[Perkwunos]

Ok. So there is emerging research to show that IQ differences can be hardwired. Believe it or not research on Einstein's brain was recently published. I can't post the article because it is in a password protected website.

Why not look on Sci-Hub?

We will not benefit from trying to explain it away (even in part) to some biological disadvantage and distract from the absolute fact that their (blacks) difficulties in achievement are entirely societal. Entirely.

Entirely? I don't know about that. If you really want to change things, then tinkering with people's genomes (at a bare minimum) is the way to go. And that doesn't just go for blacks by the way. The insufferable stupidity of the human race in general won't go away without some kind of very serious overhaul of this kind.

[Pants-of-dog]

OK. Good. They exist.

Yes. As a social construct.

[Perkwunos]

Yes. As a social construct.

A social construct about which cluster analysis of genetic material is in near total agreement. And on that note:

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, it is a fact that genetic clusters as well as osteological indicators can tell is what race someone is.

This does not contradict the fact that race is more of a historical category and that it is a weak proxy for actual genetic diversity.

[Truth To Power]

Theres a statistically significant correlation between the divorce rates in Utah and suicides using explosive materials.

Is it replicable? I.e., does it only occur when both are trending consistently in one direction, or are they also correlated when one of them reverses its trend?

This isn't because they actually have something to do with one another it's because there's enough data to find statistically significant correlations between anything and something stupid.

Which is why I specified replicable.

The fact that I have to point out that coorelation isn't causation is tedious enough

You don't have to point it out.

without you whining about how maybe chocolate either causes or is a sign of high IQ.

Until you know why they are correlated, you can't rule out a causal factor. Chocolate contains both caffeine and theobromine, psychoactive drugs that stimulate brain function. If the correlation disappears when accounting for consumption of those drugs independently of chocolate, then you have learned something. If the correlation disappears when the subjects have not consumed chocolate for a few days before taking the IQ test, you have learned something.

Despite my enjoyment of chocolate it seems that I'm not smart enough to understand how typing the words brain chemistry just explains everything.

No, you are merely not smart enough to understand that that's a strawman fallacy.

It's highly disputable whether or not IQ tests measure some generalizable factor of the brain or just a couple of random abilities that people assume all come from a single g factor.

No, the reality of g is well established, and no competent psychometrician seriously disputes it.

A tape measure is a far different tool than an IQ test, that's a false equivalence.

It's not an equivalence, it's an analogy: a simpler but similar case that illustrates a principle.

A tape measure tests an extremely simple and straighforward factor, physical height.

Yes, but there is a bit of technique involved in getting consistent data.

IQ tests use a battery of tests across a couple different skill sets and a psychologists assessment of how those skills are related to an unknown g factor that they don't even know if it exists as a single generalizable factor and then norms that against the average score people get.

There are various tests that use different kinds of test items. Psychometricians have ways of designing and testing test items to see if they measure the quality of interest with both validity and reliability.

It would only be equivalent if you were using a tape measure to measure the size someones front door and trying to figure out their height.

No. Though intelligence is obviously much more subtle and complex than height, good IQ test items actually require intelligence to solve.

[Truth To Power]

Yes, it is a fact that genetic clusters as well as osteological indicators can tell is what race someone is.

So race exists.

This does not contradict the fact that race is more of a historical category and that it is a weak proxy for actual genetic diversity.

Being a proxy for genetic diversity is beside the point. Being a proxy for genetic clusters is the point.

Race began as something visible, phenotypes, that were associated with geographically distinct populations. It was a crude approximation for what we now know are genetic clusters. For one thing, it is clear that genetic clustering is more complex than the three- or four-race taxonomy that has come down to us through the centuries. Genetically, there are likely a dozen or so "races" -- genetic clusters -- associated with formerly more or less geographically isolated populations. In particular, the "negroid" race probably consists of a number of different extant and extinct clusters in Africa, Australia, and South Asia.

[Pants-of-dog]

So race exists.

Yes, as a social construct.

Being a proxy for genetic diversity is beside the point. Being a proxy for genetic clusters is the point.

