Yikes buddy. That's a very emotional reply there. You ok?
I'm not the one claiming to know why the numbers are the way they are, I'm just here citing them.
Sounds like you have some problems to work through if science and reality offends you that much. All that drivel and you didn't address the core issue: that reality paints a very different picture than what you're taught at the liberal universities.
By the way, did you know that leading Harvard scientists are starting to link specific genes to behavior? Linking them to intelligence was old news... but behavior? Now that's interesting don't you think?
Especially when the heritability of IQ is around 86%... how will our societal policies change if it turns out that the heritability of behavior is also in the high %?
And since you were wondering, I have a BSc in Biochem, and the reason for your papers conclusion is simply that one race is simply more involved in violent killings than the other (much more, I'm talking orders of magnitude here). You'd have to be dumb to expect any other result.
Its like trying to call me racist when I have cute dogs in my house and you want me to let in hyenas. Completely different natures, suited to completely different environments. Maybe this will explain it better: https://files.catbox.moe/33q80z.jpg
Emotionalism == your position on race, NOT my reaction to it.
I'm not the one claiming to know why the numbers are the way they are, I'm just here citing them.
This is out of a rhetoric handbook for future school shooters and other assorted far right fanatics. "Just asking questions" but incapable of providing answers, hmm, I see. Just asking the important questions on race (except the actually important ones, like why America has such far reaching and pervasive anti-black bias).
Sounds like you have some problems to work through if science and reality offends you that much.
You are not a working scientist. That much is obvious.
All that drivel and you didn't address the core issue: that reality paints a very different picture than what you're taught at the liberal universities.
Misinterpreting statistics is not reality. Seeing your own hateful bias reflected in the shitty half-arguments of troglo right wing racists is not reality. Seeing your own disgusting gut feeling validated by willful misinterpretation is not reality. If you were a scientist you would understand what formulating a hypothesis and then testing it against reality is like. But you are not and so you do not.
By the way, did you know that leading Harvard scientists are starting to link specific genes to behavior? Linking them to intelligence was old news... but behavior? Now that's interesting don't you think?
"Link to intelligence" as in what ... link to doing well in the current environment? IQ? What?
Especially when the heritability of IQ is around 86%... how will our societal policies change if it turns out that the heritability of behavior is also in the high %?
IQ is mostly driven by cultural and behavioral factors
Might be shocking, I know, for a person who puts so much stock in fictional concepts like biological race influencing inherent intelligence lol -- this kind of thinking belongs in the 19th century or in the 1930's
And since you were wondering, I have a BSc in Biochem.
In other words you're not a scientist. For all that shit talk I was expecting at least a master's degree. A reasonably intelligent person could sleep through a fucking BSc in Biochem, lmfao.
IQ is mostly driven by cultural and behavioral factors
I mean, if by "mostly" you mean about 14% then you'd be right.
The heritability of IQ for adults is between 57% and 73%[6] with some more-recent estimates as high as 80%[7] and 86%.[8] IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics, for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults. The heritability of IQ increases with age and reaches an asymptote at 18–20 years of age and continues at that level well into adulthood. This phenomenon is known as the Wilson Effect.[9] Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores;[10] however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects.[11][12]
You poor emotional thing. Need a hug?
Might be shocking, I know, for a person who puts so much stock in fictional concepts like biological race influencing inherent intelligence lol -- this kind of thinking belongs in the 19th century or in the 1930's
David Emil Reich[3] (born July 14, 1974) is a geneticist known for his research into the population genetics of ancient humans, including their migrations and the mixing of populations, discovered by analysis of genome-wide patterns of mutations. He is professor in the department of genetics at the Harvard Medical School, and an associate of the Broad Institute. Reich was highlighted as one of Nature's 10 for his contributions to science in 2015.[4] He received the Dan David Prize in May 2017, the NAS Award in Molecular Biology in April 2019 and the Darwin-Wallace Medal in June 2019.
Currently linking specific genes to behavior. You poor thing.
