Scientific Racism

[Snuckening]

Minnesota transracial adoption studies are evidence (not conclusive, but better than speculation) against that.

I think the only way you could really test this is baby switching.

People have done this. Genetics still is key.

In utero influences effects are still environmental influences- in fact they're arguably the most influential environmental influences. If your mother has bad health care, is undernourished, eating shit food, doesn't have the right vitamins, etc, when your brain is forming, [1] that's not genetic, it's environmental, [2] pretty sure that's going to influence your brain development, and potential IQ.

Adoption studies =/= no environmental influences.

To actually get an absence of environmental influences, you'd have to do cross-race artificial insemination, then raise the child in a social situation you could somehow(?) prove to be 100% colour-blind, so you can discount accusations of "but that result is just because social expectations/differential treatment/racism", ie It's impossible in the real world.

On an empirical observation level, my friends welsh and germanic family adopted a mullato...

Yeah, that's not what "empirical" means. In fact, that's pretty much the exact definition of "anecdotal evidence"- ie. the opposite of "empirical". And that "she is not the sharpest knife in the drawer" bit is like, multiple levels of irony. Also, pretty sure I can think of some other "not the sharpest knife in the draw" types that my "empirical observation" and totes-not-confirmation-bias tells me is 100% due to their race.

Some things are best said in a PM, that said, I'm not going to complain if some people don't know how to make one.

High IQ af

 

[byuu]

To actually get an absence of environmental influences, you'd have to do cross-race artificial insemination

Scientists conspired to promote the cuckold fetish for their experiments!
It all makes sense now.

 

[Snuckening]

Whoever took the "mad on the internet" ratings off this board is a fucking low IQ nigger.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

High diversity doesn't mean they would have higher IQ.
Populations like Ashkenazi jews are extremely intelligent BECAUSE of their low genetic diversity. They all have a bunch of mutations related to lipid metabolism that end up making their brains develop more. Because everyone is homozygous for rare mutations (ie low diversity), the average of the entire group goes up.

Having a larger gene pool doesn't mean you have better genes; it means both the bad and the good genes are diluted out, so they dont impact the population as much.

So what are the genes that govern intelligence?

You take it as a given that the intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews relative to other populations is down to genetics, but there are equally compelling cultural explanations for this. As for the lipid metabolism hypothesis, I have thus far found no studies which confirm such a correlation, and in the early 20th century, tests showed Ashkenazi Jews underperforming on IQ tests relative to other European populations (see: Hirsch, N. D. M. (1926). A study of natio-racial mental differences. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1, 233-406.), so what changed?

I think the level of intelligence that humans are capable of attaining is far more malleable than you are choosing to admit. Culture, education, and conditions during fetal and childhood development are all potentially significant contributory factors.

I tried using two examples to show you the limits of that claim and it seems to have gone over your head. I don't know how I can further simplify that point to make it clearer.

The examples fail for the reasons I gave. Humans are not onions, and melanin concentration is a relatively superficial trait that is easily genetically changeable through superficial mutations.

Take the dark skin of the Jarawa people, for example, who are genetically closest to South Asians:

Or the blonde hair of the Vanuatu and Hmong people, who are genetically mostly Oceanic and East Asian, respectively:

These phenotypes arose independently from Europe and Africa; they are genetically superficial. I don't think you can make the same claim of the factors which influence fluid intelligence.

I made the claim that IQ is our best measure of intelligence, because in all of science I have not encountered a better measurable way of determening difference intelligence.

Back when we used to cut open the heads of epileptics to release the 'demons' that were possessing them, we had no better treatment for epilepsy. This kind of defense doesn't invalidate the legitimacy of any skepticism surrounding IQ tests, it's just an appeal to ignorance.

The fact remains that intelligence remains ill-understood, and even if you do put your faith in the techniques we've developed in an attempt to quantify it, you still have the trouble of discerning the degree to which they're measuring fluid intelligence, and the degree to which they're measuring crystallized intelligence. This is a non-trivial problem.

 

[wylfım]

You take it as a given that the intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews relative to other populations is down to genetics, but there are equally compelling cultural explanations for this. As for the lipid metabolism hypothesis, I have thus far found no studies which confirm such a correlation, and in the early 20th century, tests showed Ashkenazi Jews underperforming on IQ tests relative to other European populations (see: Hirsch, N. D. M. (1926). A study of natio-racial mental differences. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1, 233-406.), so what changed?

