Christianity is a lie at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:53:48 UTC No. 16629972

And that's if you count all non-Africans as one race, The African races are still more divergent

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:54:08 UTC No. 16629973

That's just 5 races though, and they're all different types of niggers
There's at least that many types of whites and Asians too

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:00:43 UTC No. 16629980

And it seems that each one of those races are more closely related to non Africans than the other African races, interesting...

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:06:14 UTC No. 16629985

>>16629966
Cladistics is not always the best way to think about diversity. All tetrapods (amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals) are just one clade among many clades of fishes within the vertebrates.

Eyedol at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:07:43 UTC No. 16629986

>>16629985
It's not arbitrary like taxonomy

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:28:03 UTC No. 16630005

>>16629986
The admixture plot in your OP image is based on a ton of African samples and just a few non-african samples, which are mostly middle eastern and mediterranean. Even so the admixture plot clearly recognizes the non-african DNA is different since they are given their own brown color, and their Somali cousins are less than 50% brown.

So here's a hypothetical experiment to show whether cladistics is a useful way to think about human diversity. I don't know the result in advance. Include east asian groups in the admixture plots. Include at least as many samples as there are presently for "european" groups. Keep the number of distinct colors the same. What will happen? Will east asians and europeans both get their own color and one of the distinct african colors go away (despite the fact that there are many african samples)?

Eyedol at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:49:41 UTC No. 16630032

>>16630005
>So here's a hypothetical experiment to show whether cladistics is a useful way to think about human diversity. I don't know the result in advance. Include east asian groups in the admixture plots. Include at least as many samples as there are presently for "european" groups. Keep the number of distinct colors the same. What will happen? Will east asians and europeans both get their own color and one of the distinct african colors go away (despite the fact that there are many african samples)?

Non-Africans descend from East Africans that went through a population bottleneck, they have only been diverging for 60,000 years compared to the ~300,000 years Africans have been

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:10:23 UTC No. 16630056

>>16630032
Ok so why are non-Europeans and east africans given different colors then? After all it has only been 60,000 years.

I dug up the actual paper, and you can see that even if they restrict it to only three groups, the europeans are still treated as distinct. I'm willing to bet money if you add east asians in the mix and keep K=5 they will get their own color in favor of the pygmies or distinct east africans.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:12:03 UTC No. 16630058

sorry "non-africans" not "non-Europeans" but you probably knew what I meant

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:30:56 UTC No. 16630073

>>16629966
>why do race realists never mention this
race realists do mention this. For example Razib Khan regularly mentions that there is more genetic diversity in Africa than the rest of the world, and that if you were to divide humanity into two populations that captures the most genetic variance it would be a division between africans and non-africans.

So this is well known and doesn't contradict any race realist beliefs.

For example the fact that subsaharan africans have high levels of genetic diversity doesn't change the fact that africans are stupid and this is most likely caused in large part by their genes.

here's lots of strong evidence that the average IQ gap between races is substantially due to genes.

https://the-boomer-tribune.medium.com/human-racial-and-ethnic-populations-and-differences-in-iq-scores-3cdd2b5cabe
https://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/uip/ajp/article-abstract/134/4/480/291766/Between-Group-Mean-Differences-in-Intelligence-in?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Here's a bonus piece of evidence not mentioned above.

black students who were brought up in affluent homes whose parents have PhDs do worse on the SAT (which is correlated 0.86 with IQ) than white and asian students brought up in low socio-economic status homes whose parents are highschool drop outs.
data for pic related taken from NCES datalab using ABCD dataset plus SAT scores https://humanvarieties.org/2023/08/06/a-remarkable-correlation-between-iq-and-sat-scores-across-ethnic-groups/
This is exactly the opposite result of what you would expect to observe if the average racial IQ gap between blacks and whites or asians was entirely due environmental factors like blacks being brought up in poorer homes and having less access to education.
There is no remotely plausible purely environmental explanation for this.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:47:48 UTC No. 16630081

>>16630073
What does the level of intelligence in Africans have to do with Africans being separate races?

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:48:50 UTC No. 16630082

>>16630058
Because Non-Africans and East Africans diverged 60,000 years ago

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:53:42 UTC No. 16630087

>>16630082
Did East Africans, Bantus, and Pygmies diverge less than 60,000 years ago? Because you ignored the rest of my post where I showed data that the difference between non-Europeans and those three groups is more important than the differences between the three groups themselves.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:03:27 UTC No. 16630093

>>16630081
intelligence evolved to allow people to build larger political coalitions through debate. more diversity means a much lower ceiling on the effective size of a coalition, thus much less need for intelligence.

Eyedol at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:19:52 UTC No. 16630106

>>16630087
>Did East Africans, Bantus, and Pygmies diverge less than 60,000 years ago?

No, look at OP's image, there is a timeline. 60,000 years ago is when the out of African event occurred for non-Africans only, some East African have non African back migration ancestry, some "East Africans" are Bantu or have some Bantu ancestry, the divergent East Africans are Nilotic

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:30:52 UTC No. 16630118

>>16630106
It was a rhetorical question, anon. The point I was making is that even though they diverged sooner the differences are less important on an admixture plot than the difference between african and non-african. So your argument that the difference between Europeans and East Asians ought to be less important than the differences between African groups is not valid.

Eyedol at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:34:43 UTC No. 16630123

>>16630087
>Because you ignored the rest of my post where I showed data that the difference between non-Europeans and those three groups is more important than the differences between the three groups themselves.

Non-Africans went through a severe bottleneck where they lost genetic variation, Northwest Europeans are a small part of Caucasians who are a small part of the Non Africa Group, so they are a unique outgroup, a lot of the variations in Africa are not in non-Africans, this doesn't make Bantu's and Pygmies and Nilotes one race, Because Africans have more genetic diversity than non-Africans

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:44:02 UTC No. 16630129

>>16630123
Non-Africans may have less genetic variation but they are a more easily identifiable group than the differences between African groups. Moreover I am betting that the major differences within non-Europeans are more identifiable than the African groups (with the possible exception of the San). The admixture algorithm quantifies this notion of being a distinct subpopulation.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:44:29 UTC No. 16630130

>>16630118
>So your argument that the difference between Europeans and East Asians ought to be less important than the differences between African groups is not valid.


A European and East Asian are more closely related to each other than any of the African races are, both because they are a subset of East Africans, and they have been through a bottleneck

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:49:39 UTC No. 16630137

>>16630130
They are more closely related on a cladogram, sure. This argument started with the claim that isn't necessarily the best way to quantify diversity. Please use your head.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:57:38 UTC No. 16630144

>>16630129
>Moreover I am betting that the major differences within non-Europeans are more identifiable than the African groups (with the possible exception of the San). The admixture algorithm quantifies this notion of being a distinct subpopulation.

Non-Europeans includes the non-Africans who are more closely related to Europeans than they are to Africans, you are just conveniently only looking at a limited 3 population comparison and concluding that Africans have no diversity, the 3 population comparison is not the one you should look at because it is inadequate, it's the k=11 you should focus on. Any 2 non-Africans are less diverse than any 2 Africans from different races, Africans are different genetically and cladistically

Eyedol at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:10:39 UTC No. 16630155

>>16630144

I mean look at the Mbuti, in the k=3 they are approximated as half Bantu (west African) half Khoisan, but in the k=11 they are 100% Pygmy (Central African Forager)

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:22:17 UTC No. 16630175

>>16629966
Makes perfect sense when you consider the effects that shaped genetic selection in Eurasia compared with the continent of Africa over the millennia. For example, their patterns of migration and transportation within their contents differ significantly. In Eurasia and North Africa, horses and camels were domesticated to facilitate transportation across longer distances, allowing intermingling and accelerating cultural development. Meanwhile, Sub-Saharan Africa never domesticated any large animals for transportation. Africa is a giant continent and most of it is treacherous to traverse on foot, especially for primitive peoples. For this and many other reasons, tribes in Africa tended to remain geographically stationary, allowing their gene pools to gradually develop into racially distinct groups. Those groups all had similar adaptations and fitness selections for their environments and societal structure, all sharing the same isolation from the evolutionary influences to select for the genes that became prevalent in Europe.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:39:32 UTC No. 16630188

>>16629966
I fail to see how this is at odds with race realism

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:41:16 UTC No. 16630194

>>16629966
There are clearly different races of black people, no one with eyes and an open mind would dispute this.

