(untitled)

I don't understand how its taboo in todays age to talk about IQ and genetics of it. The stats and evidence is pretty clear, but when you extrapolate that some races have lower IQs than other races then people flip a tit. Whats so wrong with saying that blacks have lower IQs than whites? I don't understand it. Anybody can explain?(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST (Rule3,Rule 4)Always argue in good faith , Always elaborate on your opinions, you say the statistics and evidence are pretty clear but don't mention them in OP.)

Pretty much because upbringing and education are way more important than race. Black people usually are poor and have inferior quality of life.

>>2854 Simple: It's a generalization of a statistic that has little basis in reality. Remember friends, correlation does not imply causation. Black people have a lower IQ than white people, for instance, might be a true statement that can be backed up with statistics. Extrapolating that statement and making the assumption that this means all black people are genetically inclined to be less intelligent than white people, however, is not. In this particular case, availability of education is something that should be accounted for, among other things that most of these "studies" failed to even consider. Also, here's the part where I ask for sources. Blog articles, unsourced infographics, and facebook posts are not sources. Published academic articles are sources. You've made a point, now it's time to prove it.

>>2857 >Also, here's the part where I ask for sources. Blog articles, unsourced infographics, and facebook posts are not sources. Published academic articles are sources. You've made a point, now it's time to prove it. That's the problem. I could present you a million sources but you liberals would reject them for being not "scientific" enough until they fit your agenda.

>>2854 I was under the impression that nobody talks about IQ anymore, because the measurement of IQ was found to be lacking when concerned with actual intelligence. Am I incorrect in this assumption?

>>2859 lmao. how about you provide some sources instead of calling out "liberals" for your lack of research.

Why do people like you always try and pretend you're "just asking questions" or "just pointing out simple facts"? Just come out and say what you actually mean, don't dance around it with this bullsoykaf. Make a thread that says "I think black people are inferior and I'm cranky that no one will sit at the lunch table when I say it outloud". It makes it so much easier for everyone.

>>2859 >I *could* post sources but it's WAY easier to soykafpost

The genetics of IQ is a contentious topic, but not an inherently bad one. This topic could have some good discussion, so we're leaving it for now. If it turns into the typical political soykaf-slinging, it will be locked for low quality. Keep it classy. >>2859 >>2863 Knock it off.

Any discussion must derive from research and arguments. Your opinion is not a research. A book is not research. Studies are research. If you come from the assumption that "nah you won't believe me anyway haha~" then why the fuarrrk did you create this thread in the first fuarrrking place? You expect a insider trade session? Post truth, counter arguments against it, ignore baseless arguments. Reality matters, stop giving your opinion as reality, this is not fuarrrking 4chan, stop acting as if it was.

>>2859 Guy you replied to here. Do it. An academic paper is an academic paper. If you have nothing but pseudoscience and biased reports, please leave and take your opinions elsewhere, because that's all they'll be.

>>2859 Just like how those stupid liberals reject blogs that deny climate change in favor of peer reviewed research. Present Day, Present Time! AHAHAHAHAHA! Just post a fuarrrking source, I'll start us off with the famous one, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve This page is helpful because it links to criticisms too. There is the problem that Psychologists are particularly soykaf with sample sizes as well as their statistical interpretations in general, coupled with the already weak nature of IQ outside determining if someone is retarded.

>>2873 Disclaimer: that book was not peer reviewed before publishing, it's just I thought it might be a good starting point for this kind of discussion.

>>2856 That would mean that identical twins that were seperated at birth , and were raised in different environments, would have different IQs which simply isn't true and we have seen by meta-analysis that its factually false narrative.

I've met plenty of black people who were of average intelligence. I think that the reason why Africa didn't quite evolve was because of too much ethnic diversity/tribal conflicts. Some countries in Africa, such as Botswana, are a bit better than one would think with a stable, somewhat non-corrupt democracy. And that country has the lowest average IQ out of all of Africa, oddly enough.

>>2877 I don't think anyone here has argued that IQ and intelligence are not at least partially dependent on genetics (well, maybe >>2879). As the development of the brain is dependent on the genes that code for the proteins that, for example, make up the physical structure of the brain, we can assume that if there were modifications to any of these genes (or any genes involved in their expression), there would be some change to the brain itself. Changes in the physical structure of the brain could lead to changes in intelligence. Look to victims of Alzheimers for evidence of this. While the brain degrades and the mass physically changes, mental acuity drops and memory retention and access become increasingly difficult (this could be thought of as a "decrease" in intelligence, for the sake of the argument). Race is also dependent on genetics, but again, we can't just extrapolate the data to make an overarching claim like the one OP made. The genes that differ between races are not necessarily the same genes that code for the developmental proteins responsible for development of the brain (or the structural proteins that make up the bulk of it, as mentioned previously, or the receptor proteins at the end of a synapse, etc.). To claim that one race is genetically less intelligent than another race (OP's claim), it would need to be shown that racial based genetic differences DO include changes to these genes in question, and not just to genes that are responsible for physical characteristics (something that is potentially far less harmful if changed on a genetic level, hence the reason physical characteristics vary so widely while something like the physical layout of the brain does not). That's the evidence I'm waiting for. Show us that race based genetic changes include changes to genes responsible for development or function of the brain. We've had the technology to *quickly* do a study like this for ~20 years, so I'm sure the evidence exists somewhere for one side or the other. Also, forgive me, I'll cite the important parts of this soykaf tomorrow.

In todays society we mostly strive for meritocracy in which the average IQ doesnt matter, its the individuals merits.

>>2882 You need to include the idea that most, if not all people, in US are racemixed. I seen stats somewhere that average African American has 3% white genes or something like that.... so ya know... >>2885 >Changes in the physical structure of the brain could lead to changes in intelligence There is some high correlation between intelligence and thickness of outer layer of brain (the grey matter). Not to imply white matter isn't as, if not of higher importance (you need to interconnect different parts of your brains for better function, duhhh), but ya know... men have higher thickness of the grey matter than women so it's sexist, and whites have higher thickness than blacks so it's racist. >To claim that one race is genetically less intelligent than another race (OP's claim), it would need to be shown that racial based genetic differences DO include changes to these genes in question "Race" in of itself is a social construct, ie doesn't exist. It's fake classification. Better one would be "haplogroups" upon which there are obvious genetic differences (not just outer appearance, even though I think those characteristics are harder to change due to how evolution works). >>2887 true, however seeing the OPs pic you see that governments all over world have in their goal to soykaf on meritocracy and intelligence of individual. Why? Docile working class easy to control.

What I find most interesting about this debate is the argument that different races simply don't have the same education and upbringing as the others, which is true. However, I'd point to the societies these peoples have made as a better example of general ability. People always seem to complain that Negroes (that's a technical term) are failed by the Western education system, but there's no real equivalent education system built by them. Every other race it seems has an education system that it can claim suits itself best, except for the Negroes. So, simply comparing the societies or lack thereof, I feel is a good determinant of intelligence distribution. The very machines and computer networks we're currently using were created by Caucasoids and that's ignored, along with everything else that has been done by them. It seems that all of this arguing is disingenuous and that people can clearly see what happens, but this is made taboo for reasons I won't delve into. When a society argues about something so very obvious, like race, sex, or objectivity, it feels like it's on the brink of collapsing.

>>2860 "intelligence" is very vaguely defined tbh. IQ tests mostly measure how good you are at solving IQ tests. And this happens to correlate with how good you are at *some* jobs. So yes, people put too much faith in IQ. It's not a strong causal factor in financial success, in good decisionmaking, or whatever. It only vaguely correlates with that. As for the race/IQ thing, I've seen plenty of psychologists convinced that race is a mild predictor of IQ (even though I haven't seen the numbers myself), but I don't see why you'd then use race as an indicator of anything if a 5-minute conversation can tell you much more about a person. The problem with this subject is that people will often use it as an excuse to push racist agendas disguised as anti-low-IQ agendas.

>>2887 Everyone I know who ever scored extra high on an IQ test (and I don't mean "slightly above average") has agreed that the test itself is nonsense. Funny paradox there...

IQ is an antiquated system, the entire measurement of it is misconstrued in the public eye, similar to using statistics to justify unrelated theories. IQ is a measure of certain tasks that can be performed. historically, it was used to justify racism and other things. I used to have lots of information on the subject, but I lost all of my papers on it. Studies were conducted comparing functional African tribal societies vs western societies, and the conclusion was drawn that the African tribes were borderline mentally retarded by western standards of IQ, but they still functioned within their own society. Thus the conclusion was drawn that IQ was limited in its scope, as the Africans were less abstractly minded in the western sense, but were highly capable of advanced calculations of value for trade and exchange in their systems (these systems were equally not well understood by westerners). >Critics also feel that there may be serious cultural biases in the development of the standard tests which reduce their validity as a measure of cognitive ability for people of different races. >Standard tests are also often inappropriate for children with mental development problems, such as autism, since the skills measured (e.g.. adaptive) are poor indicators of intelligence in such children and have resulted in the incorrect assumption that most children with autism are mentally retarded. Intelligence tests predominantly measure only one of a number of different aspects of what makes a person effective as a human being. Standard IQ tests fail to measure a number of other practical skills such as emotional intelligence, practical intelligence, or creativity, in addition to not defining someones absolute ability (it is a measure of current capability, not the absolute limit of high or low) Additional batteries are needed to assess people variable skills, for example personality type tests. A standard IQ test would be like measuring how social you are and saying that that's how effective you are as a member of society.

>>2885 somalia - people starving everywhere, better make sure i dont get killed for my food , who cares about reading books sweden - good thing we have a sufficient public education system and health care, I think ill go become a banker since i excelled at math in school The human mind adapts for its unique situation, this brings to mind the idea of judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree. You cant expect particle physicists (said to have high IQs) to come from places where the predominant view is how you are going to survive until the next day. But I would trust the instincts of the latter much better than the prior. Pic related domestically built assault rifle from IRAQ, this obviously requires some sort of skill beyond most people, but IQ cannot easily define the abstract creative skill required to construct something like this.

I'd just like to note here that >>2900 is absolutely right. While I made an example of the physical structure of the brain (based on genetics), the environment a person is raised in has as much, if not more, of an effect on the ultimate development of the brain.

Because people are afraid it'll come off as "hurr negros are dumb" and hateful. I think it has more to do with the environment than with genetics though. I think if you took an African baby and put it in the place of a, let's say, Scandinavian child, it would perform as well as native Scandinavian kids. If that kid is raised in Uganda though and its brain is conditioned on milking sheep, running from militias and trying not to get AIDS, it's not going to perform well in a test that evaluates the ability to abstract. When you're trained on abstractions you'll do well in an IQ test, if you're only trained on non-abstract things, you'll do badly in an IQ test. When comparing different ethnicity from the same country, it's again down to conditioning. If you're busy with having to prove you're not to be fuarrrked with all the time, you won't spend much thought on the kind of abstractions, pattern recognition and combination that IQ tests consist of.

