
The bias is the increase in the use of abstract thought in US society. Questions that test for this have shown the greatest change in the 20th century (and the change continues), which shows that what they test for is culturally learned rather than innate. General knowledge questions have shown some of the the least gain, although they are obviously very culturally biased (eg there's nothing "innate" about knowing the capital of Nigeria). And besides accounting for the Flynn effect, how do you explain g being anything but a tautology? The AS article describes the problem better than I could, I you want a review. It's not long.
Curious about this jpg reproduced earlier that talks of a paper that touches on loci of alleles having different proportions in a specific German urban population and a specific Nigerian population when either is compared to the amount in chimps. Those alleles loci aren't a genome, they're just selected points. If you read the (1994?) article, the authors don't really justify their use of those loci versus other loci, and they also don't justify the use of their calculations or clearly describe their reason for doing them and why that's the best way to answer their question. The paper's certainly not about the inferiority or superiority of any race, or about the amount of "primitive" DNA in a person's genome (what would be non-primitive DNA?). The paper doesn't even describe what those alleles do. And the Germans fall somewhere in the middle and a few non-Caucasian populations are on the opposite end of the Nigerians. They authors say this is because of sampling errors, but why don't they get better samples before they publish if that's the case? I suspect the person who posted the jpg about the paper from 1994 did so because genetics research since then hasn't shown that sub-Saharan African populations are more chimp-like and less human than Caucasian European populations.
I'm also not convinced that any of the stormiest here could even make sense of that paper! Please read it. It's short and extremely technical. Then explain it for a lay stormy.
you don't need science. Sub Saharan niggers didn't build a 2 story building until the 1850s when a missionary did it for them. They didnt have wheels. They didnt domesticate animals. They think raping lesbians makes them straight. They think if you rape a virgin it will cure your aids
Blacks know full well that they are inferior, we dont have to tell them, EVERY single one of them deep down knows it.
How can you come from a race with such a total lack of anykind of achievement, creation and invention and NOT realise that you are inferior?
No scientific advancements, no technological advancements, no medical advancements, no modern, advanced civilisations until Whites built them for you. No wheel until the White man gave it to you, no schools, cars, hospitals, electricity, motor engines, planes, houses, streets, towns, cities or anything of our modern way until the White man built them for you.
Blacks - You are vastly inferior in terms of intelligence and you know this just as much as me. It is extremely obvious to all.
I think you really have to question the mental capacity of somebody who looks at Africa and its history and then looks at Europe and its history and actually believes that 'we're all the same'. The differences in quantities of invention, creation, achievement and advancement are so VAST nobody with a sensible, critical mind could ever believe there is no difference.
I mean c'mon, its just quite clearly not true it is SJW/Blacks?
>>37266989 Wait, so none of these famous /pol/ red pills? No further explanations about the 1994 allele chimp paper? No credible, sourced, data-driven explanation of the Flynn effect? No response to the claim of p-chasing re MAOA studies? No repudiation of the concept of p-chasing or irresponsible statistics? No justification of g? Just old fashioned bigotry? Is there another /pol/? Am I on the wrong /pol/? Maybe there's a better educated /pol/ you can point me to, like on this dubs chan I keep hearing about.
>>37277125 Duh, that's the same 1994 paper I'm talking about. Why are those allele loci chosen? What do those alleles do? Why didn't the authors choose other groups if they think the outliers have sampling errors? What are they studying in the first place and what is their conclusion? What about the vast remainder of the genomes of those groups? The jpg meme version is lame. It's for people who lead with their bigotry instead of their sense of reason.
>>37277125 Oh, I see. I confused this with the 1994 Deka dinucleotide paper. It has a similar graph. The Cavali-Sforza work is much, much more significant, but he doesn't agree with you that it means that there's a scientific basis for racism. He even doubts the scientific basis of race itself:
Two of the core "scientific" tenets of your bigotry are in serious doubt. The "warrior gene" issue is an obvious instance of p chasing. P becomes less credible if researchers keep rejiggering the data for their correlations. P is how "scientists" attempt to "prove" astrology and the paranormal; if you can create new data points each time your previous work is invalidated, you can always chase a "statistically significant" p value. Keep in mind that "significance" is a specialized term in statistics. It doesn't mean importance or truth or even necessarily salience. The MAOA issue is a clear matter of p-chasing with small effects being repeatedly invalidated.
The IQ people don't even have a leg to stand on. No one is going to produce a credible, data-driven explanation for he Flynn effect. The hybrid vigor idea barely even rises to conjecture, and anyhow the implication would be that race mixing in America has raised IQ scores. Another implication would be that the higher genetic diversity among sub-Saharan African genes and their superior genetic fitness would make them smarter! The hybrid vigor numbers just wouldn't add up to the size of the Flynn effect.
Hello, stormies. I thought you guys were all about red pilling with truth and science and reality. Do you really just post jpgs about subjects you know nothing about and hope you can bluff your interlocutors that day?
>>37280636 How about responding to claims made about IQ and aggression. Find a credible, data-driven refutation of the Flynn effect. Explain how the MAOA issue is more than p-chasing. Etc! Read the thread. That stock white supremacist rhetoric works better when a thread is getting started.
>>37243560 at this point both sides of the argument are full retard. this is an issue of subspecies and it doesn't take that long for differences to appear.
dogs are the perfect example. a chihuahua is not a fucking great dane. both fall under Canis Lupus but they aren't the fucking same. fuckers pushing that "we're human so we're all the same" horseshit have managed to remove even common sense. even scientists are backed into a corner trying to explain it withoit being rayciss.
so fuck both sides for not opening their eyes and being realistic about the situation.
Thread replies: 283 Thread images: 41
Thread DB ID: 17069
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.