Is there a single one with a mean iq above 95?

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:45:30 UTC No. 16630198

>>16630188
It's not, but the race realists, hardly ever care about the different races in Africa, when they are more divergent than all non Africans, but they make huge distinctions between different Caucasian populations

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:08:45 UTC No. 16630216

>>16629966
>why do race realists never mention this
If they did, they would have to acknowledge the out of Africa theory as true, or deny, how is it possible that the highest human biodiversity is only in Africa. Since races actually require far longer spans than mere 100k years to appear(anything else is regional variation), then they have to either accept that the grounds behind the idea of human races is shaky at best or start redefining race through cladistic lense, meaning that all of a sudden each small characteristic found in fossils, primitive or not, can be a reason to make a new clade. Not only this is madness(there would be thousands) and counterproductive but there is no reason to do it just to justify the existence of human races.

And if they admit the out of Africa theory as true, then that means that humans came from Africa, which forces them into the position of explaining how
>No genetic flow happened from Europe to Africa, separating both groups
>Even if there was no genetic flow, they have to point exactly when and it has to be far back enough to justify the existence of a race, not a genetic variation
>How come inside Africa has always been enough genetic flow to keep everyone close to equally human for millions of years, but all of a sudden a flip in the last part meant a sudden cut in genetic flow from Europe

At this point race realists will
>Try to justify races happening in less than 100k years(quoting different species which is invalid without accounting for the differences or exagerating small human genetic drifts)
>Will try to simply deny the out of Africa theory and propose an alternative, based around modern anatomical humans appearing in Europe all of a sudden by misrepresenting some findings around Eastern Europe and without going deeper into all the implications towards all the chronologically ordered fossils found from Africa to Anatolia to the Carpathians, to Germany and Spain by challenging the methodology or declaring foul play

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:09:46 UTC No. 16630220

>>16629966
Well race realists are either too dumb to understand what a "politic stance" is or means, or they're Nobel laureates and they're still too dumb to know what a "politic stance" is or means.

But yeah East Africans often seem attractive to me, whereas the Congolese are better left not described. Racists basically only see skin and eye color. And geneticists can understand what data implies. Right now you're in an Orwellian state where everyone knows that the nigga crackhead is ready to rob you if you blink - and you act that way, but just say "oh yes he would make a fine doctor" because keeping up the act means you get paid.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:40:03 UTC No. 16630256

>>16630081
the question of race realism is really about whether differences between different races aka different ancestral population groups exist.
Asking whether the ancestral population groups themselves exist is almost a non-question

usually leftoids attempt to try to argue that the ancestral population groups themselves don't exist by setting the criteria absurdly high with wild claims (e.g. "when people say races they mean totally distinct, totally non-overlapping populations which share nothing in common") because what they really want is to deny that there are any differences between those ancestral population groups.

But of course large average differences between those ancestral population groups do exist so we can for the sake of argument accept all the delusional leftoid claims that there no similarity between the concepts of breed/race/strain and the concept of species , or accept that species themselves aren't real and that races are just social constructs with no correspondence to biological reality or ancestry , but even if this were true , those groups placed in these different racial designations (by pure cultural accident/white supremacist delusions) do still have large differences caused by their genes , including in socially important variables like IQ

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:52:14 UTC No. 16630271

>>16630256
>the question of race realism is really about whether differences between different races aka different ancestral population groups exist.

But for race realist the idea of populations being separated is fundamental to the idea of race realism, if Africans were on average less intelligent or more or the same, it has nothing to do with them been different races, which race realist always ignore. To be a race realist you first have to define what the races are

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:02:05 UTC No. 16630285

>>16630216
Out of africa theory isn't true. Out of africa theory aka the replacement hypothesis is the idea that humans today all have a recent african origin because those africans spread out and killed off or replaced all the other humans , so all humans alive today only differ by evolution that has happened in the last 60k years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replacement_theory
But this has been proven false by the fact that it has since been found that different populations of modern humans actually have substantial amounts of other archaic hominid dna which other groups of modern humans in different geographic locations do not share. e.g. south east asians have 7% denisovan dna that other human populations don't have , europeans have up to 4% neanderthal dna which is a lot more than other human populations, west africans have 20% ghost population dna which no other human population has and have no neanderthal or denisovan dna.

So all modern humans do not have the same recent origin in africa, different modern human populations have substantially different origins .
And all differences between modern humans are not just due to evolution in the last 60k years significant parts of our genetic make up are due to archaic hominids that have been seperated for a lot longer than 60k years. The last recent common ancestor between denisovans and the west african ghost population was between 360000 to 1 million years ago ( almost 15% of the time since we split from chimpanzees! enough time for substantial differences)

doon't just take my word for it.
Here's Christopher Stringer, one of the formerly leading proponents of the out of africa theory among anthropologists explaining how it has been disproven

https://www.edge.org/conversation/christopher_stringer-rethinking-out-of-africa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Stringer

leftoid tranny retards take another L

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:18:52 UTC No. 16630308

>>16630271
>But for race realist the idea of populations being separated is fundamental to the idea of race realism

Wrong. This has always been something that only leftoids repeated and made up among themselves.

you'd never find any race realist academic like Neven Sesardic, Nathan Cofnas, Emil Kirkegaard, Davide Piffer, John Fuerst, Jordan Lasker, Steve Hsu , David Reich, Helmuth Nyborg, Robert Jensen, Richard Lynn , Michael Woodley of Menie etc. claim this.

>if Africans were on average less intelligent or more or the same, it has nothing to do with them been different races,

lol you must be pretty retarded and unable to follow a simple argument. I'll try and make it simple for you to understand.
subsaharan Africans are less intelligent on average than Europeans and east asians due in large part to both their genes and their environment . The genes of subsaharan africans are different to Europeans and east asians due to them being geographically seperated from Europeans and east asians for thousands of years so having very little gene flow and undergoing natural selection in different environments and undergoing genetic drift and mixing with different archaic hominid populations .

If you want to claim that being geographically seperated from geographically seperated from Europeans and east asians for thousands of years , undergoing different natural selection and different genetic drift and mixing with different archaic hominid populations has nothing to do with being belonging to different races then you are a retard.

The reason humans identified different races is because of the obvious differences that resulted from the above described processes.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:21:08 UTC No. 16630314

>>16630271
cont
>To be a race realist you first have to define what the races are
No, because the question of race realism is really about whether differences between different races aka different ancestral population groups exist. we can for the sake of argument accept all the delusional leftoid claims that there no similarity between the concepts of breed/race/strain and the concept of species , or accept that species themselves aren't real and that races are just social constructs with no correspondence to biological reality or ancestry , but even if this were true , those groups placed in these different racial designations (by pure cultural accident/white supremacist delusions, according to leftoids) do still have large differences caused by the differing allele distributions of these races , including in socially important variables like IQ

Eyedol at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:37:31 UTC No. 16630333

>>16630314

Race realism relies on the idea that Humans are split into different races, which Africans are split into many different races but are usually ignored and lumped together as one especially by race realists. This thread is about why race realist like to ignore this fact, so what does the intelligence level of Africans have to do with anything?

>>16630308
>If you want to claim that being geographically seperated from geographically seperated from Europeans and east asians for thousands of years , undergoing different natural selection and different genetic drift and mixing with different archaic hominid populations has nothing to do with being belonging to different races then you are a retard.

But who made that claim?

So do race realist ignore the fact that Africans are different races because they are lower I.Q on average?

Eyedol at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:40:17 UTC No. 16630338

>>16630308
>Wrong. This has always been something that only leftoids repeated and made up among themselves.

You are wrong, the core of race realism is that race is not a social construct but a biological reality

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:57:16 UTC No. 16630358

>>16630333
>So do race realist ignore the fact that Africans are different races because they are lower I.Q on average?

Because race realist only care about their racist agenda, they don't give a fuck about all of that.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:47:16 UTC No. 16630398

>>16630338
>>16630338

No, this is not correct because we can for the sake of argument accept all the delusional leftoid claims that there no similarity between the concepts of breed/race/strain and the concept of species , or accept that species themselves aren't real and that races are just social constructs with no correspondence to biological reality or ancestry , but even if this were true , those groups placed in these different racial designations (by pure cultural accident/white supremacist delusions, according to leftoids) do still have large differences caused by the differing allele distributions of these races , including in socially important variables like IQ.