I think the level of intelligence that humans are capable of attaining is far more malleable than you are choosing to admit. Culture, education, and conditions during fetal and childhood development are all potentially significant contributory factors.

As environmental conditions decrease in influence (like in the West, where people are generally extremely well fed and there are things like iodine and folic acid supplements to prevent neural defects, among other prenatal care advances), inbuilt genetic differences become more pronounced. This is why a trait like height or IQ would appear to have an extremely low heritability in, for example, subsaharan Africa during a massive famine, versus a high heritability in the US today because we don't have such extremes in environmental conditions. Research support that IQ is polygenic and highly heritable, see this
As for the education factor specifically, we know that IQ predicts educational success, not the other way around.
This study looked at g-scores and GCSE scores 5 years later for 70k students and found that g predicted ~70% of the variance in test scores.
This highly well-researched article (love Gwern) shows that high childhood IQ scores doesn't predict success that well because they regress to the mean. You could also phrase this as saying that high childhood education isn't very significant in maintaining base-level genetic IQ. All the students were first selected for a high IQ, before they were put into the educational training facility.

If you want an example of some genes that affect IQ, there's this research paper, which also argues that IQ differences are due to recent polygenic selections. Here's some of the SNPs and genes they list:
NPTN gene
possibly rs324650
APOE
We also know that mutations can massively increase IQ; see here, also published here
There's an example of a scottish family with an extremely rare mutation that increases verbal IQ by ~25 points in those with it, but also makes them go blind in their 20s. The control is family members without it, which is easy to see (pun intended), so its confidently the only gene causing the increase. I can't find the actual study, but I can keep looking if you want more evidence?

For your point about Ashkenazi's, first, I'm not reading a book, give me a shorter summary somewhere. But a simple counterclaim is that they could have suffered from poorer nutrition (not integrating into social structures→environmental factors the other groups were developing).
Secondly, here's a summary from this research paper on the selection for IQ within Ashkenazi jews:
"Today's Ashkenazi Jews suffer from a number of congenital diseases and mutations at higher rates than most other ethnic groups; these include Tay–Sachs disease, Gaucher's disease, Bloom's syndrome, and Fanconi anemia, and mutations at BRCA1 and BRCA2. These mutations' effects cluster in only a few metabolic pathways, suggesting that they arise from selective pressure rather than genetic drift. One cluster of these diseases affects sphingolipid storage, a secondary effect of which is increased growth of axons and dendrites. At least one of the diseases in this cluster, torsion dystonia, has been found to correlate with high IQ. Another cluster disrupts DNA repair, an extremely dangerous sort of mutation which is lethal in homozygotes. The authors speculate that these mutations give a cognitive benefit to heterozygotes by reducing inhibitions to neural growth, a benefit that would not outweigh its high costs except in an environment where it was strongly rewarded."

edit: i was writing this in paragraphs and forgot to finish thoughts

 

[throwaway1488]

In utero influences effects are still environmental influences- in fact they're arguably the most influential environmental influences. If your mother has bad health care, is undernourished, eating shit food, doesn't have the right vitamins, etc, when your brain is forming, [1] that's not genetic, it's environmental, [2] pretty sure that's going to influence your brain development, and potential IQ.

There was no statistical difference in IQ between biracial subjects born to white mothers and those born to black mothers. This isn't a perfect control for in utero effects but one would expect to see at least a modest difference if this were a significant factor.

Adoption studies =/= no environmental influences.

To actually get an absence of environmental influences, you'd have to do cross-race artificial insemination, then raise the child in a social situation you could somehow(?) prove to be 100% colour-blind, so you can discount accusations of "but that result is just because social expectations/differential treatment/racism", ie It's impossible in the real world.

The study notes that biracial subjects who were outwardly black (mistaken as such by their foster parents) did no worse than visible mulattos, and that the average IQ among this group was at the midpoint of monoracial black and white subjects, which is consistent with intelligence being a polygenetic trait. This effectively rules out all plausible environmental variables and the nebulous 'prejudice' hypothesis.

While we're on the subject, why is it no one ever seems to offer an explanation as to why niggers are so uniquely and severely impaired by prejudice or poverty? It's not like they're the only group to ever be affected by it. Hell, the kikes are forever kvetching about how they suffered so much "unjust" persecution over the course of history, but it never seemed to affect them intellectually. How strange.