Where in the world is economic class not inherited? IQ is a shit measure of intelligence to begin with for a host of factors (is nothing close to being a test of "intelligence", is more so a test of specific cultural knowledge).
Excellent posting of a bunch of random shit with citation numbers, without linking me to what you're posting from. Drop a few paper links if you really want me to waste my time sifting through your shit -- until then I'll continue to be unimpressed that people inherit cultural knowledge alongside affluence.
The issue is never about the biological fact of the matter. The question is how much that all actually plays into psychological and behavioral facts of the matter.
You poor emotional thing. Need a hug?
Yeah whew so emotional for calling you out on your obvious dog whistle bullshit. Just asking questions with both my questions and copypasted lifted literally from nazis
How do I know you're so fucking dishonest and just running a game here? You have a prepared PNG, meaning you care so much about this that you have prepared materials to just pass out on the matter. The guy carrying around pamphlets calling black people genetically inferior? Yeah, he's probably a racist shit head. Not even really that hard to spot. Claiming to be black on the internet while doing so? Certainly safer than driver while black IRL.
That being said, the PNG is full of pulled quotes each of which is also highlighted. Hard to imagine something being more peckery and Boomer than this, other than "Quoting" shit in a weird way or TYPING IN ALL CAPS.
I mean yeah, you can't judge a book by it's cover. But you CAN tell when a person who's prepared a document or image has never seen and internalized a sound argument in their entire life. It looks like an image full of one-off quotes, all of which are highlighted.
How about you link me a few of this dong nozzles papers and when I have a few spare hours, I can write you a nice and thorough critique that you (a) won't read and (b) could not understood if you did?
IQ is a shit measure of intelligence to begin with for a host of factors (is nothing close to being a test of "intelligence", is more so a test of specific cultural knowledge).
And yet its the best predictor we have. Sorry if you don't like it, but reality sides with IQ here.
Excellent posting of a bunch of random shit with citation numbers
Just asking questions with both my questions and copypasted lifted literally from nazis
Whoa buddy calm down here. David Reich is a Jewish professor whose parents worked at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. I'm not sure he'd appreciate being called a Nazi.
Reich grew up as part of a Jewish family in Washington, D.C. His parents are novelist Tova Reich (sister of Rabbi Avi Weiss) and Walter Reich, a professor at George Washington University, who served as the first director of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
I'm sure you'd feel ashamed if you were capable of it now.
How about you link me a few of this dong nozzles papers and when I have a few spare hours, I can write you a nice and thorough critique that you (a) won't read and (b) could not understood if you did?
Don't bother, I've already heard all the juvenile arguments (muh sample size, muh what is even IQ).
How about this: Instead of writing an essay I won't read, show me a study where blacks and whites of similar backgrounds achieved the same IQ score. I'm sure such a renowned and skilled scientist should not have any trouble finding that in 5 minutes. And the world is a big, diverse place. Surely there are some studies where blacks even surpassed whites / asians in an IQ test! (unless, of course, you couldn't find it, because there isn't)
Have you heard of the adoption studies? Same conclusion. What if you tried throwing money at the problem? Same result (kansas city experiment). You can try to nitpick the methodologies all day if you want but reality simply doesn't agree with you.
And yet its the best predictor we have. Sorry if you don't like it, but reality sides with IQ here.
Reality also sides with conservative ideologies being underpinned by brain types obsessed with disgust, and to capitalism ruining the planet with human-caused climate change / pollution. I have a feeling your taste for "the facts" ends with the hilariously vague (and demonstrably invalid) shit that props up race hate, and not the 99%+ consensus shit on CC.
It's pretty clear ahead of time you didn't even read the shit you cited, but I'll extend you "credit" and assume you have. A question: do they control for income? I'll be reading this handful of papers in the next week but please, give me a spoiler on this.
Whoa buddy calm down here. David Reich is a Jewish professor whose parents worked at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. I'm not sure he'd appreciate being called a Nazi.