That is true if the argument is that these clusters are what we traditionally define as the races.

Race began as something visible, phenotypes, that were associated with geographically distinct populations. It was a crude approximation for what we now know are genetic clusters. For one thing, it is clear that genetic clustering is more complex than the three- or four-race taxonomy that has come down to us through the centuries. Genetically, there are likely a dozen or so "races" -- genetic clusters -- associated with formerly more or less geographically isolated populations. In particular, the "negroid" race probably consists of a number of different extant and extinct clusters in Africa, Australia, and South Asia.

Then you are not arguing that the traditional races are good proxies for these clusters. These clusters may exist but they are not representative of what we traditionally know as the races.

[ThirdTerm]

The two PCA plots basically show that all non-Africans cluster continuously with each other. It's natural that those groups which exchanged genes historically by living side by side plot closely in PCA maps such as the Japanese and the Chinese, or the Russians and Ukrainians. PCA plots naturally demonstrate a close correspondence between genetic and geographic distances and as geographic distance increases, genetic distance increases in a linear manner. The larger the sample size, the more continuous a PCA plot becomes for non-Africans, which some earlier studies such as Tang et al. (2005) failed to do with 20 or less samples. Africans are the outlier of any of these geographic groups due to the lack of Neanderthal genes, except for North Africans who are plotted in the European range along with the Arab populations below.

Understanding the genetic structure of human populations is of fundamental interest to medical, forensic and anthropological sciences. Advances in high-throughput genotyping technology have markedly improved our understanding of global patterns of human genetic variation and suggest the potential to use large samples to uncover variation among closely spaced populations1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Here we characterize genetic variation in a sample of 3,000 European individuals genotyped at over half a million variable DNA sites in the human genome. Despite low average levels of genetic differentiation among Europeans, we find a close correspondence between genetic and geographic distances; indeed, a geographical map of Europe arises naturally as an efficient two-dimensional summary of genetic variation in Europeans. The results emphasize that when mapping the genetic basis of a disease phenotype, spurious associations can arise if genetic structure is not properly accounted for. In addition, the results are relevant to the prospects of genetic ancestry testing6; an individual’s DNA can be used to infer their geographic origin with surprising accuracy—often to within a few hundred kilometres.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 07331.html

[Truth To Power]

Yes, as a social construct.

And a genetic reality.

That is true if the argument is that these clusters are what we traditionally define as the races.

Which they don't seem to be.

Then you are not arguing that the traditional races are good proxies for these clusters.

Right. In particular, the traditional race taxonomy tended to regard anyone with dark skin as negro, which doesn't match genetic clustering.

These clusters may exist but they are not representative of what we traditionally know as the races.

Agreed. Peoples who look superficially similar might have quite different genotypes.

[Drlee]

This racist thread is infuriating. It is devolved into laymen debating genetics; a subject which neither really understands much

The thread title is wrong.

Race exists. It is a dominating force in the world. All of the discussion of genetic similarities between those with light and dark skin distract from a compelling problem in the world today. That is that people treat others differently and very frequently discriminate against others based solely on skin color.

I may be closely related to a Sub Saharan African but my skin is white as the snow. That is the issue. Not whether we are otherwise "related".

Why don't we talk about that.

[Pants-of-dog]

And a genetic reality.

Which they don't seem to be.

Right. In particular, the traditional race taxonomy tended to regard anyone with dark skin as negro, which doesn't match genetic clustering.

Agreed. Peoples who look superficially similar might have quite different genotypes.

Sure.

------------

This racist thread is infuriating. It is devolved into laymen debating genetics; a subject which neither really understands much

The thread title is wrong.

Race exists. It is a dominating force in the world. All of the discussion of genetic similarities between those with light and dark skin distract from a compelling problem in the world today. That is that people treat others differently and very frequently discriminate against others based solely on skin color.

I may be closely related to a Sub Saharan African but my skin is white as the snow. That is the issue. Not whether we are otherwise "related".

Why don't we talk about that.

Well, I think when people say that race is a social construct, they are pointing out that most race stuff is about "that people treat others differently and very frequently discriminate against others based solely on skin color."