Frankly the most illuminating aspect of this study, given that two of the lead researchers were Jewish, is that there apparently are some kikes who swallow their own bullshit and believe in racial equity. Then again, maybe the gentile woman Dr. Scarr was simply set on the idea and the two Jews participated hoping they could 'mitigate' (manipulate) the outcome.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

As environmental conditions decrease in influence (like in the West, where people are generally extremely well fed and there are things like iodine and folic acid supplements to prevent neural defects, among other prenatal care advances), inbuilt genetic differences become more pronounced. This is why a trait like height or IQ would appear to have an extremely low heritability in, for example, subsaharan Africa during a massive famine, versus a high heritability in the US today because we don't have such extremes in environmental conditions.

It is true that as the environment becomes more equalized, genetic differences become more pronounced, but I think you'll find that just about anywhere in the world, the environment is anything but equalized. The United States is about as racially segregated now as it was when segregation was mandated by states, and in Europe, immigrant populations tend to live in their own, isolated communities, with all of the cultural differences between them and the native population remaining heavily pronounced.

I think that focusing on nutrition here is something of a red herring. A far more important consideration might be the way that different cultures offer people different kinds of mental stimulation, and thus encourage different types of intellectual development; some of which may be more conducive to helping one do well on an IQ test.

We know from studies into neuroplasticity that the brain is very adaptable. Neuropsychological studies on taxi drivers who work in big cities have shown that they tend to have a higher volume of gray matter in the hippocampus region, which affords them greater spacial reasoning abilities. The point to take from this is that the brain isn't like a hard drive, where a fixed amount of space is available. The very structure of the brain is capable of changing in response to years of environmental stress. How do you know that a similar phenomenon is not highly applicable to IQ?

Research support that IQ is polygenic and highly heritable, see this

Genome-wide association studies can infer heritability, but without being able to isolate what it is the IQ tests are measuring, how do we know that these heritability estimates are not tremendously inaccurate, or tainted by a severe flaw in the assumptions of the research methodology being employed?

At the very best, these studies highlight statistical correlates, but this isn't very useful if you don't know what you're looking at, or can't demonstrate a causal relationship.

As for the education factor specifically, we know that IQ predicts educational success, not the other way around.
This study looked at g-scores and GCSE scores 5 years later for 70k students and found that g predicted ~70% of the variance in test scores.

Education doesn't begin or end in the academic environment. Children who are raised in an intellectually stimulating environment consistently tend to score higher on standardized tests than children who are raised by parents who are not as equipped to nurture their intellectual development. Do you not think that this could be relevant to IQ scores?

If you want an example of some genes that affect IQ, there's this research paper, which also argues that IQ differences are due to recent polygenic selections. Here's some of the SNPs and genes they list:
NPTN gene
possibly rs324650
APOE

OpenPsyche is not a legitimate academic journal. It's a pseudo-journal that was set up by Davide Piffer and Emil Kirkagaard (who coincidentally happen to also be the authors of the paper you're citing). The latter is reportedly a white nationalist, while the former is a parapsychologist whack job who posts online under the name 'Duxide' and apparently believes himself to possess telekinetic powers. Neither have any expertise in the field of genetics or psychology.

While we're on the subject, why is it no one ever seems to offer an explanation as to why niggers are so uniquely and severely impaired by prejudice or poverty? It's not like they're the only group to ever be affected by it. Hell, the kikes are forever kvetching about how they suffered so much "unjust" persecution over the course of history, but it never seemed to affect them intellectually. How strange.

There's a lot of new accounts popping up lately in the Deep Thoughts sub-forum, all of which seem especially preoccupied with both this thread and the ethnostate thread. Interesting. . . .

 

[wylfım]

The United States is about as racially segregated now as it was when segregation was mandated by states, and in Europe, immigrant populations tend to live in their own, isolated communities, with all of the cultural differences between them and the native population remaining heavily pronounced.

Yeah that's true. This isn't the ethnostate thread so I won't say anything about that, but your point is valid. I'll address that later below.

We know from studies into neuroplasticity that the brain is very adaptable. Neuropsychological studies on taxi drivers who work in big cities have shown that they tend to have a higher volume of gray matter in the hippocampus region, which affords them greater spacial reasoning abilities. The point to take from this is that the brain isn't like a hard drive, where a fixed amount of space is available. The very structure of the brain is capable of changing in response to years of environmental stress. How do you know that a similar phenomenon is not highly applicable to IQ?