Well picture this, I could argue with you but that wouldnt solve anything. I dont think ive ever been able to convince anyone of anything online. So il explain to you why its taboo for many. People are people, and lots of us have attatchments to people we like and defend them. One thing I noticed about many alt right types, is that they dont have any friends who are let alone interact with people who are black. I know someone is going to say they do; Are they super whitewashed and believe the soykaf you do? And if not how can you call someone a friend while hiding all these secret beliefs about their intelligence and character, beliefs that if you told them they surely would not be your friend? This was me for awhile, and there was other alt right kids who went to our suburban high school where almost everyone was either white or mexican. After making really good friends with a different crowd after moving away from home it really changed my perspective. See now I could care less about all this sort of soykaf because I have friends I know and respect who are black. And I, like most people except those very absorbed in the internet, draw from personal experience. (Thats not a jab at you or anyone just something I noticed). How do you think my friends would feel about any of those pictures you posted? My real life friends that I care about and love. Do you think I even want to talk with somebody who sees people I care about and love as lesser, or have "intelligent discussion" about why some of my closest friends are dumber than the rest of the world. Thats my explanation to you of why its considered so taboo to me at least. ,

Didn't realize sarcasm about the flaws of IQ testing with a relevant image was against the rules. Maybe the mods were too dumb to understand math jokes.(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST (Rule 6), Side note if you don't elaborate on your sarcasm it can be mistaken for soykaf.)

This thread is just people explaining why OP is wrong (which he is, objectively). Nobody posted a single argument in favor of the original post. Clearly it was just a low quality bait post, i can't see why it's not locked yet. People come, people see the baseless affirmation, people refute it, people leave, rinse repeat. We should be better than that.

>>2914 Well to be fair he asked to explain why it was taboo, not if it was correct or wrong so I did that in my post a few up. Though I do think its bait because of the comic. And im also not entirely sure whether, even though some people will accuse this site of being a hugbox or some soykaf, this sort of discussion should even be allowed here. I get we are a chan, but its pretty standard for sites to have rules against racism. Diversity of ideas can be good, but what good comes out of the idea that certain peoples ideas are worth less. Even more what good comes out of arguing about it, and you can not bring up a topic like this here without an extremely low quality discussion.

>>2915 >you can not bring up a topic like this here without an extremely low quality discussion. I highly disagree, if there was evidence, there would be grounds for discussion. You can't have a high quality discussion flat-earth, because any high quality discussion relies on truth. It's not about the sensitivity of the topic, but the fact that the topic has the density of a leaf. You can't have a high quality discussion when there's nothing to discuss.

>>2906 >I think it has more to do with the environment than with genetics though. I'm surprised that my post >>2889 has been ignored so far, as I cover this very point. >I think if you took an African baby and put it in the place of a, let's say, Scandinavian child, it would perform as well as native Scandinavian kids. This is shown to not be true. To use a prominent example, this doesn't happen in Detroit, a Western city with a great deal of money poured into its education system. >If that kid is raised in Uganda though and its brain is conditioned on milking sheep, running from militias and trying not to get AIDS, it's not going to perform well in a test that evaluates the ability to abstract. When you're trained on abstractions you'll do well in an IQ test, if you're only trained on non-abstract things, you'll do badly in an IQ test. >When comparing different ethnicity from the same country, it's again down to conditioning. If you're busy with having to prove you're not to be fuarrrked with all the time, you won't spend much thought on the kind of abstractions, pattern recognition and combination that IQ tests consist of. I don't see why that should impact any of this. Again, as I covered, many peoples, asides from the Negroes, had functioning societies, yet they didn't. Does it show nothing that Japan, China, and Europe were advancing and thriving, while Africa was the same and that when Europe ventured to Africa, it was still that way, and that today it is still largely like that, asides from the vestiges of society left by the Europeans? I don't understand why history is being entirely ignored here. Every excuse is made for those who had no civilization, at the expense of everyone else.

Could I ask why this topic matters to you so much. Why is it vital that you prove black people are less intelligent. What do you seek to accomplish in doing so. Even if you do does that change anything? An average difference of about 10 points on a test that is, even if good, objectively not a perfect measure of intelligence (as that would imply we have full understanding of what intelligence even is). It probably would be unfair to say there is a margin of error. It probably wouldnt be unfair to say that perhaps its a complex issue and that more than genetics accounts for some of that gap. Your chart showing a decline in intelligence probably has less to do with black people and more to do with chemicals im our water supply. If you make your point there is no call to action, its an average. If IQ determines success, then black people who are successful enough are still equally qualified for a job in whatever field they are in and have high IQs. It doesnt mean they arent "worthy" of society or are capable of less. You really dont have to be all that intelligent to be a productive member of society, and plenty of people not considered intelligent by tests have still produced great art or even inventions. What would you suggest to do with an entire population of perfectly good people because they have 10 less points on average on an imperfect test. Even if you chose to believe that is why our global intelligence is dropping, in another hundred years after we have all mixed together some more our IQ will have once again risen to probably higher than it is now. With the advent of technology scores on IQ tests have gone up significantly I believe, which certainly points that other factors have much more of an impact than race does on IQ.

I honestly wouldn't mind either way, whether IQ is genetic or not. But it will never change the fact that the black people in my life, no matter how anecdotal they may be as statistics, have been great people to be around and talk to.

>>2923 I gotta stop you, as you've clearly never been to Detroit. The public school systems are some of the worst in the country, and are a sad excuse for what education should look like in a first world country. Corruption takes the vast majority of money that's fed to the system, and even after Kwami got removed in 2008 scams and scandals in the administration continue to pop up regularly. If anything, it should be used as evidence to further the exact opposite argument to the one you've been trying to make.

>>2923 Also, in response to "I don't see why that should impact any of this.": http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/edu/20/4/241/ should be used as a starting point for getting an idea of how environment shapes development.

>>2927 >I gotta stop you, as you've clearly never been to Detroit. The public school systems are some of the worst in the country, and are a sad excuse for what education should look like in a first world country. That's very clearly because of the students. Using Detroit as an example isn't the main point of my post. >>2930 >Also, in response to "I don't see why that should impact any of this.": http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/edu/20/4/241/ should be used as a starting point for getting an idea of how environment shapes development. I'll take a look at this. Now why don't you address my other points?

This is just a bait thread. Why would mods allow this sort of polspam?(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST (Rule2, Rule 6), Side note even if it is bait thread, it is your job to follow Rule 5 and ignore the bait / don't feed the trolls.)

>>2934 >"That's very clearly because of the students." h w a t Would you mind explaining how we can blame the students for a superintendent that buys a $100000 SUV with money that was supposed to go towards school supplies? Or how we could blame the students for an administration that outsourced school lunches to a company that won the bid for the contract by bribing members of the board, including the principle (leading to shortages in food, even after switching to the cheapest soykaf physically available for human consumption)? Even if it wasn't the main point of your argument, it was used as evidence to push it forward. That paper should address several other points you made as well, and would make a point for students that don't want to learn, or aren't interested in their education (still using Detroit as an example city). Being raised by people that never had the chance to get an education will have an effect on the child. Being raised in an environment where crime is accepted as a part of daily life will have an effect on the child. Being raised in poverty, in a house that's half burnt down (everything burns in the summer) and offers little protection from the environment, let alone a place to study or a place to read, will have an effect on a child. It was a fun argument at first, but now I think it's time to let the thread die.

>>2938 >Would you mind explaining how we can blame the students for a superintendent that buys a $100000 SUV with money that was supposed to go towards school supplies? Or how we could blame the students for an administration that outsourced school lunches to a company that won the bid for the contract by bribing members of the board, including the principle (leading to shortages in food, even after switching to the cheapest soykaf physically available for human consumption)? Even if it wasn't the main point of your argument, it was used as evidence to push it forward. I'd cite that other school administrations are corrupt and yet the students can still path basic math proficiency. >Being raised by people that never had the chance to get an education will have an effect on the child. I'm reminded of people in early Europe and the US that were the first in their families to receive a formal education and they went fine. >Being raised in an environment where crime is accepted as a part of daily life will have an effect on the child. Well, it's an official statistic that Negroes commit crime at a higher rate. Are we to acknowledge the trend and ignore what very clearly seems to be the cause, over many decades? >Being raised in poverty, in a house that's half burnt down (everything burns in the summer) and offers little protection from the environment, let alone a place to study or a place to read, will have an effect on a child. I draw back to my Europe and US example. The simple fact seems to be that excuses are constantly made for this segment of the population. I, again, cite that there have been European societies that have gone through far worse troubles and still managed to be world superpowers, whereas the African equivalent simply doesn't exist. Why don't we use Jews as an example? They've clearly been persecuted throughout history for reasons irrelevant to this discussion. Now, despite this, they're still a reasonably intelligent group, albeit being more inclined towards mental diseases due to genetic reasons. Now, why would Jews be able to overcome this whereas the Negroes can't? What reason could there possibly be? Could it simply be that genetics is, in fact, a very reliable indication of intelligence and that this has been shown again and again through formal study and history alike? You have ignored every point I've made except for the one that you felt was weakest and allowed you to latch onto. I can't believe you're arguing in good faith if you're going to only focus on a single point I've made and not even attempt to address what else I've written.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

I dont want to come off as racist, because I am not... But according to statistical data, blacks perform lower on IQ tests than other races. There is no denying this fact, as it has been tried time and time again. However, the majority of this thread has established why the correlation between race and low IQ does not imply a causation thereof. You can raise a child to perform well on an IQ test by running practice questions (this is exactly what those "make you smarter with a game apps that *will raise IQ 10 points*" There are however genetic predispositions to gain or ignore task performance enhancement for standard IQ related tests, this has been well established to be a result of long term genetic traits. The cause of it is evolutionary survival. This is the same reason that overall some cultures are not as strong as blacks are, because traits like strenght and muscle density are no longer useful in a wired society that has machines that can lift the load of 10 humans. Instead, desirable traits (aside from the remaining natural desire for strong men / wide hipped large breasted women) are more in line with wealth, and education (which results in an increased wealth) and stability for a child. Dealing with this topic is more the subject of determining an increasingly obsolete existence, human 1.0 needed to be strong, and due to the nature of latitude could exist relatively simply in the tropic regions, the end result being little NEED for evolution. natural selection just selected for the strongest and fittest, with feedback loops going into things like sickle cell anemia to prevent malaria. Human 2.0 who migrated becasue muh migratory animuls had to develop further technologies to survive in areas where nobody really wanted to go (why go to the cold european regions when you could just live in the warm sahara, *disregard lions. Human 3.0 on the other hand will be all brains and no muscle (except for the rare bodybuilder), because unless we have some social ending event to affect evolution, traits like monetary worth and artificial augmented surface beauty will be selected for (the same idea goes for medicine saving the lives of people with life threatening conditions, who will go on to pass those genes to offspring). Also, genes that help complex thought are not usefull in split second decision making, so thinkers die out to doers when the environment is not stable (i.e. the doers keep the thinkers alive to give them stuff). As to the current state of Africa, many tribes had complex matriarchal ritual societies with a stictly enforced social codes, but when western technology was introdued, it reultedin bloodshed on he massive scale. Think of it like gang fights where everyone shows up to a place, they beat each other up, one or two die, problem solved everybody else goes home. Then dynamite and guns are introduced, now instead of one or two the deaths account for +60% of a tribe, and the only cultural option is to retaliate for slaughter.

It's really depressing that such a blatant bait thread gets so much traction. More than that, that the discussion around a bait thread ends up as a low quality discussion with no regards for truth and research. Don't go that path, Lain.(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST (Rule 6) Discussion on post quality belongs on /q/)

>>2958 Why are you not racist? Science is racist and I am a man of reason. We'd all be better off without black people. Eugenics was an idea that would allow people to live a better life. Ugly, defective, stupid people are less likely to be born, thus reducing suffering for both individual and collective. I wish I was selectively bred, life would've been more enjoyable.

>>2962 With eugenics you wouldn't be bred at all.

>>2900 > Pic related domestically built assault rifle from IRAQ Clearly, an ad-hoc modification of some cheap AK-47 derivative.

>>2962 Science is neutral. Racism or non-racism or anti-racism are ideologies which should be chosen from according to science. You fail.