Notice how I did not need to say that racial categories are the same as the differences between different elements of the periodic table in order to point out that the average differences in quantities like say IQ between racial categories, which let's for the sake of argument say are the product of pure cultural accident and white supremacist fantasy , are due in large part to genes.

So let's imagine I agree with you , and when humans come up with racial categories they aren't observing anything that corresponds with actual biological ancestry , we're still left with the fact that average differences in things like IQ between these races are caused in large part by average differences in genes between the races.
Are you going to happily accept that?
No , right ? Because for you the only reason you're trying to deny race realism is because you want a short cut to denying that differences between races are due to genes, which is what the actual claim of race realism is about.

>posting a screenshot from google which is quoting a wikipedia page whose editors and moderators are dominated by leftoids making sure to reference leftoid authors.

Instead look at what an actual race realist philosopher of biology like Neven Sesardic says , pic related
https://philpapers.org/go.pl?aid=SESRAS

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:48:20 UTC No. 16630400

>>16630358
you say that and yet fail to refute a single thing in >>16630073

It looks like you are the one who does not care about evidence and only cares about your delusional leftoid agenda and negrolatry.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:57:56 UTC No. 16630405

>>16630333
>But who made that claim?
You made that claim when you said
> if Africans were on average less intelligent or more or the same, it has nothing to do with them been different races,

because the implication of saying that low subsaharan african IQ has nothing to do with their race despite the fact that low subsaharan african IQ is in large part due to their genes means that you must be claiming that the genes of africans being different from Europeans and asians, which is a result of being geographically seperated from geographically seperated from Europeans and east asians for thousands of years , undergoing different natural selection and different genetic drift and mixing with different archaic hominid populations, has nothing to do with being belonging to different races.

>So do race realist ignore the fact that Africans are different races because they are lower I.Q on average?
Race realist academics don't do this at all. For example Razib Khan regularly mentions that there is more genetic diversity in Africa than the rest of the world, and that if you were to divide humanity into two populations that captures the most genetic variance it would be a division between africans and non-africans.
So this is well known and doesn't contradict any race realist beliefs.
No race-realist academic like Neven Sesardic, Nathan Cofnas, Emil Kirkegaard, Davide Piffer, John Fuerst, Jordan Lasker, Steve Hsu , David Reich, Helmuth Nyborg, Robert Jensen, Richard Lynn , Michael Woodley of Menie would deny any of the above or that for instance Yoruba are more genetically different from say khoikhoi than Belgians are from Indians.

So you're simply arguing against leftoid strawmen rather than engaging with actual race realist academics and their research demonstrating the differences between different races being caused by differences in the allele distributions of those races.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:04:50 UTC No. 16630409

>>16630398
>>16630398
>So let's imagine I agree with you , and when humans come up with racial categories they aren't observing anything that corresponds with actual biological ancestry , we're still left with the fact that average differences in things like IQ between these races are caused in large part by average differences in genes between the races.

And this makes sub-Saharan African one racial group how? Why does one trait like I.Q
make Africans a homogenous racial group?

>Are you going to happily accept that?
>No , right ? Because for you the only reason you're trying to deny race realism is because you want a short cut to denying that differences between races are due to genes, which is what the actual claim of race realism is about.

This is a strawman, the question was why do race realist not care about dividing Africans into different races, no one claimed there are no differences between different races and their gene and traits

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:15:08 UTC No. 16630414

>>16630405
>>But who made that claim?
>You made that claim when you said
>> if Africans were on average less intelligent or more or the same, it has nothing to do with them been different races,
>because the implication of saying that low subsaharan african IQ has nothing to do with their race despite the fact that low subsaharan african IQ is in large part due to their genes means that you must be claiming that the genes of africans being different from Europeans and asians, which is a result of being geographically seperated from geographically seperated from Europeans and east asians for thousands of years , undergoing different natural selection and different genetic drift and mixing with different archaic hominid populations, has nothing to do with being belonging to different races.

Those 2 statements have nothing to do with each other, Africans are not one group and Europeans and East Asians are not the only non-African people, nobody said low African I.Q has nothing to do with their race, another strawman argument. And the I.Q differences are based on averages, A Bantu can have a high I.Q, and a European can have a low I.Q, what does that have to do with the fact the sub-Saharan Africans are not one race?

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:18:56 UTC No. 16630418

>>16630409
>this makes sub-Saharan African one racial group how?
says who? Race realist academics don't say this at all. For example Razib Khan regularly mentions that there is more genetic diversity in Africa than the rest of the world, and that if you were to divide humanity into two populations that captures the most genetic variance it would be a division between africans and non-africans.
So this is well known and doesn't contradict any race realist beliefs.
No race-realist academic like Neven Sesardic, Nathan Cofnas, Emil Kirkegaard, Davide Piffer, John Fuerst, Jordan Lasker, Steve Hsu , David Reich, Helmuth Nyborg, Robert Jensen, Richard Lynn , Michael Woodley of Menie would deny any of the above or that for instance Yoruba are more genetically different from say khoikhoi than Belgians are from Indians.

So you're simply arguing against leftoid strawmen rather than engaging with actual race realist academics and their research demonstrating the differences between different races being caused by differences in the allele distributions of those races.

>the question was why do race realist not care about dividing Africans into different races,
This is akin to asking "why do evolution believers claim that dinosaurs rode motorbikes"

race realists academics openly acknowledge that the most genetic diversity among the human population exists in africa and that if you were to divide humanity into two populations that captures the most genetic variance it would be a division between africans and non-africans.

>no one claimed there are no differences between different races and their gene and traits
If you are accept and concede based on the evidence in >>16630073 that the average differences between the races are in large part due to their different genes ,including in terms of IQ, then you have conceded that differences between different ancestral population groups are in large part due to their genes so you have conceded the major claim of race realism

Eyedol at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:27:57 UTC No. 16630425

>>16630418
>race realists academics openly acknowledge that the most genetic diversity among the human population exists in africa and that if you were to divide humanity into two populations that captures the most genetic variance it would be a division between africans and non-africans.

This is not the same as saying Africans are different races

>>16630418
>If you are accept and concede based on the evidence in >>16630073 that the average differences between the races are in large part due to their different genes ,including in terms of IQ, then you have conceded that differences between different ancestral population groups are in large part due to their genes so you have conceded the major claim of race realism

And who doubted there are different genes and levels of Average intelligence between races?

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:36:45 UTC No. 16630430

>>16630414
they have a great deal to do with each other.

Subsaharan africans are lower IQ on average than Europeans and east asians because the population genetics of subsaharan africans are worse for IQ than the population genetics of Europeans and east asians and the reason subsaharan africans have those population genetics is because subsaharan africans were geographically seperated from Europeans and east asians for thousands of years , undergoing different natural selection and different genetic drift and mixing with different archaic hominid populations.

And you are claiming that this has nothing to do with race

>nobody said low African I.Q has nothing to do with their race
yes you did >>16630271
>if Africans were on average less intelligent or more or the same, it has nothing to do with them been different races,

i.e. if africans were on average less intelligent or more or the same , it has nothing to do with them being different races from Europeans and East asians.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:37:50 UTC No. 16630431

>>16630414
>>what does that have to do with the fact the sub-Saharan Africans are not one race?
Who said they were? not any race realist academic mentioned here.

you sound like you need to read more race realist literature to explain why your strawman preoccupation with how many different races they are is retarded, immaterial and besides the point
https://philpapers.org/archive/SESCAR.pdf
>"I suggest that typical uses of the concept of geographic race today
are simply crude labels imposed upon this geographically structured variation. In that sense, race is culturally constructed, as all
labels are, but it is also based on an underlying reality of biological
variation." (Relethford, 2009, p. 20; italics added)
>Relethford explains that crude labels may be correct and useful as
far as they go, but that it would be ridiculous to criticize these labels
by over-interpreting their true meaning:
>"My point is that we tend to use crude labels in everyday life
with the realization that they are fuzzy and subjective. I doubt
anyone thinks that terms such as ‘‘short,’’ ‘‘medium,’’ and ‘‘tall’’
refer to discrete groups, or that humanity only comes in three
values of height! (Relethford, 2009, p. 21)"

Eyedol at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:39:20 UTC No. 16630432

>>16630418
>race realists academics openly acknowledge that the most genetic diversity among the human population exists in africa and that if you were to divide humanity into two populations that captures the most genetic variance it would be a division between africans and non-africans.