Neuroplasticity tends to be in response to specific stimuli, and generally the results don't generalize beyond tasks that you immediately trained for (like navigation, with the taxi examples). This doesn't apply to IQ because it's a generalized construct. Your IQ is, in a sense, a measure of how quickly you can adapt to any arbitrary task. The research backs this up. You cannot increase your IQ by training or education— you get better at specific IQ tests, but if the test changes all the supposed "results" go away. Obligatory "I love Gwern," because his research is awesome. It also links to this if you want more reading from one of the most prominent psychometric researchers in history. Tl;dr we haven't found a way of increasing people's IQ after birth.

Genome-wide association studies can infer heritability, but without being able to isolate what it is the IQ tests are measuring, how do we know that these heritability estimates are not tremendously inaccurate, or tainted by a severe flaw in the assumptions of the research methodology being employed?

Spoiler

The definition of the "intelligence" IQ tests measures seems to match up pretty damn well with what it logically would be.
Reaction speed, ability to make associations with patterns, ability to quickly learn new things and abstract from previous knowledge.

If you really want to get to the details, IQ measures g. The math underlying its derivation is solid. We don't necessarily know exactly what it is, but the factor analysis clearly shows the existence of some common underlying trait that explains people's scores on cognition tests.

Education doesn't begin or end in the academic environment. Children who are raised in an intellectually stimulating environment consistently tend to score higher on standardized tests than children who are raised by parents who are not as equipped to nurture their intellectual development. Do you not think that this could be relevant to IQ scores?

See above post from Gwern. Putting people into head-start programs gives a transient increase in their IQ during childhood, but it levels back to baseline during adulthood. This is because childhood IQ is more flexible, since the brain develops at different speeds according to different stimuli, but in the end it will regress back to the mean. I would argue instead that children who are in intellectually stimulating environments are more likely to come from intelligent parents, and so the apparent IQ-gap there is hereditary.

OpenPsyche is not a legitimate academic journal. It's a pseudo-journal that was set up by Davide Piffer and Emil Kirkagaard (who coincidentally happen to also be the authors of the paper you're citing). The latter is reportedly a white nationalist, while the former is a parapsychologist whack job who posts online under the name 'Duxide' and apparently believes himself to possess telekinetic powers. Neither have any expertise in the field of genetics or psychology.

I looked up the journal before I posted from it, and I couldn't find an unbiased source saying it was bad (rationalwiki doesn't count imo). Davide Piffer has a research gate account as an accredited scholar, same with Emil. It doesn't seem to be a pseudo-journal so much as a small open-source one, which is something a lot of scholars support because the current mainstream publishing platform is ridiculously corrupt in terms of profits and research access. And just because it's not published in a "reputable" place doesn't mean it isn't credible. Read the research and let it stand on its own merit, not on its surroundings.

There's a lot of new accounts popping up lately in the Deep Thoughts sub-forum, all of which seem especially preoccupied with both this thread and the ethnostate thread. Interesting. . . .

Spoiler

>sage
In all seriousness I think it's just because controversial topics draw lurkers who aren't interested in other more mundane things.

 

[DragoonSierra]

Why do you need science to be a racist? Why do you need validation? How sad is it that you need a reason to be racist? Just be a fucking racist. @Null does it.

 

[wylfım]

Why do you need science to be a racist? Why do you need validation? How sad is it that you need a reason to be racist? Just be a fucking racist. @Null does it.

Tbh its a misnomer. Its scientific "racism" because its trying to find out whether or not the races are different in certain traits (intelligence is the most hotly debated one). This clearly goes against (((their))) agenda that everyone is Equal™ and you're a bigot if you think otherwise.

 

[throwaway1488]

Why do you need science to be a racist? Why do you need validation? How sad is it that you need a reason to be racist? Just be a fucking racist. @Null does it.

Science is still science even when it delivers uncomfortable truths.

Believe me, I would love to live in your fairy-tale world where all races are equal and we could all co-exist harmoniously, but life isn't so romantic. I think persisting in deluding yourself about this is sad, but to each his own.

And being racist for racism's sake is the preserve of edgy teenagers and people with the mentality thereof.

 

[TenMilesWide]

Science is still science even when it delivers uncomfortable truths.

Believe me, I would love to live in your fairy-tale world where all races are equal and we could all co-exist harmoniously, but life isn't so romantic. I think persisting in deluding yourself about this is sad, but to each his own.

And being racist for racism's sake is the preserve of edgy teenagers and people with the mentality thereof.

Inequality doesn't mean we can't coexist harmoniously tbh, don't know why you're tying those together.

 

[lowkey]

There was no statistical difference in IQ between biracial subjects born to white mothers and those born to black mothers. This isn't a perfect control for in utero effects but one would expect to see at least a modest difference if this were a significant factor.