>>2896 IQ tests are mostly a test of your ability to take tests. So many people I knew with high IQs, in advanced classes and so on, ended up alcoholics and general failures at life. Myself, for one.

>>2961 I kinda started to understand why scientists don't relase data like that to the world openly(or even study it at all). It's scary that some guy uses what you discovered to reinforce their worldview. Darvin for example had a massive problem with the fact that some people used his discoveries to "invent" social darvinism

>>2971 Unfortunately it's a universal problem, this scientific cherry picking. Pretty much every political ideology and a lot of trendy consumer products are "scientifically proven" somehow, meaning the seller chose the one set of results that supported what they wanted to believe and ignored countless others. As soon as someone claims science has "proved" anything, you know they don't know the meaning of the word science. The most powerful mass communication tool ever invented (internet) only makes smart people able to access more information and quicker. It does nothing for stupid people who just scramble to "prove" what they were going to believe anyway.

>>2962 >We'd all be better off without black people. That's exactly what people in egypt would have thought about anyone else. Before their people were raped, sold and killed for over a thousand years, that is. Also, that is exactly what we would think of the japanese a few dozens of years ago. You're ignoring science and history in your argument. You're assuming that black people lived in their closed off little island and never grew from that. Not 50 years ago black people were not allowed to realistically receive education in most countries. By your argument, we should have no black scientists or researchers with meaningful contributions to the scientific body. i wasn't going to reply but i found this image and it really fits this whole thread

Its funny how OP keeps mentioning people cherrypicking the weak parts of his arguments because they cant address his good points when he wont reply or blows off posts that are strong with no actual logicak argument and just disagrees and says your wrong. Its nature to go after the soykaf thats obviously wrong, you arent an exception and its evidenced by this thread.

>>2974 I'm not the OP. I only have four posts in this thread. >>2889 >>2923 >>2934 >>2940

>>2854 >>I don't understand how its taboo in todays age to talk about IQ and genetics of it. First you need to understand what makes something taboo or not in general. See the attached pdfs for some additional information as well as doing your own research, starting with Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taboo) and other encyclopedias in your local libraries and then into books and other sources on the topic of taboos. Searching your favorite search engine of choice for study of taboo or sociology taboo study is one such starting place. Next there is the topic specific issue, which has been elaborated in several places including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy http://www.alternet.org/story/152944/iq_blackout%3A_why_did_studying_intelligence_become_taboo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JLH9OKMnbU ( Race and Intelligence Science's Last Taboo Youtube Link) https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/1999/iq-and-race-web-sites https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/my-problem-with-e2809ctabooe2809d-behavioral-genetics-the-science-stinks/ http://news.nationalpost.com/news/the-science-taboo-there-may-be-genetic-realities-to-race-but-not-along-the-lines-we-expect http://jonjayray.tripod.com/geneiq.html https://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/11/26/linda-s-gottfredson/flynn-ceci-turkheimer-race-intelligence-opening-moves Once again feel free to do your own research, both online and offline. >> The stats and evidence is pretty clear, but when you extrapolate that some races have lower IQs than other races then people flip a tit. The statistics and evidence in most scientific studies is rarely pretty clear, in order for a scientific study to be valid it needs to be peer reviewed and replicated in multiple (>3 but as many as possible) studies and it depends to have a correct design of experiments as well as appropriate metacognition and disclaimers for its biases as well as any statistics and sampling done being correct and suitability representative. Such replication can take several years for an initial study and even longer for subsequent replications of said study or when studies have long temporal monitoring components. Extrapolation based on data is just that extrapolation, some things you can extrapolate and predict from data, other things you can not or are likely to have much greater difficulty doing so, due to overfitting, underfitting, overgeneralization, overspecialization and also data sampling and sample size, nevermind the logical relationship between your data, the null hypothesis and alternate hypothesizes you are using and the conclusions that your research draws from the data or the trend, as well as the conclusions drawn by the reader of your research. See http://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174 for an example. >>Whats so wrong with saying that blacks have lower IQs than whites? I don't understand it. Anybody can explain? Firstly, you need to define your terms, what do you mean by wrong, blacks, whites, lower , IQs. Not defining your terms means that the your statements is ambigious as a worse case and with implication disparate meaning at best case. Are blacks people we cover in black paint ? Are they based on racial genetic markers ? country of origin ? Sashes like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcBTOU7RvbU . By wrong are you talking about something being incorrect ? inappropriate ? morally reprehensible ? illegal ? unjust ? etc ? By whites are you talking about egg whites ? the whites of someone's eyes ? albinos ? an ethical group ? a set of countries of origins ? a box on a census form ? requiring a KKK membership ? genetic markers etc ? What do you mean by lower ? Are you using ordinal or cardinal numbers ? Are you comparing discrete or continuous variables ? Are you using a particular metric or criteria or evaluation strategy to determine what is lower ? Are you comparing quality vs quantity or some combination of both ? By IQ, do you Intelligence quotient or some other abbreviation , if the former, which of the 11 different variations of IQ test are you referring to ?See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient for more information. Secondly, there are the issues that a sample of people is not necessarily representative of the whole, that just identifying actual IQ difference between different people can provide no or little information as to the reasons for such difference, nature vs nurture vs environment, etc that IQs are not the only measure of intelligence of a person that intelligence is not the only measure of a person's worth or contribution to society that even using a fictitious cultural idea such as race as an adjective specifier in such a comparison leads to emotive associations and connotations being made by people because of the association with words black and white, and blacks and whites. the issue that comparing two groups , based on two sets of binary criteria (not black, not white, black, white) and one discrete numerical criteria that is point in time evaluated as opposed to Poisson or reevaluated multiple times is not as authoritative as a broader spectrum comparison and leads to the illusion of false dichotomies in conclusions were their is insufficient data to justify such things etc. the issue that people misinterpret such statements as personal attack on their identity and sense of self as a person and as member of communities and humanity etc. There are plenty of other issues as well, this is just a short list. These issues don't make making such a statement wrong, but they can make making such a statement contentious, hence the labeling of this thread by others as a bait thread. Hopefully that answers your question, otherwise best of luck with your research.

>>3021 nooo it was already dead what are you doing lainnnnnnn

>>3021 >deconstructing the terms: the post yea yea yea "you need to define the terms" is a nice way of saying "I don't know how to google" or "if you try to define them then I will deconstruct them with constant beration of questions" There is no actual use trying to talk to you, to be honest Just laught at your autism from a distance

>>5059 >gets BTFO in a comprehensive manner >unable to respond >still pushing your fraudulent, unscientific Globalist agenda >"Uh, uhhhhh I can't think of any comprehensive response to their legitimate questions and issues because my Globalist employers didn't include critical thinking and well thought-out responses that directly challenge my globalist framing of the topic in my training manual. So I refuse to engage their questions and issues and I'm just going to call them autistic instead. Yep, that'll show em." Stay assmad, globalist kuck.

>>2887 This be true and good as well. Having high IQ is guaratee of nothing. Having a proper work ethic is much much more important.

>>2887 >>5063 Ugh You are just perpetuating capitalistic propaganda which tries to push capitalistic systems of oppression on minorities by boasting about "meritocracy". It IS OBVIOUS that people of color live harsh lives not because they don't have merit but because whole system is pinned against them. You capitalist pigs.

>>2854 it seems like a dumb question to me inelegance is not purely genetic, even if we assume you're right and blacks are genetically less smart than whites, a black man who studies hard and comes from a well off background who has had opportunities for education will be smarter than a white guy who hasn't had those opportunities or tried as hard. Just like a white guy who trained all his life will be able to beat a black guy who hasn't trained in a race, even though the consensus is that blacks are better at sports genetically. What is your end goal by saying this about genetics? Blacks should have easier education because they're born dumb? Because that doesn't sound good to me. Blacks should be killed because they're all stupid? Well that's clearly not true because there are many smart black people who just have to work hard or whatever, and there are many stupid white people should they be killed too? I don't have stats to back this up, this is pure speculation so feel free to prove me wrong but I suspect that class has a much more significant impact on intelligence than race. Your question is why is it 'taboo' to point this out but you could figure that out in ten seconds by thinking about the history behind eugenics. People instantly associate it with Nazis and regimes like that, so obviously the mainstream is not going to approve of that why is that hard to understand. You are obviously just trying to start soykaf OP

>>5077 >if we train a person to repeat answers to questions maybe then they will be smarter even by your own logic blacks (on average) are underperforming SAT scores are biggest for asians and jews, then whites, then hispanics and only then blacks And even then, I am not promoting "negative eugenics" as you said by killing people, but positive one. Merely allowing people with higher IQs and better performances in work and overall bigger intelligence to have more children. I want the Nobel Prize winners to have 20 kids while everyone else has 2 kids tops. I want Mensa people to have 20 kids. I want engineers, mathematicians, scientists, physicists and programmers to have 20 kids while that supermarket clerk that will never succeed in life has 1 kid. I don't want to kill anyone. And IT IS TRUE, that most of these low paying, low intelligence jobs are usually done by blacks. Not because they can't get higher up in life (we seen other minorities change their economic status in 2 generations, as is example of those Japs that were laundry shops owners stereotypes, now known as "why you no doctor yet" stereotypes that push their childrens to be like smart robots). >but I suspect that class has a much more significant impact on intelligence than race. Look into meta analysis of twins that were seperated at birth. Twins (same genetics), seperated at birth (different environments and class), and what does their info say? They have same (similar enough) intelligence. Meaning that under different environments the genes will adapt a little but obviously will follow some pre-formed path and their desired destination. Intelligence is therefore a mostly genetic influence. >People instantly associate it with Nazis and regimes like that, so obviously the mainstream is not going to approve of that why is that hard to understand Well, that's how you break the taboo, by talking it out with others. >You are obviously just trying to start soykaf OP I am trying to talk it out. Just because you got angry doesn't mean I wanted you to get angry. Sure, I was out there and little bit pushed the buttons, but that is all just so it doesn't stay a taboo. Eugenics, positive eugenics, promoting good genes and desirable traits without killing is a good thing. Giving money and resources to people that have bigger intelligence is obviously the best thing we as humans want for them to have more kids.

The reason it's taboo is because most people don't understand normal distributions, how the IQ test works, or how fast average population IQ can change. The reason a meritocracy is needed and discrimination based on race is stupid is because even if the average IQ in nigeria is 85 there are more people in that country with an IQ of over 115 than there are people in scotland. The other thing you left out of your post is context. Most people who do mention racial IQ don't just talk about it by itself it's usually related to some other political issue which leads many people to perhaps wrongly assume the person bringing it up is a racist of some sort. But with regards to non selective immigration it is valid to talk about averages because you are bringing in people with no selection criteria. These arguments about people from the third world scoring lower on IQ tests for cultural reasons or lack of education even if true don't hold any water because they would still have difficulty performing well in the west for those same reasons. It is not ok to condemn a whole group because the average of that group is low people need to be treated as individuals. There is good evidence to show that the lower IQ scores seen in people from the third world have to do with nutritional deficiencies in childhood. It is also important to not forget that we did not get where we are overnight and it's likely with better nutrition and industrialization there is no reason to assume that over successive generations the average IQ of these populations could rise just like what happened in the west we did start from the same common ancestor after all. However I don't think that it is the duty of any country or civilization to try to fix everything wrong with the world. It's a laughable notion that teenagers in china in the 1300s would be concerned about the horrors going on in europe during the second outbreak of the plague, but we find ourselves in a similar situation today.