There is more genetic variation inside Africans than non-African, All non-Africans are more closely related, pretending sub-Saharans are one race and a European an East Asian and an Australian Aborigine are 3 different races is purely a social construct

Eyedol at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:43:22 UTC No. 16630434

>>16630431
So it's a have your cake and eat it thing

>The way we have divided races is a social construct but we'll pretend it's a fact

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:43:32 UTC No. 16630435

>>16630425
No race-realist academic like Neven Sesardic, Nathan Cofnas, Emil Kirkegaard, Davide Piffer, John Fuerst, Jordan Lasker, Steve Hsu , David Reich, Helmuth Nyborg, Robert Jensen, Richard Lynn , Michael Woodley of Menie would deny any of the above or that for instance Yoruba are more genetically different from say khoikhoi than Belgians are from Indians.

This implies that if you consider indians and belgians to be of different races then you ought to consider yoruba and khoikhoi to be of different races.

>And who doubted there are different genes and levels of Average intelligence between races?

No , not simply that different races have genetic differences and different average intelligences, but that the intelligence gaps between races are in large part caused by the different genes of those races as shown by >>16630073

If you concede that then you have conceded the major claim of race realism.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:43:46 UTC No. 16630436

>>16630216
>Since races actually require far longer spans than mere 100k years to appear(anything else is regional variation)
You're begging the quesiton here. The answer would be that the distinct group phenotypes (races) can arise from distinct group genotypes that develop far more quickly than that, particularly from admixture events. The OP shows an example of the recent ethnogenesis of the modern East African 'racial' group from an admixture event between basal East Africans and a basal Non-African group, to form a distinct group genoytype, that has distinct group and national/tribal phenotypes: Somali, Oromo, Tygray, Amhara, Afar, and perhaps Ari etc..

Selection is something that happens in each generation, with each pairing and each birth. Divergance into distinct group genotypes and resulting phenotypes is not something that needs to take 100k, or any other question-begging arbitrary number of years. Many group genotypes and phenotypes have been created within the modern recorded history of the last 500 years: Mestizo people of the Americas, Macanese people of Macau, Coloured people of the Carribean, the similar though distinct Coloured people of South Africa, are all examples of modern and fast ethnogenesis.

Eyedol at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:51:19 UTC No. 16630440

>>16630435
>If you concede that then you have conceded the major claim of race realism.

It's not race realism if they cannot properly define the races, it's "race social construction"

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:51:59 UTC No. 16630441

how do white race realists cope with the stats on Asians and Jews?

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:53:16 UTC No. 16630442

>>16630432
Clearly genetic evidence shows the concept of an single Sub-Saharan race was wrong, and that to speak of one is to instead construct an anti-Clade to distinguish the Out-of-Africa Clade from the rest. And many recent (East Africans) and modern (Coloured/Mulatto/African-Americans etc.) African groups have feet in both camps now.

A proper divison would be to acknowledge the distinct ancient basal group genotypes, and the distinct modern group genotypes (largely from how they cluster around proportion of admixture), and multiply the number of group genotypes that exist in ancient and modern Africa, and the world generally. Exactly like the graph in the OP does.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:55:10 UTC No. 16630444

>>16630432
>There is more genetic variation inside Africans than non-African, All non-Africans are more closely related
This is regularly and readily admitted and published by race realist academics.
>pretending sub-Saharans are one race and a European an East Asian and an Australian Aborigine are 3 different races
Who pretends that? no race realist academic, only leftoid strawmen.
Looks like you can't find anything race realist academics have said that is actually wrong so you have to instead argue against strawman and repeatedly assert them.

>>16630434
It sounds like you want to pretend that
>>"I suggest that typical uses of the concept of geographic race today are simply crude labels imposed upon this geographically structured variation. In that sense, race is culturally constructed, as all labels are, but it is also based on an underlying reality of biological variation." (Relethford, 2009, p. 20; italics added)
>Relethford explains that crude labels may be correct and useful as far as they go, but that it would be ridiculous to criticize these labels by over-interpreting their true meaning:
>"My point is that we tend to use crude labels in everyday life with the realization that they are fuzzy and subjective. I doubt anyone thinks that terms such as ‘‘short,’’ ‘‘medium,’’ and ‘‘tall’’ refer to discrete groups, or that humanity only comes in three values of height! (Relethford, 2009, p. 21)"
means that height or race have nothing to do with factual reality because you can't refute anything said in >>16630431 because the whole time you've been arguing against leftoid strawmen rather than the research of actual race realist academics.

This whole time you could have been quoting Neven Sesardic or Jordan Lasker or Emil Kirkegaard etc and said " look , he said this quote about race which is false because of x y z"
But instead you've just been repeating leftoid strawmen arguments of race realism that no race realist academics say

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:56:42 UTC No. 16630445

>>16630434
All knowledge is constructed. Knowledge is a process of human thinking, no knowledge or fact does exists outside of the mind. To demonstrate this to yourself think of a fact that does exist outside of your mind and then realise the nature of the problem.

Eyedol at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:57:35 UTC No. 16630446

>>16630445
1+1=2

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:00:47 UTC No. 16630448

>>16630446
Is something constructed in the mind. It's existence comes from you thinking it, and is comminicated when I think it. It does not exist except in your mind as you conceived and typed it, and in my mind as I read it. Turn to your wall and tell it: 1+1=2. Does it experience knowledge? No, because knowledge is not something it can possess, only the mind can.

Eyedol at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:04:33 UTC No. 16630451

>>16630448
There are facts, genetic variation in Humans is real, but the line drawing is the thing that's not based on anything factual, at least from a genetic standpoint

Eyedol at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:05:35 UTC No. 16630452

>>16630442
Cladistics > taxonomy

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:06:34 UTC No. 16630453

>>16630440
lmao
1. let's suppose your claim is true and that racial categories are a pure social construction like alphabets , that doesn't change that the genetic differences between the races cause in large part the average differences in intelligence between the races as shown by >>16630073 which means that the average differences between races in important variables like IQ are real and caused in larged part by genes which is the major claim of race realism

2. race realists can properly define race see pic >>16630418 from https://philpapers.org/go.pl?aid=SESRAS

Your problem is that you have only ever read about race realism from leftoid strawmen sources which deliberately define race in an unsatisfiable way so that they can claim races don't exist so that they have an excuse to deny that differences in quantities like IQ between different races are caused in large part by the genes of those races i.e. the population genetics of those races.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:08:36 UTC No. 16630456

>>16630448
So to be a race realist you also have to believe that facts aren't real??? You cannot make this up lmao.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:10:06 UTC No. 16630457

>>16630441
white people aren't so pathetic that they need to deny reality like black people.
ashkenazi jews have the highest IQ at around 108 follow by north eastern asians at around 105 followed by white people at around 100 with black people at around 85 for American blacks who have significant recent European admixture from slavery and lower for African blacks and these race differences in average IQ are in large part caused by genetic differences between these races as shown by >>16630073

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:11:41 UTC No. 16630459

>>16630451
All facts are constructed by the mind, no fact exists outside the mind. You are making an arbitrary distinction based on taste. What you like you call a fact, what you don't like you call constructed. The OP graph shows clear distinction in ancient and modern genotypes of acient and modern African groups. Modern African groups have distinct genotypes that classify them into different and distinct ethnic clusters, or races. The data is quite literally there, your decision to dissmiss it is an arbitary one based only on the grounds of distaste.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:14:27 UTC No. 16630461

>>16630456
All facts are constructed by the mind and exist only in the mind. There is not a distinction between a "fact" that exists out there, and a "construct" that exists in the mind. The merits or truth-value of a constructed fact depend on its own merits, but there is no fact/construct distinction, which is simply disguised taste/distaste and question-begging.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:17:02 UTC No. 16630463

>>16630452
Cladistics can only go so far when most groups obtain their distinction from admixture events. Cross-clade events are a major driving force of ethnogenesis and group genotype distinction.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:17:49 UTC No. 16630465

>>16630461
>All facts are constructed by the mind and exist only in the mind
Is that a fact or just a construct of your mind? You just contradicted yourself

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:31:23 UTC No. 16630470

>>16630451
>the line drawing is the thing that's not based on anything factual, at least from a genetic standpoint

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1196372/
>Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.