Do you remember what study this was? I have not read this before.

Why do you need science to be a racist?

The thread was renamed after it started, because it got collated together with a thread from 2016. I probably wouldn't have posted in the original thread due to the framing in regards to racism.

The new thread started with this post:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy

Is there a clear and distinct relationship/correlation between someone's race or ethnicity and their IQ or intelligence? Or does it more have to do with the environment they were raised in? Or is it an (near) equal mixture of both? Does evolution play a role in this? How should this knowledge be applied by society and culture?

I ask because I remember reading opinions like those on Stormfront stating that, say, black people are, on average, simply stupider than white people because "the IQ research said so!" Which I'm almost certain is a vast oversimplification of IQ research, and muddies the waters and poisons the well against something potentially very useful for society.

I think the the new thread title was an open-ended question that could be taken either way, but I'm not sure.

 

[drtoboggan]

Whoever took the "mad on the internet" ratings off this board is a fucking low IQ nigger.

Low IQ nigger is redundant.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

This tumblr has a lot of interesting info about genetics, I suggest checking it out:

Arkaim

“If the next century witnesses failure, let it be because our science is not yet up to the job, not...

arkaimcity.tumblr.com

Tbh its a misnomer. Its scientific "racism" because its trying to find out whether or not the races are different in certain traits (intelligence is the most hotly debated one). This clearly goes against (((their))) agenda that everyone is Equal™ and you're a bigot if you think otherwise.

The thing is: who cares if races are different? As long as individuals are judged by their own merit and not the group they come from, I see nothing controversial about it. Yeah, we're not the same. But if free will exists, it means we have control over our fates.

It always seem to be the dumbest of white people sperging about collective racial intelligence, ironically. They don't seem to understand that if, hypothetically, they land straight on the 100 average IQ mark, that still means there's millions upon millions of black people that are smarter than they are, and millions upon millions of dumber East Asians, Whites and Hispanics.

That's usually accurate, lol. Harping on the fact that on average whites are more intelligent than blacks just seems like a way to say "well I may be dumb, but at least I ain't no nigger!"

Resting on other people's laurels like that seems like the white version of we wuz kangz.

 

[Superman93's Bitch]

Evolution disproves the notion of "Humans" as a single monolithic group. It's a variety of subspecies, even today.

View attachment 1577099

while i agree with the sentiment to a degree, classifying species is a very difficult thing to do, as later variations or discoveries constantly blur the lines and render quantifiable distinction irrelevant, to a degree. not arguing with you, just saying this isn't an analogy I would make with someone who knows what they are talking about.

 

[Forgetful Gynn]

A new species of human hasnt formed yet. They can still mate and produce fertile offspring.

So there's no such thing as a subspecies?

I only know trival amounts of human evolution. It would be nice if I could know more. We havent reached the point of separation like chimps and humans.

Humans and chimps can theoretically breed, since they are more genetically similar than donkeys and horses.

while i agree with the sentiment to a degree, classifying species is a very difficult thing to do, as later variations or discoveries constantly blur the lines and render quantifiable distinction irrelevant, to a degree. not arguing with you, just saying this isn't an analogy I would make with someone who knows what they are talking about.

We do it all the time with countless creatures. It's only with humans that we suddenly have "difficulty".

 

[Grandpa Simpson]

Evolution disproves the notion of "Humans" as a single monolithic group. It's a variety of subspecies, even today.

View attachment 1577099

Yes. This is way, fucking way off topic but the evidence suggests through anthropological studies and genetic research, that yes, Humanity are like Canines. With particular genetic predispositions, sometimes physical, and sometimes mental. You do have "breeds" of humans. This is obviously extremely anti-PC so you cannot talk about that. Because then you'd just assume that the Black guy is great at sports and the Asian guys is great at Mathematics. Completely racist.

 

[Forgetful Gynn]

Yes. This is way, fucking way off topic but the evidence suggests through anthropological studies and genetic research, that yes, Humanity are like Canines. With particular genetic predispositions, sometimes physical, and sometimes mental. You do have "breeds" of humans. This is obviously extremely anti-PC so you cannot talk about that. Because then you'd just assume that the Black guy is great at sports and the Asian guys is great at Mathematics. Completely racist.

Or that the white person is good at making civilizations that value human rights.

 

[RodgerDodger]

Or that the white person is good at making civilizations that value human rights.

Errrmmm? You might want to look a bit at Europes Track record pre-WW2 before leaping onto that hypothesis.