>>5081 >better nutricion == better IQ Again, we are seen time and time again. No amount of poor africans porn for those wanting to show sympathy is going to change the notion that in South Africa IQ tests are performed REGULARLY and they regularly show a 20 point difference between whites and blacks from same class background. >However I don't think that it is the duty of any country or civilization to try to fix everything wrong with the world When you put it in that sort of terms no, but when you frame it in "a group of people wanting a better future for their children and their group" is obviously a different matter all together. Countries, governments and corporations want dumb masses of people that consume and are like taxable cattle. People do not.

>>5082 >No amount of poor africans porn for those wanting to show sympathy is going to change the notion that in South Africa IQ tests are performed REGULARLY and they regularly show a 20 point difference between whites and blacks from same class background. Poor nutrition does not explain all of it but it does explain the 10 point gap you see between well fed and underfed members of similar populations. I never claimed that feeding blacks well would put them on the same level as whites but it is probably the difference between an average of 75 in sub saharan africa and an average of 85 as seen in the US. >When you put it in that sort of terms no, but when you frame it in "a group of people wanting a better future for their children and their group" is obviously a different matter all together. The problem with identity politics on any side is that it's an easy way to lose track of the real issues. Uncontrolled immigration, affirmative action and social justice can all be argued to be bad for society without having to talk about their effects on a particular group. By framing everything in terms of how it helps or hurts your group you just become another affinity group vying for it's own interests not the interests of the country/civilization. It's affinity groups like this including the zionists which you hate yet emulate that are destroying western democracy because they see society/civilization as something to be made to serve them, not something to serve.

>>5085 >an average of 75 in sub saharan africa and an average of 85 as seen in the US ...or it could be attributed to the miscenigation of blacks and other races in US? Who will know... >identity politics is wrong You have identity by virtue of your life. Your ancestors fought and died to secure your existance and future. Their history is your history. You live their lives through your mere existance. You have identity whether you wish for it or not. The best example of this is Sargon of Akkad. The Sargoy of Cückad people that say anti-identitarian stuff are just nihilists in disguise that want to assume that ideology is all that matters, when even that gives you an identity. Sargon is now trying to dissasociate himself from "skeptic community". Why? Because he doesn't like ANY kind of identity attributed to him. He doesn't think it holds any value, but it does. As far as I see it anti-identitarians are either nihilists or special snowflakes that believe that their lives are special and therefore can't be put in a box. >can all be argued to be bad for society without having to talk about their effects on a particular group that is because it affects particular group far more than others? Asians suffer because of affirmative action Uncontrolled immigration stiffles working class (predominantly white) Social justice assumes white guilt for all wrong in world, again whites suffer >you just become another affinity group vying for it's own interests not the interests of the country/civilization Civic nationalism is a joke Cultural and ethnic hegemony is strength of country/civilization, not diversity. You can't expect for everyone to hold hands and stay together with common goal when people have natural ingrained tendencies for in-group preference. Whether it be "one identitarians or the others, or n-th group" everyone is looking out for themselves and their group. And I think that is okay and natural way of looking at things. Blacks can have their own nations, Asians can have their own nations, but why do we have to push for mixing in only white countries? Why do we have to push uncontrolled immigration and affirmative action and social justice only in white countries? See? There is only one group of people affected by this new marxist movement, and it isn't the Japanese or South Koreans. >'s affinity groups like this including the zionists which you hate yet emulate that are destroying western democracy I have nothing against pure zionists. However, I hate when AIPAC controls US politics, when jewish interest groups push for US wars in middle east that Israel wants US to fight for them. When jewish interest groups literally suckle on US like a leech, giving money to Israel in form of donations instead of loans. Money WASTED on countries we don't care about. We care about us, they care about them. That is model I want. I hate jews that promote pro-Israel sentiments but on US soil. That's the type of zionists I hate. >because they see society/civilization as something to be made to serve them, not something to serve >something to serve this is the part where I got "huh?" Every group on planet seen western success in last 50 years and they want to emulate it, with a little twist: they don't want their countries filled with someone outside. And that is kind of mentality that everyone understands because it's natural to way we evolved in tribal group way during our early primate days. Now, it was hard for me to decipher what you said so I am assuming you meant something along the lines with "as long as we have laws and constitution it doesn't matter if our country is white or brown" which simply isn't true. The color of skin matters, not in sense that it's a small change to human anatomy but that it is a history indicator of people before you. People that helped build the country you were in, and even before that, helped their tribe. The uncontrolled immigrants that are coming into YOUR paradise didn't build it initially. The affirmative action LEECHES didn't earn it. Social justice fuarrrkwads turn the other cheek on other races doing wrong to whites in history and only look at white guilt.

>>5086 pic forgotten

Am I wrong or some posts were eliminated? I'm sure there was a good reason for that (this thread is quite cancerous tbh) but can we have a thread in /q were all the eliminated posts go? You'll be able to know to which thread they belong to by the number of which post the eliminated one is replying to, and if there is no one we can add the OP's one. Cause seeing your posts simply disappear is a bit disorienting.

>>5131 The anti-globalist posts about Venezuela were moved to >>4814, because they were off topic here. Currently they are moved manually using functionality that doesn't update citations, I am working on functionality so that moves will update citations and also the option of messages than communicate the posts were moved, but such development takes time.

This exact OP rant with the exact accompanying images was posted before. It's really poor form you know.

>>5086 >As far as I see it anti-identitarians are either nihilists or special snowflakes that believe that their lives are special and therefore can't be put in a box. Not an argument. I also never said it was wrong or implied that it was. The point I was making about identity politics was how it reduces everything into an US vs THEM situation which is not always an ideal way to look at the world. >Uncontrolled immigration stiffles working class (predominantly white) You know that you can make the argument without making it a white issue. By making it a white issue you only hurt your cause and make it easier for the left to attack your position and the position of people who agree with you but not for those reasons. >Civic nationalism is a joke >Cultural and ethnic hegemony is strength of country/civilization, not diversity. You are just arguing for civic nationalism albeit for ethnically/culturally homogeneous nations. >You can't expect for everyone to hold hands and stay together with common goal when people have natural ingrained tendencies for in-group preference. All of post enlightenment western civilization is built with the assumption that a system of checks and balances in government and the law can prevent corruption. If you don't believe that's possible I don't know how you think making a nation ethnically pure could solve the problem of sub groups fuarrrking over other people to help themselves. >Now, it was hard for me to decipher what you said so I am assuming you meant something along the lines with "as long as we have laws and constitution it doesn't matter if our country is white or brown" which simply isn't true. The color of skin matters, not in sense that it's a small change to human anatomy but that it is a history indicator of people before you. People that helped build the country you were in, and even before that, helped their tribe. The uncontrolled immigrants that are coming into YOUR paradise didn't build it initially. Not an argument. I'm also not pro immigration for a number of reasons unrelated to race. This whole idea of tribalism being natural is correct, but so is soykafting in the woods. Tribalism is also not workable at the national level. Tribalism really only comes into play with groups smaller than dunbar's number. Outside of that you can have a shared culture bringing individuals together but even those don't really exist at a national scale. In 1780 less then 30% of the french population even spoke modern french as we know it today and they still managed to have a nation. They did not share a cultural or even an ethnic identity with each other but a national one. Local culture has always been stronger and more important to people than a national one. "white culture" and "white values" do not exist if you actually study history. What built modern civilization was commerce, property rights and good government. White people have also historically hated each other for tribal reasons the irish are a great example of that. I would also like to say fuarrrk you collectively to everyone who likes to say anyone who talks about genetics being a factor in things is a racist or a nazi. When you say everyone who speaks about a topic is a "bad person" usually only the actually bad people are left speaking because they have no reason to fear the label.

>>2854 >I don't understand how its taboo in today's age to talk about IQ and genetics of it. Science is scary. Genetics are scary. Evolution is scary. It is scary to consider that even if you were the best human in existence, eventually there would be an even better one. One which surpasses you in every way. TL;DR > science is scary and counterintuitive /thread

>>5166 Tried posting my reponse, but lainchan doesn't allow it for some reason (tried to avoid common word filters, but hey...) so here is my response: https://pastebin.com/e3Adws58

> someon maek chart so i repost > that mean i win argyments > is all true if all on chart

>>5064 I'm not disagreeing with you but surely living under bourgeois democracy is better than living under some fascist society where implicit inequalities are made explicit and impenetrable.

>>5189 what are you on about?

except the fact that IQ tests are not effective evaluations of intelligence, (which their not) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3oUqKUx2o0 (Adam Ruins Everything)

>W-wait!! Whom "define" IQ ? And created for whom ? ><

>>5247 I scored higher than most people I know. I'm not talking "just accepted to mensa lol," I mean somewhat higher than that. I'm a perma-NEET alcoholic who is only saved from life (and death) in a gutter by an inheritance. The IQ test is a joke and I'm the punchline. Yes this was a real IQ test, not some online crap. My brother found the results in my dad's things. I want to see them again so I can have a good laugh.

>>5250 >white people are still 3rd by IQ average even though "they" invented it Your conspiracy theory has a hole in it. I think you better fix up your narrative before you start spreading it around.

>>5253 >IQ==achievement I think you are right, you can't be that smart if you make such stupid assumptions.

>>2856 As much as it pains me to say, in regards to IQ genetics is by far the largest factor

>>2888 >"Race" in of itself is a social construct, ie doesn't exist. It's fake classification. nobody in this thread ITT seems to fuarrrking understand this: http://anthromadness.blogspot.com/2017/01/human-genetic-diversity-discrete-or.html glad somebody had ITT has the balls to say it. nowadays claiming that race is a false classification is considered a sin.

>>5259 According to that stupid test I'm still probably smarter than you though. I can say that with some confidence because statistically speaking I scored higher than most people. Go ahead, get mad now.

>>5263 any source for this? I'm interested in how they eliminated all error sources from learned experience. >>5264 >in this thread ITT ew but yeah, race is a bullsoykaf classification, genetically speaking.

>>2854 Many people will point out that IQ is an abstract concept. I prefer to frame things in terms of accomplishment. Apart from aids and shiny rocks dug out the ground, Africa has not contributed a great deal to the world at any point in history, especially in recent times. You can make the fish climbing trees analogy and point out that Negros are better at other things like running away from lions but are those things really something humanity needs going forwards? >>2958 This does make sense. I think it's unfortunate that Negros are such an extreme case. Could the same explanation be applied to ethnic groups evolving in similarly harsh environments? Aboriginal Australians?

>>5297 I don't think running away from things will ever go out of style

>>5297 >Africa has not contributed a great deal to the world at any point in history, especially in recent times. -one of the first and longest-running civilizations -developed geometry independently -contained the greatest store of knowledge in the world -several vast trade empires -several vast territorial empires -unique theological contributions to Christianity and Islam yup, a whole lot of nothing. To everyone posting statistics: controlling to filter out all factors besides genetics is virtually impossible, and as far as I know it's never been tried seriously. Not to mention that racial classifications are nearly meaningless in terms of genetics, so saying "blacks are dumber than whites" means nothing. "people with this certain gene are dumber than people with that certain gene" means something, and whether that gene is more prevalent in one ethnic group or another is secondary. Saging because this is a soykaf thread that should have died long ago.