So clearly at least some of the common lines drawn in self-identified, commonly understood race and ethnicity do correspond to something factual.

For self-identified, commonly understood race and ethnicity to be based on or correspond to nothing factual , it would need to generally be the case that racial groupings included several ancestrally distant groups while but excluded a group more ancestrally related to each of them.

For example if people commonly said things akin to that french, germans, spanish and italians were all the same race but not swiss people. Such a conception of race would be impossible to be consistent with actual ancestral reality.

Similarly if the "line drawing" of height was such that people commonly said that medium height people were from 5'4-5'6 and from 5'8-5'10 but not 5'6-5'8.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:32:24 UTC No. 16630471

>>16630451
cont

But this is not what usually happens because the common conceptions and self-identifications of race and ethnicity end up being historically determined by physical barriers resulting in lesser gene-flow between race/ethnicity groups resulting common conceptions and self-identification of race and ethnicity that is usually continuous with actual ancestry and genetic distance.

peoples self-identified race and ethnicity tells you much more about their actual ancestry than random chance.

so it basically comes down to this :
>>"I suggest that typical uses of the concept of geographic race today are simply crude labels imposed upon this geographically structured variation. In that sense, race is culturally constructed, as all labels are, but it is also based on an underlying reality of biological variation." (Relethford, 2009, p. 20; italics added)
>Relethford explains that crude labels may be correct and useful as far as they go, but that it would be ridiculous to criticize these labels by over-interpreting their true meaning:
>"My point is that we tend to use crude labels in everyday life with the realization that they are fuzzy and subjective. I doubt anyone thinks that terms such as ‘‘short,’’ ‘‘medium,’’ and ‘‘tall’’ refer to discrete groups, or that humanity only comes in three values of height! (Relethford, 2009, p. 21)"

can you disprove any of this or demonstrate that this necessarily has no correspondance with anything factual?

Eyedol at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:36:07 UTC No. 16630476

>>16630470
Hispanic is not even a racial Category, it's a person from a Spanish-speaking country, and African Americans are a mix between West Africans and Northern Europeans

Eyedol at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:41:48 UTC No. 16630479

And "white" is not a Major racial group, Even in the old 3 race model, they are part of the "caucasian race", Those racial groupings leave out vast parts of Humanity

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:42:38 UTC No. 16630480

>>16630434
>can't refute anything in >>16630431
>"y-y-you're just having your cake and eating it"

Can you demonstrate that? What twocontradictory stances are being held onto simultaneously in >>16630431

Sounds like you've just realised that you can't refute >>16630431 but still feel the need to whine like a bitch so you just made up a generic, unsubstantiated allegation

>>The way we have divided races is a social construct but we'll pretend it's a fact
social constructs can correspond to varying degrees to reality, this is the case with race, but more importantly the differences in quantities like IQ between those races are caused in large part by the genetic differences between the races, which is a fact as shown by >>16630073 but which you are two cowardly to either deny and attempt to refute or concede and admit is true.

Eyedol at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:45:10 UTC No. 16630483

>>16630480
So how many races are there in Sub Saharan Africa?

Eyedol at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:52:32 UTC No. 16630487

>>16630480
>social constructs can correspond to varying degrees to reality, this is the case with race, but more importantly the differences in quantities like IQ between those races are caused in large part by the genetic differences between the races, which is a fact as shown by >>16630073 but which you are two cowardly to either deny and attempt to refute or concede and admit is true.

Again, what does the commonality of this one specific trait have to do with sub-Saharan Africans being made up of different races?

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:54:34 UTC No. 16630489

>>16630476
>Hispanic is not even a racial Category, it's a person from a Spanish-speaking country,
Which, in effect tells you something about their ancestral history aka their race.

> African Americans are a mix between West Africans and Northern Europeans
Indeed, meaning again that people's self identified race/ethnicity told you something about their actual ancestral history.

So your claim that the lines drawn around race and ethnicity are not based around anything factual from a genetic standpoint, i.e. do not correspond to anything factual from a genetic standpoint , is false.

If someone behind a screen tells you their self-identified race ethnicity then you have found out, with much better than random chance, genetic information about them.
If you then attempted to make bets about what alleles they had, you would do significantly better than someone who had never been told their self-identified race/ancestry.

>>16630479
so what? If you ask people behind a screen "in a single word, how tall are you?" and they told you medium, or small or tall, their self-identified classifications might leave out parts of the height spectrum of humanity, but they would still tell you much more information about the underlying reality of their height than if you had never asked them

you sound like you need to re-read >>16630431 because it didn't sink in, specifically the part following
>you sound like you need to read more race realist literature to explain why your strawman preoccupation with how many different races they are is retarded, immaterial and besides the point

And then you would also probably benefit from re-reading >>16630256

Or you could do things properly and if you really want to refute race realism then read Sesardic and show what he says that is false. https://philpapers.org/go.pl?aid=SESRAS

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:57:58 UTC No. 16630491

>>16630483
see >>16630431 lol.
repeating the same already-refuted lines of attack hahaha
What a spastic you are.
spending time repeating the same argument after it's already been refuted in >>16630431

clearly you don't want to learn, not even in order to more effectively attack he position you want to attack.
Your motivated reasoning doesn't even permit you to become more knowledgable on the subject.

Eyedol at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:59:49 UTC No. 16630492

>>16630489
>So your claim that the lines drawn around race and ethnicity are not based around anything factual from a genetic standpoint, i.e. do not correspond to anything factual from a genetic standpoint , is false.

The lines drawn are not based on anything factual, one of them is a mixed population and the other is not even a racial category.

Again, how many races are in Africa? And base it on something factual

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 03:02:24 UTC No. 16630493

>>16630487
>what does the commonality of this one specific trait have to do with sub-Saharan Africans being made up of different races?

You're asking this as though race realist academics assert that there is a single specified number of races in subsaharan africa, which is 1.
But this is false.
see >>16630444
>>16630435
>>16630418
>this makes sub-Saharan African one racial group how?
says who? Race realist academics don't say this at all. For example Razib Khan regularly mentions that there is more genetic diversity in Africa than the rest of the world, and that if you were to divide humanity into two populations that captures the most genetic variance it would be a division between africans and non-africans.
So this is well known and doesn't contradict any race realist beliefs.
No race-realist academic like Neven Sesardic, Nathan Cofnas, Emil Kirkegaard, Davide Piffer, John Fuerst, Jordan Lasker, Steve Hsu , David Reich, Helmuth Nyborg, Robert Jensen, Richard Lynn , Michael Woodley of Menie would deny any of the above or that for instance Yoruba are more genetically different from say khoikhoi than Belgians are from Indians.

So you're simply arguing against leftoid strawmen rather than engaging with actual race realist academics and their research demonstrating the differences between different races being caused by differences in the allele distributions of those races.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 03:09:20 UTC No. 16630495

>>16630492
>totally failing to respond to or refute anything in >>16630489, only responding to the conclusion without responding to or refuting any of the reasoning justifying the conclusion
lol, impotent
>Hispanic is not even a racial Category, it's a person from a Spanish-speaking country,
Which, in effect tells you something about their ancestral history aka their race.

> African Americans are a mix between West Africans and Northern Europeans
Indeed, meaning again that people's self identified race/ethnicity told you something about their actual ancestral history.

So your claim that the lines drawn around race and ethnicity are not based around anything factual from a genetic standpoint, i.e. do not correspond to anything factual from a genetic standpoint , is false.

If someone behind a screen tells you their self-identified race ethnicity then you have found out, with much better than random chance, genetic information about them.
If you then attempted to make bets about what alleles they had, you would do significantly better than someone who had never been told their self-identified race/ancestry.


>Again, how many races are in Africa?
again, see pic related in >>16630431


I've had enough of beating you up and demolishing your position. I'm bored because yoou aren't providing anything new or engaging with the argument any further and just repeating points I already refuted with arguments that you never addressed , and this is obvious to anyone reading.
I , repeating the arguments of race realist academics, smacked your world view and positions around like a decrepit runt.