[Drlee]

Well, I think when people say that race is a social construct, they are pointing out that most race stuff is about "that people treat others differently and very frequently discriminate against others based solely on skin color."

I completely agree with this. That is my point. That is the reason I am disturbed by all of this misdirection regarding IQ and genetic racial identification.

[Hong Wu]

[Godstud]

Race exists to RACISTS, who use it as an excuse to discriminate. The rest of the people just consider people of other colours to be fellow human beings. No one is saying whites are oppressors, but acknowledging that they have not been the subject of persecution(based on their skin colour) is absolutely necessary to address the racial persecution against people of other skin colours. Kapeesh?

I am sorry you might have to think to come to a reasonable conclusion about how it works, but there it is, in a nutshell. Your meme was idiotic, btw.

[Hong Wu]

I see myself as mocking things that liberals actually talk about and not Godstud's built-to-win arguments.

[Godstud]

So, in other words, you can't argue against my argument because it's right.

I see you mocking a lot of things you know little, to nothing, about. Keep it up.

[Hong Wu]

Okay, if you really want me to. What if I told you that B, the inverse of A, cannot exist if A does not exist. You can't have the inverse of something without that thing existing.

If diversity is the opposite of racial uniformity (or the uniformity of anything) then that thing which is uniform must exist.

What this means is that you can't support any kind of liberal race-related agenda without acknowledging that race exists. The idea that the thing to be broken up only exists in the minds of the baddies and you have to react to it is actually an acknowledgement that the thing is relevant, therefore it exists. The alternative is basically semantics.

[Drlee]

There is never a thread when somebody doesn't brand everyone with whom they disagree a "liberal". This is unhelpful but appeals to those who would rather not (as Godstud said) invest the time to actually think. Lets take apart the meme.

Whites are oppressors:

Some are deliberately. Some are unintentionally. Some are and try to justify their prejudice by attempting to prove that minorities are genetically inferior. They deny this of course and tell us it is not prejudice but just "science".

Non-Whites are victims

A great many are in fact victims. Everyone who was not hired because their name was Jamal or Kenisha. (The studies are conclusive so don't even go there.) And any of the other myriad of racial stereotyping that goes with it.

But Race Doesn't exist

Race does exist. To think otherwise is idiotic. The fact that only an idiot could believe that race doesn't exist merely illustrates the fact that there are a lot of idiots out there.

Yet I love racial diversity and I celebrate our differences

Naaa. Doesn't really happen. Eating a taco on the 5th of May make one all warm and fuzzy but it is not the same thing as deliberately choosing doctor Fernandez from a list of approved providers. I hate hip-hop. It disgusts me. This does not make me a racist. I hate jazz too. It sounds like untrained musicians guessing. I love Mexican food because it was a treat when I was a kid. None of these things matter.

Because we are all the same

No we are not. I know absolutely no one who believes this. I believe that we all share some basic needs and desires but that is about as far as it goes. I think Japanese girls are cute but I did not marry one. I hate pit bulls. So What? We are not the same and I defy anyone to make a post arguing the point. We are going to discriminate against others for a wide variety of reasons. This does not justify prejudice. It just calls us to me mindful of this natural human tendency and guard against being a fool.

[Hong Wu]

Most of this liberal college nonsense is just an attempt to get laid. "Hey baby, race doesn't exist so if we hook up it's not weird."

This is also why most politically ignorant liberal arts professors are socially liberal, they regularly try to seduce their students and this is facilitated by lecturing on the merits of group sex.

[Godstud]

Race does exist.

Yes, as a social construct, and to those who use it as a way to belittle and discriminate against others.

Most of this liberal college nonsense is just an attempt to get laid. "Hey baby, race doesn't exist so if we hook up it's not weird."

Stupidity. My wife is of a "different race". You know when that came up? NEVER. It's totally irrelevant.

What you talk about might have been a thing in the 50s, 60s or 70s when there was a lot MORE discrimination(particularly against white and blacks co-mingling), but for most non-racists, this isn't a "thing", in modern Western culture.

The rest of your post is just rambling nonsense about orgies.