>>5300 oh, I almost forgot! -cultural diaspora that influences global music, culture, etc. to this very day

>>5300 >-one of the first and longest-running civilizations >-developed geometry independently -contained the greatest store of knowledge in the world Egyptians are black? WE WUZ KANGZ MUFFUGA >-several vast trade empires >-several vast territorial empires Such as? also, "contribution" to the world? More like contribution to them. >-unique theological contributions to Christianity and Islam lol Good one I bet you're an atheist >yup, a whole lot of nothing. sarcasm is for passive aggressive girlfriends and pussies that can't say things straight because they were born in a wrong sex >controlling to filter out all factors besides genetics is virtually impossible There are 2 ways to go around this: 1) Make every race/haplogroup get raised in same environment (virtually impossible as you said) 2) Make same genetics (twins) have different environments (seperated at birth) Guess which one science has data on? >racial classifications are nearly meaningless in terms of genetics reffer yourself to pic related plz desu fam >"people with this certain gene are dumber than people with that certain gene" means something, and whether that gene is more prevalent in one ethnic group or another is secondary. BOI >this is a soykaf thread that should have died long ago "It makes my feelings go waaah"

>>5302 going to ignore the vapid non-arguments. >Make same genetics (twins) have different environments (seperated at birth) that doesn't eliminate *all* environmental factors. People might treat them differently because of their perceived race. >genetic distance doesn't imply race. By that measure there are some people(who, incedentally, are Eruopean) who are literally still neanderthals.

>>5300 >-developed geometry independently >-contained the greatest store of knowledge in the world >-several vast trade empires >-several vast territorial empires >-unique theological contributions to Christianity and Islam Can you be more specific? Your list items are so vague I cannot verify any of them. Especially this one. >-cultural diaspora that influences global music, culture, etc. to this very day I have no idea what the fuarrrk you are talking about here. >yup, a whole lot of nothing. I understand you strongly disagree on an emotional level but your actual reasoning is incredibly weak.

>>5300 >-unique theological contributions to Christianity and Islam This is as much a contribution to humanity as Aids.

>>5304 >vapid non-arguments Heh, good one. So that means everything I said was head on? You believe Ancient Egyptians were black? You're atheist but believe theological "contributions" (if you can call them that) help humanity? Jeez man, that's sad. >that doesn't eliminate *all* environmental factors you obviously don't understand the reason behind seperated twins experiment. It is BECAUSE we want to see the influence of environmental factors on SAME GENETICS, not eliminate them. This is so we can put genetics vs upbringing debate to death, but you obviously don't understand purpose of the experiment, how could you even understand the results? >People might treat them differently because of their perceived race This has nothing about race. Twins OF ANY RACE under different environmental factors (whether that be racial discrimination or good upbringing) have SIMILAR ENOUGH (differences are statistically insignificant) results. Stop showing your "muh opression" everywhere where it doesn't have a place for. This is discussion about TWINS SEPERATED AT BIRTH, not niggies or pakis or chinks or japs. >doesn't imply race Did you even look at the picture? "Race" (social construct) is closer to itself genetically than to other "races". >By that measure there are some people(who, incedentally, are Eruopean) who are literally still neanderthals And Europeans will be closer to each other genetically than to subsaharant africans. How hard is for you to understand that?

>>5310 >You believe Ancient Egyptians were black? Yes, a large portion of them anyway, and most scholars on the subject agree with me. This is the bit where you point out that the Black Egyptians hypothesis has been refuted, but that's a different hypothesis regarding their origin that implies they were all black. Scholars agree they were probably the meeting of two races one of which crossed the Sahara during a wet phase about 5-10k years ago. While nobody can say for sure, it's overwhelmingly likely these people were black but unless somebody wrote down that they had black skin there's no way to tell so far down the line. The Greeks did write about the Egyptians having dark skin but considering it's almost a given that they had darker skin than the Greeks that isn't conclusive in itself. However, the whole idea that "black people never did anything of importance" can only be described as massive, I-don't-know-how-google-works, historical ignorance. Musa Keita, the richest man in history (even as a whole family the Rothschilds do not compare, material>fiat), pic related, gonna tell me he wasn't black? I'm not sure exactly where he'd fit in on your soykafty "when we split things up by phenotype we find different genotypes to the great surprise of nobody" chart, that has no application to the real world because Musa Keita, along with everyone else on the planet probably falls into at least 2 of those categories (I got 4 myself). People have always mixed and, as the world becomes smaller, it's going to accelerate. Slowly we're headed towards a single global race. There's nothing anyone can do about it and trying to alter it is to imply that you'll do a better job of it than natural selection will. Absurd. We barely understand a fraction of the complexity it's created. It's like a half blind man trying to paint a big smily face across the Sistine Chapel because it's something he can see. It only looks like an improvement to you because you're a dumb ape like the rest of us. Sit back, relax, and let people be people. Evolution will do a better job of this than you ever could. Back on topic, there's Songhai. Hell, there were plenty of black Romans, they wrote about it all the time (loved writing about things did the Romans, that's why we know so much about them). The contributions that have been made are massive. Africans invented agriculture, husbandry, metallurgy. >You're atheist but believe theological "contributions" (if you can call them that) help humanity? Yes, undoubtedly. This is more excusable historical ignorance but many things were studied for theological reasons that also ended up having practical uses. Astronomy is one of African invention but western examples include cryptography and, ultimately, science. >>5308 They're not gonna delete a thread because they don't like what it says. It's hard enough to remain above bias even without that as a rule. sage goes in all fields.

>>5311 >However, the whole idea that "black people never did anything of importance" can only be described as massive, I-don't-know-how-google-works, historical ignorance. In reality you are struggling to come up with concrete examples though. I understand you are trying to make out that there are so many examples it's not worth listing them all but actually it's coming across as you can't think of any in the first place. >I'm not sure exactly where he'd fit in on your soykafty chart, Don't get personal, there are at least 3 people involved in this discussion. >Egypt Am I correct in thinking that the list in >>5300 were all alluding to Egypt then? >many things were studied for theological reasons that also ended up having practical uses. Astronomy is one of African invention but western examples include cryptography and, ultimately, science. Were do you get this stuff from? Definitely calling bullsoykaf on the last 2. Lets see some citation.

>>5311 >Musa Keita, the richest man in history (even as a whole family the Rothschilds do not compare, material>fiat), pic related, gonna tell me he wasn't black? From what I understand all he did was dig up shiny metals that happen to be under the ground he was born ontop of but ok. >material>fiat What the fuarrrk is that supposed to mean? Wealth is conducive to power. It doesn't matter if it is represented by shiny metals or bits of paper with pictures of dead white guys on it. >Sit back, relax, and let people be people. Evolution will do a better job of this than you ever could. No. Evolution is a Blind Idiot God running rampant and if we can take control we should. But transhumanism is a different thread. http://lesswrong.com/lw/l3/thou_art_godshatter/

>>5311 >all this hearsay Gosh dang it man "Large portion of them anyways"? "Most scholars on the subject agree with me"? Care to post some of them? >However, analysis of the mummies' mtDNA haplogroups found that they shared greater mitochondrial affinities with modern populations from the Near East and the Levant compared to modern Egyptians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_history_of_Egypt#Ancient_DNA >It was not until relatively recently in Egypt's long history that sub-Saharan genetic influences became more pronounced. “In the last 1,500 years, Egypt became more African, if you want,” Krause said. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/05/30/dna-from-ancient-egyptian-mummies-reveals-their-ancestry/?utm_term=.2c59a3c2922a >even as a whole family the Rothschilds do not compare, material>fiat > "material > fiat" You obviously don't know how economy works. So, I will not even try to lecture you on this one. >People have always mixed and, as the world becomes smaller, it's going to accelerate >Slowly we're headed towards a single global race >this is good somehow "Diversity is our strength" eh? "Let's push for multiculturalism" but only in white countries, right? Even by your own pinhole view at greater scheme of things you don't see how the elites are pushing for slave race of people to be genetically engineered by racemixing? >Sit back, relax, and let people be people. Evolution will do a better job of this than you ever could. My problem is that this soykaf isn't evolution in any normal sense of matter. It's the political and economical elites pulling the strings. There is no more natural selection, there is no more things evolving. This is literally an era of dysgenics and political manipulation of system to create selected type of slave people ready to be subservient. >Hell, there were plenty of black Romans Yea, and black vikings, and black english kings and queens and black germans and what not. But I do love how you like to shift topic to black Romans. As if you know a lot of on this topic and want to shift the discussion that way. However, I don't care what kind of slaves or cheap labor Romans took under their arms while they expanded their empire, and frankly I don't see that as "Africans contributing to the world". >but many things were studied for theological reasons that also ended up having practical uses Did you just honestly write that down with a straight face in all honesty to try and win a debate over the internet? >Astronomy is one of African invention Citation needed

>What the fuarrrk is that supposed to mean? Wealth is conducive to power. It doesn't matter if it is represented by shiny metals or bits of paper with pictures of dead white guys on it. >You obviously don't know how economy works. So, I will not even try to lecture you on this one. Meanwhile in the real world, the concentration of material wealth continues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

>>5310 >It is BECAUSE we want to see the influence of environmental factors on SAME GENETICS, not eliminate them. Then perhaps don't bring it up when that's unrelated to what I was talking about? >>"Race" (social construct) is closer to itself genetically than to other "races". >people with similar ancestry have similar genetics WOWZA YA GOT ME anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that if you try to sort genetically based on race you wind up with the problem of defining what 'race' means, genetically. Does it mean genetic difference over a certain level? In that case, are Ethiopians a different race from a South African? After all, African populations have been diverging from each other genetically for longer than other populations. What level of average genetic differentiation constitutes a 'race'? An arbitrary value that fits existing cultural identifiers just won't do, and context-dependent values won't do either(genetic distance is not commutative). The only way it makes sense to talk about 'race' is in the context of cohesive ethnic groups, and *then* you run into the problem that most people, especially these days, don't fit into any such group. Talking about 'race' in terms of geographic ancestry is bunk too, for the obvious reason that it's dependent on how far back you want to look, which is, again, arbitrary. Basically, there is no way of thinking about race from a genetic viewpoint that doesn't bring with it historical or social baggage, so if you're talking IQ vs. genetics, race is just about the least rigorous way you could organize your data. Oh also >It's the political and economical elites pulling the strings. Why would they give a soykaf about race? It's not like they're anything but slaves to money, and money gives zero soykafs.

>>5316 >Meanwhile in the real world, the concentration of material wealth continues. You need to elaborate here. Your "material" wealth like gold are useless objects. You cannot eat it, drink it, it does not keep you alive in any way. It is only valuable insofar as it can be uses to exert influence on other humans. In that respect there is no difference between gold and fiat. >(material>fiat) This is as dumb as saying miles > kilometers. You are comparing the wrong thing.

>>5321 >Talking about 'race' in terms of geographic ancestry is bunk too, for the obvious reason that it's dependent on how far back you want to look, which is, again, arbitrary. I don't understand what you mean here. If Africans are the oldest humans then they should have a pretty big advantage here yet you are trying to brush off the entire premise and avoid talking about it. Africans maybe were the first to do some basic things by virtue of being the only humans around but once White and Asian civilization started to take off Blacks have been completely left in the dust. If Africa disappeared 1000 years ago, how would my life be any worse than it is now?

>>5329 Gold is scarce. Fiat is not. A government can't just print more gold.