Eyedol at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 03:15:08 UTC No. 16630498

>>16630495
African American is not a race, neither is Hispanic. Khoisan, Central African foragers, Bantus, Nilotes, and non-Africans are races

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 03:18:53 UTC No. 16630500

>>16630073
What environmental factors?
Have you ever even met an affluent black student?
They know they can land a job through inclusion in a company or education. Why would they need to toil away studying like an Asian immigrant when meritocracy is unrelated with success?
Their busy partying and being cool while your virgin hands type this dumb shit.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 03:20:24 UTC No. 16630501

>>16630073
>here's lots of strong evidence that the average IQ gap between races is substantially due to genes.
Oh really? Can you summarize this strong evidence and how they determined that this difference was "substantially due to genes"?

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 03:58:01 UTC No. 16630515

>>16630500
>What environmental factors?
household socioeconomic status and educational attainment of the parents.
The purely environmentalist model of race gaps in IQ is that blacks in america do worse than whites and asians because blacks are raised in poorer homes and have less educated parents which causes them to have lower IQ scores, as indeed, other studies show that children with more affluent home upbringing and and with more educated parents tend to have higher IQ.
So a purely environmentalist model would predict that blacks from affluent homes with PhD educated parents would do better on the SAT (correlated 0.86 with IQ, basically an IQ test) than whites and asians from poor homes whose parents are highschool dropouts.
But the opposite is true.
The results are the opposite you would expect to observe under an environmentalist model for the racial IQ gap . On the other hand the results are exactly what you would expect to observe under a hereditarian model for the racial IQ gap where the racial IQ gap between blacks whites/asians is in large part caused by differences in the genes.
There is no remotely plausible purely environmental explanation for why blacks still do worse than whites and asians even when they have all the environmental advantages that tend to cause people of all races to perform better both academically and in terms of IQ than people without thoose environmental advantages.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 03:59:02 UTC No. 16630516

>>16630500

>Have you ever even met an affluent black student?
yes

>They know they can land a job through inclusion in a company or education. Why would they need to toil away studying like an Asian immigrant when meritocracy is unrelated with success?
Even if this were true, and it isn't because the reason black people don't study isn't because they think to themselves "I don't need to study because I'll get a free job because I'm black" , the reason they don't study is because their genes cause them to be low IQ and less interested in and capable of learning and processing information , SAT performance doesn't require toiling, the only pre-requisite knowledge are facts you would have already acquired from leisure reading (something high IQ people do naturally because high IQ people tend to naturally enjoy acquiring new information) and using english and being awake during highschool math. So the SAT is basically like an IQ test in that repeated practice doesn't usually improve your score much.
This is unlike highschool GPA which does require significantly different amounts of labour to get a 5.0 or a 2.0 but the SAT requires the same labour for a high score as for an average score and the prerequisite knowledge for the SAT would have already been acquired from simply attending school and being awake.

So no, it's not that black students from affluent families with educated parents could score much higher on the SAT, they just don't feel like trying and intentionally put in half effort to give themselves lower scores. They attempt to score well on the SAT (since they have to compete with other blacks in the upper part of the black IQ distribution for the best university places which yield better opportunities anyway so there is still an incentive for them to do as well as they can) and the best they can do is still worse than poor whites and asians with highschool dropout parents.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 04:00:03 UTC No. 16630517

>>16630500

Your explanation requires believing that affluent black highschoolers with educated parents all have an unspoken agreement not to try to score highly while doing the SAT so that they score less than 1000 on average on the SAT even though they're on average capable of getting 1100 or more.
But the game theory of that doesn't work, since if you're one of those black highschoolers who agreed to not try hard on the SAT , rather than just being in the middle of the pack of black applicants and having decent chance of losing your place at harvard or MIT to another black student, why wouldn;t you instead put yourself at the front of the pack of black students by getting 1100 or more on your SAT and so almost guaranteeing yoour place at yoour top university choice? of course that black student generally would choose to try while sitting his SAT and so get the 1100 he's capable of instead of half-assing and intentionally only getting 1000.
And the exact same incentive exists for every black student who is supposedly capable of getting 1100 or more on the SAT according to you.
So your made up explanation doesn;'t even make sense from an economic standpoint either.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 04:31:00 UTC No. 16630526

>>16630501
yes here's a summary of one of the lines of evidence.

“If European genes conferred an advantage, we would expect that the smartest blacks would have substantial European heritage.” Richard Nisbett,
"Is it not legitimate to ask exactly what would convince people like me and Turkheimer that we were wrong? If we are to ask this of others, a prerequisite would be to first answer it ourselves. I have done so by implication (negative results from a series of studies like Eyferth's but better)" James Flynn, N.B. Eyferth refers to an early, limited, flawed admixture study trying to test whether more intelligent blacks have more European ancestry

these are two psychologists who campaigned in favour of the model that racial IQ gaps are 0% caused by genes (environmental hypothesis), who admit that if it's found that more intelligent blacks have more European ancestry then that is evidence against their position

It has since been found that more intelligent black people do indeed have greater European admixture (heritage) on average.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335506114_Global_Ancestry_and_Cognitive_Ability
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.24.312074v2.full
https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/1

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 04:32:00 UTC No. 16630528

>>16630526
>>16630501

This is what we would expect to observe if the racial IQ gap was substantially caused by genetic differences between blacks and Europeans (aka the hereditarian hypothesis) . The likelihood of observing this is high if the hereditarianism is true.
On the other hand if the racial IQ gap was entirely caused by differences in environment between whites and blacks then we would not particularly expect to observe this. the likelihoood of observing this is not that high if the environmental hypothesis is true.
An observation is evidence for hypothesis 1 over hypothesis 2 if the likelihood of obtaining that observation given that hypothesis 1 is true is greater than the likelihood of obtaining that observation given that hypothesis 2 is true.
So as Nisbett and Flynn both say, these observations are evidence in favour of the hereditarian hypothesis over the environmental hypothesis.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 04:46:27 UTC No. 16630537

>>16630526
>If European genes conferred an advantage, we would expect that the smartest blacks would have substantial European heritage
Umm what? Does he think "european" and "black" are the only two "races" and "black dumb", "europe smart" are the only two options? This is extremely retarded.
>>16630528
>the likelihoood of observing this is not that high if the environmental hypothesis is true.
Why? One obvious explanation is that if they have european ancestry, they are also probably richer and more likely to be educated, etc.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 05:18:25 UTC No. 16630556

>>16630537
>Umm what? Does he think "european" and "black" are the only two "races"
No, but he's talking specifically about the racial IQ gap between people of European ancestry and people of subsaharan african ancestry.
>and "black dumb", "europe smart" are the only two options?
can you demonstrate how exactly this objection shows that his reasoning is incorrect? I have no idea what your reasoning is when you say this.

> One obvious explanation is that if they have european ancestry, they are also probably richer and more likely to be educated, etc.

if that were true and European ancestry only appeared to cause higher IQ because simply because European ancestry coincided with some of the benefit of wealth and education which people with one or two European parents on average have more of so it was wealth and education that was causing higher IQ , not European ancestry, then we would expect to see that black students from more affluent homes with highly educated parents would do better on the SAT (0.86 correlated with IQ) than than white students from less affluent homes whose parents are highschool dropouts , but infact we observe the opposite. >>16630073
And there's multiple pieces of evidence showing this. for example the WAIS-IV handbook (pic related) shows that after mediating for education and income the average IQ difference between blacks and whites was still 11.23 points, i.e. most of the racial IQ gap of 15 points still remained.