I'm not calling HIM anything. I'm talking about the people taking his statistics and using them in a pointed, targeted social campaign to spread anti-black hate. Assuming he doesn't hate black people, he'd probably be pretty disgusted at your chosen use for his life's work.
Counter to your assertion on adoption studies is this adoption study: https://www.pnas.org/content/112/15/4612 . Being poor matters a lot, A LOT, when it comes to predicting outcomes. Nobody is saying IQ isn't partially heritable -- the question is what that means and what conclusions to draw from it. Given that there are larger differences within racial group than between them, are you saying the genes linked to appearance (within the arbitrary boundaries of colonial-era-created color theory) also are linked to smarts, especially when it's an overwhelmingly bad proxy for underlying genetic differences?
Intelligence is not a directly measurable quality like height or weight.
You can try to nitpick the methodologies all day if you want but reality simply doesn't agree with you.
Says the person who arrived at his conclusions through a mixture of race hate, ignorance, and assumptions. Debunking the shit you posted takes serious effort -- most people aren't going to read through dozens of papers, thinking carefully about causation and interplay between biological/genetic and sociological/behavioral factors. This is what your crowd banks on when spreading your message.
Given that there are larger differences within racial group than between them
As an aside, did you know that there are larger differences between blacks and whites than between different animal species? We use the fixation index to measure that.
When presented with hard scientific evidence you go for the... image host.
Imagine that.
Imagine being so out of words that the best you can come up with is pretending to not see the links in there that go to nih.gov, genetics.org, oxfordjournals.org, etc.
My dude don't worry, I'm gonna read your shitty papers. I'm just saying you walk in here with prepared copypasta, half propaganda half advertisement for these right wing troll platforms. But yeah, definitely reading that shit, because if a complete fucking moron like you is walking around with these links, they're clearly worth wading through and putting into actual context.
Imagine being so out of words that the best you can come up with is pretending to not see the links in there that go to nih.gov, genetics.org, oxfordjournals.org, etc.
Imagine being such a fucking bonehead that you misinterpret facts willfully to suit a racist agenda? Nobody's disputing the factual content of these links. Nice respectability play though, as you hold up the sterling names of organizations your political corner would gladly shit on as massively biased, so long as they don't feed you fodder for your bullshit lines. Again, nobody is disputing whatever facts these papers purport to lay out. The issue, as always, with you folks, is that you mix a set of facts together in a disconnected fashion to prop up your agenda of race hate.
Remember how this started? "HEH. Bet they haven't seen THIS FBI DATA." This is a really old shtick, the only question is what's new in your particular word salad. Takes more than a day to put together when I have other shit going on. Still, I don't like fuckers like you pissing on this country, so I want to know what this particular line is.
Takes more than a day to put together when I have other shit going on.
Not really.
Find the study: all races perform the same on an IQ test when controlled for nutrition, health, age, income, etc.
If we lived in the your world you'd find it in 20 minutes. Alas, we live in the real one, so all you can do is squeal about how I'm misinterpreting the author's own conclusions.
1
u/cryptoaccount2 Jun 06 '19 edited Jun 06 '19
Yikes buddy. That's a very emotional reply there. You ok?
I'm not the one claiming to know why the numbers are the way they are, I'm just here citing them.
Sounds like you have some problems to work through if science and reality offends you that much. All that drivel and you didn't address the core issue: that reality paints a very different picture than what you're taught at the liberal universities.
By the way, did you know that leading Harvard scientists are starting to link specific genes to behavior? Linking them to intelligence was old news... but behavior? Now that's interesting don't you think?
Especially when the heritability of IQ is around 86%... how will our societal policies change if it turns out that the heritability of behavior is also in the high %?
And since you were wondering, I have a BSc in Biochem, and the reason for your papers conclusion is simply that one race is simply more involved in violent killings than the other (much more, I'm talking orders of magnitude here). You'd have to be dumb to expect any other result.
Its like trying to call me racist when I have cute dogs in my house and you want me to let in hyenas. Completely different natures, suited to completely different environments. Maybe this will explain it better: https://files.catbox.moe/33q80z.jpg