>>5321 >Then perhaps don't bring it up when that's unrelated to what I was talking about? No because it literally is at fulcrum of what you're saying. >the point I'm trying to make is that if you try to sort genetically based on race you wind up with the problem of defining what 'race' means, genetically "Race" is a social construct, I think everyone will be happy to say that, but haplogroups aren't and genetical distance between haplogroups correlate with our preconceived notions of "race". Genetically this "distance" is difference between genes. >Does it mean genetic difference over a certain level? The smaller the difference, the smaller "distance" there is. >In that case, are Ethiopians a different race from a South African? As far as I know there are 3 (or 4 can't remember right now) haplogroups in subsaharant africa, all really close to one another genetically speaking. >What level of average genetic differentiation constitutes a 'race'? Good question. I guess until morphological differences are noticable enough to naked eye? Even that kind of terminology is bad since you can literally see difference between Slavic and Nordic haplogroups if you have good enough of an eye... Hmmm, really good question. I don't know. >if you're talking IQ vs. genetics, race is just about the least rigorous way you could organize your data. but it's easiest? Seeing someone fall into certain haplogroup rather than testing them on IQ test is far easier. >Why would they give a soykaf about race? Because they want subservient new race of people under them? > It's not like they're anything but slaves to money, and money gives zero soykafs. They are slaves to power which they want more and more with every day.

>>5336 >Gold is scarce. Fiat is not Bitcoin is also a scarce fiat currency but I don't think you would argue that it's not valuable. And if any government wanted to, they could make their fiat currency scarce. I don't think you understand what "fiat" means. I think you just want to argue about idea that has been already well established, that Central Banks across the world are controlled by corrupt fuarrrkers that print more of the currency for purpose of "regulated inflation" to push the growth of economy and their currency. Nobody is going to argue against this mind you, but saying "material > fiat" isn't really an idea worth sharing or idea that makes any sense tbh. Material isn't obviously better than fiat. You can't easily trade with material, there isn't standard unit of trade and hard to transport.

>>5338 I'm the one said material>fiat. I've made no other posts here btw. I'll get round to clearing up the rest of historical ignorance once I'm off work, but it wasn't meant as a general statement of what's better for the economy. It's worth more when calculating vast sums of wealth because you don't have to worry that trying to spend all your wealth will harm its value far past the usual effect of increasing supply of a commodity as people lose faith in its ability to retain value. In extreme cases it can potentially even lead to hyperinflation. Gold will never hyperinflate and lose all its value no matter how much you try to trade with it.

>>5340 oh yea, why don't you argue this post then >>5315 because you made few points completely irrelevant to topic at hand to try and derail it in direction that you know a lot about? fuarrrk off dude, nobody wants your correction of "historical ignorance". You know nothing about economy. Get back on topic and discuss claims ON TOPIC that you said that were completely false

>>5341 Because, like I said. I'm at work and that post is longer form and deserves a better answer than me clearing up what I meant by my offhanded material>fiat. Calm down and be patient. Also do make up you mind do you want me to reply to that post or does nobody want to hear me clear up the rank ignorance? If you've problems with my very simple economics then point them out directly. Saying I know nothing after I gave a basic explanation of the effects of supply and demand upon confidence in value (which is what fiat is all about) doesn't get us anywhere. And the historical stuff isn't off topic. Results are all that counts and Africa has produced them throughout history.

>>5313 >In reality you are struggling to come up with concrete examples though. There are 6 concrete examples in that post. Musa Keita. The Songhai Empire. The Romans. The invention of agriculture, husbandry, metallurgy and astronomy. >Were do you get this stuff from? Pick up a book. >Definitely calling bullsoykaf on the last 2. Lets see some citation. "All nature is merely a cipher and a secret writing. The great name and essence of God and His wonders -- the very deeds, projects, words, actions, and demeanor of mankind -- what are they, for the most part, but a cipher?" - Blaise De Vigenère (1523-1596) 'the everyday practicability of cryptography was conceived by Trithemius as a "secular consequent of the ability of a soul specially empowered by God to reach, by magical means, from earth to Heaven"' From The Abbot Trithemius, by N. L. Brand Out of interest Trithemius was the guy who coined the term steganography. And there's plenty more. 14th-16th century alchemists, the same people who pioneered science, saw the whole thing as a religious practice. Their aim was to become closer to god. It wasn't until they started to contradict the church that the church got mad and tried to stop them. Before that it was primarily the church funding them. >>5315 >Care to post some of them? Read about the Symposium on the Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the Deciphering of the Meroitic script. >Bunch of soykaf about DNA from mummies Go read what I wrote again. I said they were the combination of two peoples, one of which was from across the Sahara and were black. The other was from the near east. Looks like race mixing worked out fine for them. >you don't see how the elites are pushing for slave race of people to be genetically engineered by racemixing? You think the Elites did this? When I said nobody could stop it I wasn't excluding them. The Wright brothers and Edison did this. So long as there's been the potential for travel people have mixed and travel has gotten a whole lot easier. >It's the political and economical elites pulling the strings. You think they tell people who to have sex with? People gonna fuarrrk. It takes surgery or chemicals to stop them. The Elites are doing the same thing they've always been doing. Keep people fighting amongst themselves. Left vs right, black vs white, men vs women. Unified they don't stand a chance against us but no, no, you're right it's those Africans we really need to worry about... >There is no more natural selection, there is no more things evolving. So long as genes mutate, natural selection does not stop. Selection pressure is different, finding a mate is more important than just staying alive but that's nothing new and it certainly doesn't stop evolution. Look at the peacock. >As if you know a lot of on this topic and want to shift the discussion that way. Nope. History isn't even my thing, I'm a programmer, let alone Roman and African (the stuff about alchemists is more up my alley). It just doesn't take much to be better educated on a subject that someone who clearly doesn't know how a search engine works. >I don't care what kind of slaves or cheap labor Romans took under their arms while they expanded their empire Massively wrong assumption. When someone points something out that you clearly didn't know about before hand, it's customary to do at least 20 seconds of research before you make a fool of yourself. They were land owning citizens. Hell, Rome had two black emperors, pic related. >Did you just honestly write that down with a straight face in all honesty to try and win a debate over the internet? Yes, because it's clearly the truth as anyone who's studied the subject will tell you. There was a lot of conflict between science and the church in certain areas (i.e. when scientists contradicted scripture) but for the most part it was the church funding them for theological reasons. Back in those days the only place a non-noble could learn to read and write was the church. fuarrrk, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton and it's not like he was outside the norm.

>>5343 >Also do make up you mind do you want me to reply to that post or does nobody want to hear me clear up the rank ignorance? I'm the person who brought up "black people never did anything of importance" and if you think you can change my mind then by all means. I thought I might have been wrong when I saw that South Africa succeeded in developing their own nuclear weapons in the 1970s but then I realized that happened while they were under White rule. I'm going to ignore anything about material>fiat though because it's going too far down a tangent and not helping with the thread. We can say that Musa Keita was a richest guy who ever lived but as I pointed out earlier, his wealth came from gold. His only real achievement was being born ontop of a pile of gold and making it too much trouble for foreign powers to kick the soykaf out of his army and take it from him.

>>5348 >His only real achievement was being born ontop of a pile of gold and making it too much trouble for foreign powers to kick the soykaf out of his army and take it from him. You could say that about any noble, they were born into it and managed to defend it. Also, he did a lot more than just mine gold. He made Timbuktu into a massive trading hub constructing tons of infrastructure in the process, including a massive university complete with one of the largest libraries in the world. A university that was widely regarded as superior to its counterparts in the east.

>>5347 >Pick up a book. >Read about the Symposium on the Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the Deciphering of the Meroitic script. All you're doing is spilling soykaf and then saying "go do your own research". >Religion invented cryptography and science Correlation is not causation. Religion was a dominant element of society doesn't mean it was a significant contribution to anything.

>>5350 >All you're doing is spilling soykaf and then saying "go do your own research". I presented the information normally at first and then was asked for a source. That's the source. >Correlation is not causation. Religion was a dominant element of society doesn't mean it was a significant contribution to anything. Except we have quotes, which I've presented, from the guys doing it saying it was a religious thing for them.

>>5347 >Musa Keita. The Songhai Empire >The Romans. >They were land owning citizens. Hell, Rome had two black emperors, pic related. Fair enough. Though this was all a very long time ago. For most other races of people you don't need to go back hundreds or thousands of years to find a time when they actually did something meaningful. >The invention of agriculture, husbandry, metallurgy and astronomy. These were the things you should have elaborated on. >agriculture This is such an obvious practice it was independently invented multiple times in multiple places (specifically, China, America and New Guinea in addition to North Africa). This also happened a very long time ago. More to the point, it's not then Africans started farming and then taught it to their non-African, non-farming contemporaries. Contrast this with the ancient Chinese who invented hydraulics to automate the process of pounding, decorticating and polishing grain. That's the kind of intelligence that is missing from African history. >husbandry, Again, this is fuarrrking obvious and not exactly an achievement. >metallurgy Calling bullsoykaf on this. The first people doing anything meaningful with metal were European in 5000BC http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/002605.html >astronomy Yeah ok, the Egyptians did some cool astronomy.

>>5338 Actually, I do understand what fiat means; you don't. Fiat currency has value due to government backing, something gold and cryptocurrencies do not need. If you understood what 'fiat' means, then you'd understand that material wealth is a prerequisite for sovereignty, and then you'd understand why material wealth is more valuable.

>>5338 And no. Bitcoin is not fiat.

>>5351 It's all just masturbation really but fine, you can say they were "inspired by God" or whatever. https://igw.tuwien.ac.at/peterf/dud_npr/kryptologie_im_16ten_jh/cryptolo.htm

>>5353 >For most other races of people you don't need to go back hundreds or thousands of years to find a time when they actually did something meaningful. Meanwhile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aklilu_Lemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haile_Debas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitaw_Ejigu The only reason I went so far back is because I don't know much about their history and it was easier for me. Like I keep saying this stuff is not hard to find though. >This is such an obvious practice it was independently invented multiple times in multiple places You could say the same of calculus. That doesn't make it obvious. Those places are so geographically remote that of course in those days things were invented independently in each. >Again, this is fuarrrking obvious and not exactly an achievement. But yet lots of other cultures, even those rearing animals, didn't do it. >The first people doing anything meaningful with metal were European in 5000BC That's not how invention worked back then, as you just pointed out for agriculture. They invented it independently and the Egyptians added a lot to the field. On the subject of the Egyptians, there was dispute over if they counted or not but now that seems cleared up. They added soykafloads to a whole bunch of fields, especially engineering. >>5356 Fiat is Latin for confidence. Bitcoin has no material value. It's given value entirely by peoples confidence in it. If everyone decided it was worthless it would be. Bitcoin is totally fiat. >>5359 I'm not arguing they were actually inspired by god but they certainly thought they were. They wrote whole books about it. That's just how thought has progressed over the ages. The separation of science from religion was quite slow and for most of history people just saw it all as trying to understand what's going on in the world.

>>5354 >material wealth is a prerequisite for sovereignty, You are correct about the technical definition of fiat money but I don't think this is right. A state is merely an organization with a monopoly on violence over a geographic region. "Material wealth" can help you acquire weapons and soldiers but it's not the only way.