So the idea that racial IQ gaps are entirely (or even mainly) caused by differences in wealth or education is ruled out , and there aren't any other remotely plausible environmental explanations besides those.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 05:46:40 UTC No. 16630577

>>16630556
>but he's talking specifically about the racial IQ gap between people of European ancestry and people of subsaharan african ancestry.
So why does an african being smart have to imply that they have european ancestry? That is completely retarded and makes no sense at all.
> then we would expect to see that black students from more affluent homes with highly educated parents would do better on the SAT than than white students from less affluent homes whose parents are highschool dropouts , but infact we observe the opposite.
So you're saying children of high iq parents don't do well on these iq tests? So that debunks the claim that iq is inherited.
>shows that after mediating for education and income the average IQ difference between blacks and whites was still 11.23 points
How exactly did they "mediate" for those factors? To claim that they can calculate what percentage of the difference is due to education and what percentage is due to genetics is total pseudoscience.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 06:53:00 UTC No. 16630622

>>16630577
>So why does an african being smart have to imply that they have european ancestry?
That's not what Flynn and Nesbitt are saying. They're saying that if it is found that the more intelligent a black person is, the more European ancestry they have , then that's evidence against the environmental hypothesis and in favour of the hereditarian hypothesis (i.e. in favour of the model that the racial IQ gap between blacks and whites in america are in large part caused by differences in genes between blacks and whites).
It's actually pretty logical and intuitive which is why researchers who are proponents of the environmental hypothesis and researchers who are proponents of the hereditarian hypotheses make the claim that this would constitute evidence in favour of the hereditarian hypothesis.

>So you're saying children of high iq parents don't do well on these iq tests?
nope. that's not implied by what I said and if you think it is then demonstrate it.

Also, please don't deflect. Either refute or accept the point being presented to you.

You claimed that an alternative explanation for more intelligent blacks having more European ancestry is that people with more european ancestry simply have more wealth and education.
But blacks with more wealth and education do less well on the SAT (which is highly correlated with IQ) than whites whose parents from poorer homes whose parents are highschool drop outs. so your alternative explanation is clearly refuted by the evidence.


>How exactly did they "mediate" for those factors?
They mean that they introduced mediator control variables for income and education level into their regression then controlled for them , and this reduced the racial IQ gap in their sample of 2200 from 14.5 to 11.23
https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2010-WAIS-IV-Use-in-Societal-Context.pdf
see table 4.6 and surrounding pages for explanation

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 06:54:01 UTC No. 16630623

>>16630577

So to re-iterate, psychology IQ researchers who dedicated much of their career to trying to prove that the racial IQ gap between blacks and whites is entirely environmental agree that if it were shown that the more intelligent a black person is the higher their european ancestry on average, then that would be evidence for the IQ gap being caused in large part by differences between blacks and whites.
This has been found to be the case.
You claimed an alternative explanation for this is that it is not European genes that cause higher IQ , it's wealth and education, but multiple sources of evidence show that even when you control for wealth and education, there is still a large IQ gap (and even if you give blacks better wealth and better educated parents as children , they still do worse in IQ than whites with much worse wealth and worse educated parents as children). here's another source showing the same thing. Using the national longitudinal survey of youth, if you look at blacks and whites within parental socioeconomic deciles and measure the average IQ gap within the different deciles, the IQ gap does not decrease see pic related : https://lesacreduprintemps19.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/the-bell-curve.pdf page 288 (in terms of page numbers written in the corners of the book, not in terms of the pdf viewer)

So your alternative environmentalist socioeconomic and educational explanation for the racial IQ gap and for higher IQ blacks having more European ancestry is refuted by the evidence .
socioeconoomic status and education can't possibly explain the entirety of the racial IQ gap or else when you looked at blacks and whites with equal socioeconomic status and education ,the racial IQ gap would disappear but it doesn't , most of it remains.

there is no remotely plausible purely environmentalist explanation for this

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 07:03:58 UTC No. 16630633

>>16630577


>To claim that they can calculate what percentage of the difference is due to education and what percentage is due to genetics is total pseudoscience.
That is not their claim, but it's always in principle possible to measure what % of the differences in x can be accounted for by differences in y. That's basically what you do whenever you measure a correlation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_determination#As_explained_variance

showing that y in particular is the causal variable for x would require further evidence and experimentation but it provides an upper bound to how much differences in x may be caused by differences in y


it sounds like you might be very unfamiliar with econometrics and regression analysis and statistical investigation and model testing in general.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 08:28:25 UTC No. 16630684

>>16630622
> then that's evidence against the environmental hypothesis and in favour of the hereditarian hypothesis
No it's not. Because if they have european ancestry, their socioeconomic backgrounds will also be different. Sounds like these race researchers need to learn some basic critical thinking and logic before making grandiose claims.
>that's not implied by what I said and if you think it is then demonstrate it.
What? You said black children's iq is low despite their parents having high iq. If true, that disproves the claim that iq is hereditary, so your entire program falls apart.
>But blacks with more wealth and education do less well on the SAT
Blacks with education do worse on an education test than uneducated whites? That's just a logical contradiction. There can be no evidence for it.
>they introduced mediator control variables for income and education level into their regression then controlled for them , and this reduced the racial IQ gap in their sample of 2200 from 14.5 to 11.23
Nonsensical simple-minded statistics masquerading as profound discoveries.
>>16630623
>and even if you give blacks better wealth and better educated parents as children , they still do worse in IQ than whites with much worse wealth and worse educated parents as children
Did you try giving the white children a culture suffused with centuries worth of racial discrimination too? Do these studies after controlling for that. Until then, any claim that you've controlled for socioeconomic factors is total bullshit.
>So your alternative environmentalist socioeconomic and educational explanation is refuted by the evidence .
Lol. Race researchers have very low standards for what counts as evidence or science, apparently.
>there is no remotely plausible purely environmentalist explanation for this
There are plenty and your reasoning is full of holes as I've just demonstrated.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 08:36:28 UTC No. 16630695

>>16630633
>>16630622
>They mean that they introduced mediator control variables for income and education level into their regression then controlled for them
>regression
Lol. So they took their data, added an axis for the "control variables" and drew a straight line through the graph and claimed that this accounts for the control variables. I understand that race psychologists have very low standards for what counts as evidence (let alone "strong evidence" as you originally claimed) but this is just pathetic. You should consider thinking about the methodologies of these third-class studies a bit more before making grandiose claims about their implications for race/intelligence.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 09:35:02 UTC No. 16630727

>>16629966
>Africa has many races

Cool, they're all dumb.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:33:53 UTC No. 16630814

>>16630073
If this is so then why do white supremacists seethe and cope over the superiority of the chinkoid races

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:15:04 UTC No. 16630874

This thread feels like slamming into a retarded wall over and over from denying reality and even the most simple or complex attempts to reason them out of it through evidence and reality instead of faling for their strawmenagain because to quote Hitchens

"You cannot logically argue someone out of a position they weren't logically argued into"

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:19:20 UTC No. 16630877

>>16630874
Evidence of what? Be specific of what exactly the evidence is for and elaborate in detail how it counts as evidence of the claim. All your evidence so far has just been bad statistics.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:35:52 UTC No. 16630937

>>16630877
Oh I'm not debating anything, I'm just here to read, with popcorn, and rotten veg.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:55:38 UTC No. 16630950

>>16630937
You are debating it because you came into this thread cheerleading one side, but now you're retreating since too much of a coward/ignoramus to continue the debate

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:01:42 UTC No. 16630955

>>16630684
>if they have european ancestry, their socioeconomic backgrounds will also be different.
not necessarily true at all. american blacks are on average 24% european , but much of that admixture was acquired 200 years ago, not necessarily as the result of having a single white parent or a single white grandparent . So there's no reason to believe that a descendant of african slaves with 10% white admixture acquired 150 years ago and a descendant of african slaves with 30% white admixture acquired 150 years ago would have significantly different socioeconoomic backgrounds .
Furthermore, the multiple studies have already ruled out that racial IQ gaps are purely or predominantly caused by the socioeconomic factors of household wealth growing up or household education because when when you control for those things most of the racial IQ gap remains as shown in >>16630073 , >>16630556 and >>16630623

>Sounds like these race researchers need to learn some basic critical thinking and logic before making grandiose claims.
The funny thing is that it's literally the psychologists on your side who have tried to refute that racial IQ gaps are genetically caused who said this. And you're clearly either trolling/being knowingly dishonest or you're too stupid to follow the argument.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:02:43 UTC No. 16630957

>>16630684

>You said black children's iq is low despite their parents having high iq.
No I didn't . I said that their parents were highly educated , not that they were high IQ. the IQ of the parents in the study >>16630073 was not measured.
>If true, that disproves the claim that iq is hereditary,
This isn't true either, because of reversion to the mean. Intelligent parents having kids on average that are somewhat less intelligent than them is perfectly consistent with IQ being heritable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean#Discovery
So it's perfectly consistent with intelligence being heritable for black children to have parents who are highly intelligent by black standards (say 110 IQ) but those children have regressed towards the mean and so on average have IQ of say 97 which is still better than the average black with an IQ of 85 but worse than the average white with an IQ of 100, and this is consistent with the SAT scores observed in >>16630073