>>5347 >Read about the Symposium on the Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the Deciphering of the Meroitic script. Will do >>Bunch of soykaf about DNA from mummies Dismissing evidence so easily? > I said they were the combination of two peoples, one of which was from across the Sahara and were black. The other was from the near east And you also said that a "a large portion of them anyway" was black, DEBUNKED by dna from mummies from those scholars that were "on your side". >Looks like race mixing worked out fine for them. In what sense? Blacks came after empire was created in seeking jobs and prosperous life. Now Egypt isn't a really hub of mathematical knowledge or a marvelous example of great empire. I see it as a tourist country at best. So, I wanna know what you mean by "worked out fine for them". >You think the Elites did this? When I said nobody could stop it I wasn't excluding them Imposing tax cuts for your native people in contrast to foreign citizens that weren't born in country isn't a new idea. South korea has that kind of system for it's companies too. China and Japan are notoriously well known for their STRICT visa programs that allow a very very small minority of foreigners to enter and stay in the country, not to mention the xenophobic cultures in those countries (to all races). Seeing future projections of muslim and black populations of some European countries compared to those countries makes me think your claim is false. Not even trying to add in the idea of countries with birth rates above replacement rate that almost promote their citizens to go outside and populate other countries. Care to make a rebuttal or throw a towel? >You think they tell people who to have sex with? I think they make selective geopolitical positions that in turn create a big and instant influx of immigrants (legal or illegal) into their countries. Then "people are going to fuK" happens. Racemixing is natural part of it, but also culturally elites that control mass media and political venues try to shape mainstream ideas about ingrained racial dating lines (pic related is graph of Tinder racial preferences). Racemixing is normalized and even encouraged to the point where it's promoted as "exciting" or "new" thing on mass media. Elites can't make you have sex with people of other race, but they can lock you down in a room with them and pump your TV/radio/internet with ideas of how exciting and cool and new and interesting it would be to have interacial marriages. >Keep people fighting amongst themselves. Left vs right, black vs white, men vs women ...until little by little they wear down the rock of divide and conquest by creating a subservient slave people that don't even care what is happening around them so they don't fight? >Unified they don't stand a chance against us but no, no, you're right it's those Africans we really need to worry about I never said Africans are top of my priority. They never were. Immigrants can easily go out of this country as fast as they came in on those same ships owned by the elites (look up who were the slave ship owners). >So long as genes mutate, natural selection does not stop Natural selection, as name entails, is SELECTION from gene pool of what goes further. Certain people live on because of their mutations and others die. There is no more death due to our environments so we don't need to adapt. We don't die because we have diseases, so everyone continues to breed. Pointless gene mutation isn't natural selection. It's Dysgenics. >Look at the peacock Domestication of wild animals is form of "natural" (more like artificial) selection through eugenics. You kill off wild violent animals that don't produce enough of product and you let others breed. Then do that for 10 generations and you successfuly created a species (or subspecies at least) that do what you "designed" them to do. Want cows that produce more milk? Breed only those of every successive generation. Want smarter humans? Breed those. Want dysgenics? Just let everyone breed and keep every alive through universal health care. >It just doesn't take much to be better educated on a subject that someone who clearly doesn't know how a search engine works. Exactly, and if you really cared you would know that "natural selection" doesn't just include sporatic gene mutations but ALSO deaths of genes that weren't suited for the environments (things we don't have in our current modern lives). >Hell, Rome had two black emperors, pic related >Phoenician == black okay...? Where did that come from? >Back in those days the only place a non-noble could learn to read and write was the church woah woah woah NOBODY was talking about religious contributions to society. We talked about "theological contributions" if you were to look up what we were talking about. You are obviously trying to conflate the two and being sly tricking me I won't notice the difference between organized religion helping people and what some old dustry scripture has to say about the world. Your original argument was "many things were studied for theological reasons that also ended up having practical uses". Also, you can't point at Isaac Newton as a cherry picked example out of mostly agnostic and atheistic scientific community and say "see? theological contributions". That's a red herring on many different dimensions. You are obviously not desiring for a serious discussion about race and genetics and want to obfuscate it with red herring discussions about unimportant side quests or rare cherry picked examples instead of statistical averages and majorities of people. I won't be discussing you any longer.

>>5361 >On the subject of the Egyptians, there was dispute over if they counted or not but now that seems cleared up I (>>5353) am just giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm not the person you were discussing Egypt with so it might not be over. >Meanwhile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aklilu_Lemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haile_Debas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitaw_Ejigu Yeah these are individual people, some of them working within foreign environments. I don't really want to play a game of naming 50 White scientists for every Black one you mention. What I meant was, why do you have to go so far back to find a time to find African civilizations that weren't the turbulent, corrupt, aids ridden, steaming shiptiles they are today? What is stopping them getting their soykaf together like every other modern country except that they are (potentially) inferior humans? >You could say the same of calculus. That doesn't make it obvious. Those places are so geographically remote that of course in those days things were invented independently in each. I also wouldn't say "we invented calculus" when someone asks what my nation contributes to the world (I'd say pizza and Ferrari lol). >But yet lots of other cultures, even those rearing animals, didn't do it. Who exactly are you talking about here? >They invented it independently and the Egyptians added a lot to the field. Yes ok. Egyptians did.

>>5363 sporadic*

>>5363 >And you also said that a "a large portion of them anyway" was black, DEBUNKED by dna from mummies from those scholars that were "on your side". Believe it or not mummies are not a representative sample. Stop and think for a second. They only made mummies of their ruling class and they were dynastically ruled by an incestuous family. >Blacks came after empire was created in seeking jobs and prosperous life. No. They didn't, they came across the Sahara during the wet period, before Egypt became an empire, like I've said. >China and Japan are notoriously well known for their STRICT visa programs that allow a very very small minority of foreigners to enter and stay in the country And, as your chart shows, it's still not working. >Seeing future projections of muslim and black populations of some European countries compared to those countries https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/muslim-population-growth-christians-religion-pew Oh god no not 10%. Seriously I live in Europe and it's kinda absurd, they're here but they're far from outnumbering the locals and most of them integrate fine. Their impact genetically will be fairly weak and culturally very weak. >pump your TV/radio/internet with ideas of how exciting and cool and new and interesting it would be to have interacial marriages. That would be an incredible waste of resources. >...until little by little they wear down the rock of divide and conquest by creating a subservient slave people that don't even care what is happening around them so they don't fight? God no. They're not quite there yet but they plan to have a slave race better than you'll ever be. They're called computers and they do manual tasks really well. They don't eat or sleep or rebel or even complain. The only need they'll have for more humans is if they want new inventions and that would mean they need intelligent slaves making this totally counter productive. Also, there's no race on the planet doesn't fight back when you enslave them, we've seen evidence of that. >I never said Africans are top of my priority. Oh right. So we're just on the "no mixed breeding" for any reason? Rather than specifically "Africans have bad genes?" 'Cos that makes no sense. You don't get placid idiotic dogs when you mix breeds. I've no idea why you'd think you would. >Certain people live on because of their mutations and others die. No. Everybody dies. Some breed, others do not. >There is no more death due to our environments so we don't need to adapt That's not how evolution works at all. Breeding requires that you live, the reverse is not true. >so everyone continues to breed. No they don't. Some are better at attracting mates than others. This drives evolution. It's not just humans either. Like I say look at a peacock's tail. >Domestication of wild animals Hahaha, I'm not talking about domesticated peacocks. I mean look at their evolutionary path. They weren't getting killed by anything and they kept evolving just fine but they did so in order to attract mates. Artificial selection is called husbandry, like we were talking about before. We tend to fuarrrk it up a lot. Even our best practical working dogs (German Shepherd) have genetic defects that seriously affect their joints in later life. They wouldn't do well in the wild. >Want smarter humans? Breed those. You have no idea what you're doing though. We're back to trying to paint smiley faces on the Sistine chapel. It's not like this hasn't been tried throughout history. The Egyptians did it, whoops, bone disorders. The Europeans did it, whoops, haemophilia. B-but we know the dangers of incest now. Yeah, we've known that for a while, it didn't help with the dogs. You're trying to mess around with a machine that is utterly beyond your understanding and you're trying to do so in ways that we know don't work. Imagine if someone had tried eugenics of the first animals to be able to detect light. They didn't have eyes in any real sense. The way they detected light was quite different. We'd have never evolved eyes because part of the evolution process for eyes (genetic drift, you called it dysgenics) involved "bad" mutations that broke those light sensors. The blind animals still managed to breed and eventually evolved much more effective eyes. What you're talking about is called a local hill, random mutation pulling you far enough down the hill that you end up closer to another, potentially higher hill is what keeps evolution going instead of just stopping once it's built the perfect amoeba because any mutation is a step down. Sit back and relax. Evolution is doing just fine even with healthcare. Selection pressures change based on environment, they never go away. >NOBODY was talking about religious contributions to society. And they're still not. Actually there were a few universities as well, and the church provided a lot of funding for them. I avoided talking about them because they weren't really relevant. Mostly it was nobles or otherwise wealthy people who attended. The church wasn't being charitable when they were teaching people to write. They trained their priests in order to to copy books. >You are obviously trying to conflate the two and being sly tricking me I won't notice the difference between organized religion helping people and what some old dustry scripture has to say about the world. What? You think that because I pointed out that people had to learn to read and write from the church? I'm pointing out that a large portion of the people even capable of doing science were also abbots, priests or otherwise heavily religious (even more so than usual for the time) and that this was a motivating factor for their work. >you can't point at Isaac Newton as a cherry picked example Newton isn't cherry picked. To go with the closest person to Newton, Leibniz (the other calculus inventor, they were big rivals), who also wrote a soykaf load of theology (though unlike Newton his more philosophical stuff is still well regarded today) and there are so many more examples. The guy who wrote steganographia was an abbot. Hell, Socrates did what he did because of what an Oracle said. The further on you go in time the less this becomes true mind. >You are obviously not desiring for a serious discussion about race and genetics Aside from the whole theological contributions angle, we've talked about nothing else. There's plenty in this post about your misunderstanding of natural selection (it's about reproduction not death) etc. >want to obfuscate it with red herring discussions about unimportant side quests or rare cherry picked examples instead of statistical averages and majorities of people. Yeah, except I've spent a lot of time arguing about the contributions of Africa as a continent over the centuries and the empires it's produced and a lot of the things I'm talking about are general rules, (e.g. religion and early science being closely connected, Africans producing soykafloads of stuff, from empires to to scientists inventions), of which I've picked specific examples. Mostly because I've been repeatedly asked to give specific examples and sources. >I won't be discussing you any longer. Bye! >>5364 >What I meant was, why do you have to go so far back to find a time to find African civilizations that weren't the turbulent, corrupt, aids ridden, steaming shiptiles they are today? The slave trade, colonising and, sadly but far more importantly, giving it all back. The slave trade started wars in Africa for the sole purpose of rounding up more slaves and when the west left Africa they did the same soykaf they pulled on every colony and destabilised it (look at the middle east) so it would still be at the mercy of foreign powers. >Yeah these are individual people, some of them working within foreign environments. I don't really want to play a game of naming 50 White scientists for every Black one you mention. Yep, environment is incredibly important for modern science. You aren't doing it with sticks and mud and there are a lot more white people in those environments so you have to normalise for that. More importantly, individuals is all you need. If genetic differences manifest in a difference in intelligence then it's small enough that for any person you meet it's basically negligible as you still have to work out how intelligent they are by interacting with them as usual and by the time you have you know more than comparing their phenotype will tell you. Moreover, expecting the actual genes controlling for intellectual things to be the same as the ones for physical appearance is very unlikely. Also, as races get more mixed physical appearance becomes a worse way to guess at "invisible" genetics and all most of the visible ones affect is just that, appearances. >I also wouldn't say "we invented calculus" when someone asks what my nation contributes to the world Quite right. The other calculus inventor was German, even in those relatively recent times their work took a while to reach each other. Them both claiming the other stole their work was the reason they hated each other. >Who exactly are you talking about here? Native Americans for instance, they rode horses but never thought to control their breeding. It's not so trivial to notice that characteristics carry over to children and that this can be exploited.

>>5361 >Fiat is Latin for confidence. Bitcoin has no material value. It's given value entirely by peoples confidence in it. If everyone decided it was worthless it would be. Bitcoin is totally fiat. No, fiat does not mean 'confidence' in Latin or in modern usage. You would realize that if you took the thirty seconds required to look it up. Bitcoin is not fiat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money >inb4 wikipedia isn't good enough to explain this basic term

>>5374 Oh hey. I stand corrected.

>>5374 >Fiat money is a currency without intrinsic value >Buttcoin isn't fiat

>>5379 You don't understand what 'intrinsic value' means. You should know, since a link explaining it is in the text you're quoting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_%28numismatics%29 Bitcoin has intrinsic value. Bitcoin is not fiat. Owning bitcoin or gold is more impressive than government play money. Musa Keita is a pretty cool guy and isn't afraid of anything.

>>5337 >No because it literally is at fulcrum of what you're saying. But you said it's unrelated. >>>>controlling to filter out all factors besides genetics is virtually impossible >>>Make same genetics (twins) have different environments (seperated at birth) >>that doesn't eliminate *all* environmental factors >you obviously don't understand the reason behind seperated twins experiment. direct quotes. >Genetically this "distance" is difference between genes. But mapping 'area of origin' to genetic distance using that fancy graph you have there doesn't account for mixing. If you ave Polish and Spanish ancestry, those methods think you're German. >I guess until morphological differences are noticable enough to naked eye? I look different from my parents. >but it's easiest? It's also easier to base it off hair length >Because they want subservient new race of people under them? I bet you looked at the skull of a black man and verified for yourself that the area of the brain associated with subservience is bigger.

>>5379 that image might me the most cringy thing I've ever seen.

>>5379 >le alt-right larping as libertarian meme

>>5392 https://youtu.be/pWdd6_ZxX8c >>5393 Oh my god My plans foiled again Darn it

>>5361 >Bitcoin is totally fiat. if bitcoin was fiat, it wouldn't have appreciated exponentially in value over the past 8 years. its ok though, you can come back to this thread in Q4 next year when we break that ATH of 10k and still tell yourself its fiat whilst you sob and ask why you ever ate up dimons fud and missed the opportunity of a lifetime. btw, shoutout to op, first jpeg is best jpeg.

>>5461 You're beating a dead horse there mate. That point was conceded a week ago.

>>5461 >no intrinsic value or anything backing it The only thing that gives it such inflated value is super rich chinese billionaires that use it to export their money out of the country and anti social druggies that don't have friends to buy their drugs from and capped amount of bitcoins in circulation. If it weren't fiat it wouldn't be so volatile.

>>2854 This is a bit anecdotal but I personally use it as evidence. Growing up I lived in many states, since my father's profession demanded that he relocate every few years. I had many friends from many different backgrounds. The people I chose to hang out with were always smarter than average in whatever aspect of their person. I had a lot of friends of different colours and different backgrounds. You know what the smarter minority kids usually had in common? -a stable household with involved parents -parents made enough income to at least supply children with resources to keep them comfortable -typically around communities where they befriended kids with a stable household as well hell I'm evidence of this as well. I'm a first generation American Latino and I usually score around 130-140 ish on IQ tests. Guess what my household was like? My Dad had a stable income for most of my childhood and my mother was very involved with my education. I lived in Mexico for awhile, and the same recurring patron occurred. All my smarter comrades had a very involved mother and father, with a relatively decent enough income. I am a firm believer that its a socio-economical issue. Genetics could possibly have an impact, but its such a small variable compared to the impact nurture has. The human brain has been shown to be dynamic and able to overcome it's deficiencies with repetition. Like a muscle.

>>5394 fair enough polite sage

>>5464 BTC barely gave a fuarrrk when rumors circulated end times for the China exchanges without anyone able to supply a source on the hyped claims last week. Yes, this week when one of the big exchanges came out and said they'll be closing doors, BTC bled seeing as China in part alongside Korea and Japan take up a high % of daily volume, and rightly so, we got ourselves that long over due correction. >The only thing that gives it such inflated value is super rich chinese billionaires No where close. Limited supply gives the demand its weight. Number of citizens are now moving to the currency as a means of survival in Venezuela, normal people are fomoing over ICO-mania, hedge funds from the world over are getting their feet wet; how do you think Numerai pay out so well? >anti social druggies that don't have friends to buy their drugs from Degeneracy is another matter entirely. >If it weren't fiat it wouldn't be so volatile. Volatility is your friend. Its what makes playing this market so rewarding. If you don't get this, go back to your shekels.

>>5473 >BTC doesn't care when rumors go around I assumed https://techcrunch.com/2014/03/12/goldman-sachs-bitcoin-is-not-a-currency/ made a dip, no? >Limited supply gives the demand its weight. Demand has to exist before the limited supply? If you have a limited supply of let's say my fingers. My personal fingers. That's kind of limited supply. Only 10 on hands and 10 on feet. I wouldn't personally sell them and they are limited supply, but if there was no demand for them then there would be no need to put a price on it and it can be priced at litterally zero. So, if someone isn't buying it, limited supply or not, there is no price. And who wants to buy bitcoin in first place? Retards who think that buying and selling stocks in human in 21st century is profitable, people who trust in cryptocurrency and hate this monopolized monetary system we hate today, anti social druggies and billionaires that want to hide their money. That's all people that want to go through all the hoops to buy bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency. >Number of citizens are now moving to the currency as a means of survival in Venezuela, normal people are fomoing over ICO-mania, hedge funds from the world over are getting their feet wet; how do you think Numerai pay out so well? Exactly. They wouldn't do it unless they were in financial crisis and HAD to do it to survive. I think I read somewhere that people in Venezuela started farming in WoW to survive. Pretty radical. >Degeneracy is another matter entirely. Another demand route which gives buttcoin it's value. >Volatility is your friend. Its what makes playing this market so rewarding You think that people invest in buttcoin by hand? That people yell on wall street stock market to buy and sell? LOL There is one firm that specializes in creating bots for selling and buying stocks. I think it's called black cube or something. Anywho, I read somewhere that for the exchange of stocks to be profitable there needs to be a human factor in the look since if only bots are buying and selling no one would profit. That firm is the best as far as I know, they employed few dozen brilliant mathematicians and only selected clientel can invest alongside that firm. Above 30% profit margin in every quarter if I remember correctly, something crazy like that. I think they even "cracked the code" of buying and selling stocks. But sure, if you want to live in adrenaline dopamine filled chaos and hair pulling your nights away be my fuarrrking guest boi. >If you don't get this, go back to your shekels. You are no better than a gambler and you call me jewish? You fell for ultimate jewish trick. "buy goy". No no no "sell goy". Dumb cunt.

>>5473 >>5474 Nothing No reply Just sucker punch and then leave into the abyss Your conning jewish tricks of "debate" hold no weight here, as everyone can see how cowardly you argue

>>2963 With eugenics he'd live in an even better body. I read that iceland basically eradicated Downs syndrome. It is immoral to not have eugenics.

>>5480 And then end up with haemophilia or sickle cell anemia or multiple osteochondromas or a whole bunch of other stuff we don't even have a conception of. It's a big mistake to imagine that mapping the genome is equivalent to mapping hereditary characteristics, there is still so much we don't understand about gestation. More importantly if eugenics is so great wouldn't it be much better if we'd started it in the past? Which era of histories ideal of humanity should we go for? You don't have to look very far back at all before you'd end up with a race of big, strong, dumb people. You can say "but we know better now" but that's what they said, it was only the future proved them wrong. It's arrogant to image you'll do a better job than nature, when you don't even understand a fraction of what it's already created.

>>5481 >eugenics == small gene pool & incest God damn I am sick of this meme

>>5482 >eugenics == small gene pool Yes. What exactly do you think eugenics means? You're either artificially reducing it or attempt to partition it. Also, as I said, there's a lot more than genes play a part in this. More importantly, you failed to address the root of the problem. That you don't have a clue what you're doing. You don't know what effects the stuff you're planning to do will have and even if you did you don't know what humanity is going to need. It's just rank arrogance. Let natural selection do its job far better than you could hope to dream.

>>5484 *yawn* You seem really emotionally motivated for a dumb semantics fight over the internet with a stranger, which I am not If you want to stay ignorant on topic of eugenics and future of human kind, so be it, but don't drag me along when in 50 years time all you idiots claim "muh idiocracy". We have tools to fix it and just because you sissies are scared doesn't mean it gives you a right to whine later, kay?

>>5485 >future of human kind You say that like yours is the prevailing viewpoint and going to succeed. Your position is widely laughed at, especially by those with an understanding of evolution. You don't train your incredibly complicated general AIs by giving them data you invented yourself. You use the real thing. >don't drag me along Nobody is going to drag you anywhere. That's kinda the point. You go out, you fuarrrk whoever you like and you don't whinge and try to fuarrrk up the game when somebody decides they'd rather fuarrrk a disabled guy than you.

>>5486 wow, really angry didn't get ya milky today or?

>>5487 I don't think you really know where you are. The idea that somebody might challenge what you have to say with reasonable debate is the norm here. I'm not angry, I'm disappointed. I was hoping we'd actually have a debate. If that's not what I wanted I wouldn't be here making these posts. But we went straight from a simple, plainly false, assertion to ad homs. So yeah, I'll be waiting until someone wants to try to actually defend eugenics. It'll be fun.

>>5488 you sound like you have some issues to clear out to yourself my bro like some kind of vendetta against this thread and OP and people who defend eugenics and now you're "dissapointed" at little me from your high position in this debate, lol yea

>>5489 You really don't know where you are do you? If you disagree with someone trying for reasonable debate is the norm here, that's how we like it. That someone might want to actually discuss the issues in depth with you isn't unusual at all. Instead we went straight "to disagreeing with me means you must have issues/a vendetta." You haven't wanted to talk about eugenics at all. You've just wanted to talk about me and I'm really not sure why. Because I soykafpost on an imageboard for fun? I don't know why you're here if you don't.

Genetics play a big role in IQ but education and upbringing are also a factor also IQ tests arent %100 accurate. Btw the graph you showed is bullsoykaf average IQ is allways around 100 and tests are getting harder every year to keep the average at 100~ humans may have stopped evolving physically but they are getting smarter every day since they no longer need to fight for their life but are using their brains. If we really want the average IQ to be higher goverments will have to make life miserable for their underperforming subjects (fine for child, higher tax rates etc.) that way we can eventually get rid of most of the dumb people but if genetics improve to such a level that we can afford to make every person smarter we wont need to do this however I doubt that will ever be the case at least in a reasonable amount of time.

>>5490 This whole thread is a case study in the new lainchan. I don't know what precipitated it but here we are. I don't disagree with your original point, but just to give you the reasonable rebuttal that you deserve: > Let natural selection do its job far better than you could hope to dream. I think one of the premises of eugenics is that since at least the agrarian revolution, natural selection pressures have been pretty much moot. This is because they act over the very long time scale and our environment (physical and social) is changing way too quickly for it to have much affect. Therefore, they argue, the need for "artificial selection" i.e. eugenics. Of course there's a laughably unscientific leap from the commonsense premise to the unabashedly racist conclusions. (The younger, more anxious, more intelligent, or less worldly you are, the easier it is to leap like this.) If anyone here actually wants to read a thoroughgoing, geographical and deep-historical approach to the question of the divergence of human civilisations -- the book Guns, Germs, Steel is justifiably famous, if not infallible. This thread should have been locked long ago.

>>6777 >Of course there's a laughably unscientific leap from the commonsense premise to the unabashedly racist conclusions. >You are wrong. >(The younger, more anxious, more intelligent, or less worldly you are, the easier it is to leap like this.) >Being X makes you even more wrong. If you are new here then please read the rules about arguing in good faith and avoiding personal attacks. As it stands your post has zero content besides a book recommendation. >This thread should have been locked long ago. If you close your eyes really tight you can avoid ideas that offend you and remain forever ignorant.