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:03:44 UTC No. 16630959

>>16630684

>Blacks with education do worse on an education test than uneducated whites?
Let's be precise. Blacks children with highly educated parents (such that those children are brought up on average in higher socioeconomic class, and on average receive better schooling), do worse on the SAT than whites with parents who are highschool dropouts (such that those children are brought up on average in lower socioeconomic class and on average receive worse schooling)
So basically back children with every socioeconomic advantage that is meant to entirely account for the racial IQ gap still did worse on the SAT, which is highly correlated with IQ, than average whites.
Here's the proof. >>16630073
So the explanation that blacks have lower IQ on average than whites simply because blacks don't grow up with the socioeconomic advantages of wealth and educated parents is wrong and completely refuted by the evidence,

There is no purely environmental explanation for this.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:04:45 UTC No. 16630960

>>16630684
>Nonsensical simple-minded statistics masquerading as profound discoveries
lol cope. You can't refute the fact that when you control for income and education level the IQ gap mostly remains , which shows that those socioeconomic factors can't be the sole cause or even predominant cause of the IQ gap
So instead you just deny the clear findings of the WAIS-IV >>16630622
, which are consistent with the same result found in the national longitudinal survey of youth >>16630623 and the same result found with SAT scores from the ABCD data set >>16630073

3 seperate studies all showing that household income growing up and educational upbringing can't account for all or even most of the racial IQ gap and that your proposed alternative explanation for why the more intelligent a black person is, the more european ancestry he has , namely that blacks with more european ancestry are from a different socioeconomic class who benefit from better wealth and education growing up , is wrong.
If your alternative explanation were true then after you controlled for household income growing up and educational upbringing then the IQ gap would disappear completely , but it doesn't most of it remains.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:07:13 UTC No. 16630961

>>16630684
>Did you try giving the white children a culture suffused with centuries worth of racial discrimination too?
LOOOOLLLL so looks like you're finally accepting that the socioeconomic factors that tend to effect the intelligence of and be present in both whites and blacks like household income growing up and educational upbringing growing up cannot account for the racial IQ gap and cannot explain the admixture studies showing that the more intelligent a black is , the more european ancestry he has on average.

So now you're having to grasp at a new straw and propose a socio-economic factor that is only present and affecting the black population but is not present and affecting the white population at all, namely white supremacy/racism.
This is what other genetic racial IQ gap denialists resorted to decades ago when they also realised that the plausible socioeconomic factors that affect both white and black people like wealth and educational upbringing couldn't account for the racial IQ gap.

They use analogies like pic related. The socioeconomic factor of racism only affects blacks and does not effect whites at all , so this is what accounts for the difference in IQ scores .
However a factor that only affects population 1 and does not affect population 2 at all is an example of an X factor. And x factors are ruled out by measurement invariance.
If measurement invariance holds across groups, then individual and mean group differences in a variable (in this case iq) must be due to the same causes (Dalliard, 2014 https://openpsych.net/files/papers/Dalliard_2014a.pdf ; Lubke, Dolan, Kelderman, & Mellenbergh, 2003). So tests of measurement invariance can eliminate the possibility that an influence on a phenotype operates on one group and not another (eg racism influencing the IQ gap).
And measurement invariance has been found in IQ tests of blacks and whites.
https://gwern.net/doc/iq/2015-frisby.pdf see page 90

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:08:15 UTC No. 16630962

>>16630684

So the possibility that an x factor like racism only effects black people causing them to get low IQs and doesn't effect white people is ruled out by measurement invariance. If such an x factor was causing the IQ gap then black and white IQ scores would not show measurement invariance.

So when you claim that the racial IQ gap is due to environmental and socioeconomic factors that we know affect IQ in both whites and blacks like wealthy upbringing or educational upbringing, then that fails because when you control for those factors you still find that most of the racial IQ gap remains.

And when you instead claim that an x factor like racism itself which only impacts the IQ of blacks but does not impact the IQ of whites causes the entire IQ gap then that fails because it would violate measurement invariance of the IQ tests of blacks and whites, and measurement invariance has been found .

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:09:16 UTC No. 16630963

>>16630684

>Race researchers have very low standards for what counts as evidence or science, apparently.
-the more intelligent a black person is , the more white ancestry they have on average >>16630526
-blacks are lower IQ than whites even when they have much greater socioeconomic advantages of wealth and education in childhood >>16630073 ( and shown with control from other data >>16630556 >>16630622>>16630623
- the idea that racist culture, a force somehow stronger than educational upbringing and wealthy upbringing, effects only blacks and not whites is ruled out by measurement invariance >>16630961

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:10:53 UTC No. 16630966

>>16630684
>Race researchers have very low standards for what counts as evidence or science, apparently.
-blacks have worse polygenic scores for IQ than whites, i.e. models that can predict a person's IQ just from looking at their DNA predict that blacks have worse IQ than whites (not what you would expect to observe if the genes for IQ in blacks were just as good as the genes for IQ in whites).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308783343_A_review_of_intelligence_GWAS_hits_their_relationship_to_country_IQ_and_the_issue_of_spatial_autocorrelation
and replication with an independently created polygenic score for educational attainment (correlated with IQ) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332076417_Evidence_for_Recent_Polygenic_Selection_on_Educational_Attainment_and_Intelligence_Inferred_from_Gwas_Hits_A_Replication_of_Previous_Findings_Using_Recent_Data
These polygenic score models, while only capturing a small amount of the variance in IQ between individuals, actually capture a large amount of the variance in average IQ of groups and are correlated at 0.9 with national average IQ scores, and they correctly predict that north east asians have higher IQs than white people despite the original polygenic score only being trained on white people, so the excuse that polygenic scores are biased in favour of white people is refuted by the fact they fairly and accurately predict that north east asians have higher IQ despite never being trained on north east asians. If polygenic scores were strongly biased in favour of Europeans then the polygenic scores would not match the actual national IQ scores of countries all over the world at 0.9 correlation. So polygenic scores for IQ are not biased in favour of Europeans and the reason blacks have lower polygenic scores for IQ than whites and north-east asians have higher polygenic scores for IQ than whites is because their genes in large part cause their average IQ and the polygenic scores are detecting that.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:12:03 UTC No. 16630967

>>16630684
>Race researchers have very low standards for what counts as evidence or science, apparently.
-blacks have worse scores in comparison to whites in the IQ subtests that are more g-loaded and more heritable (subtest heritability and g-loading is also correlated) i.e. the most genetic and blacks have better scores in comparison to whites in the IQ subtests that are less correlated with g-factor and less heritable i.e. more influenced by environment e.g. culture. If the black white IQ gap was caused entirely by differences in environment this is the opposite of what you would expect to observe, but if the black white IQ gap was caused in large part by differences in genes this is what you would expect to observe. https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The%20rise%20and%20fall%20of%20the%20Flynn%20Effect%20as%20a%20reason%20to%20expect%20a%20narrowing%20of%20the%20Black-White%20IQ%20gap.pdf section 2

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:14:41 UTC No. 16630969

>>16630684
>Race researchers have very low standards for what counts as evidence or science, apparently.
-blacks have lower IQs than whites even when black babies and white babies are both adopted by affluent white parents, And the IQ gap is still mostly the same even when controlling for the upbringing environment as much as possible. pic related.
Furthermore, north east asian babies adopted by white families (thus controlling to give them a white cultural and socioeconomic upbringing) have higher IQs than white babies adopted by white families or white children in general. https://syedmhamzatahir.medium.com/iqs-of-east-asians-5fe6067ca111
unless you want to claim that simply being aware of your race being different from white people is a hugely impactful environmental factor influencing IQ that's more important than socioeconomics and which detriments black IQ at the same time as boosting asian IQ, this is evidence that black-white and white- north-eastasian IQ gaps are largely genetic.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:21:01 UTC No. 16630974

>>16630684
>>16630684
>Race researchers have very low standards for what counts as evidence or science, apparently.

lol So here >>16630963 >>16630966 >>16630967 >>16630969 are 6 totally different lines of evidence all strongly indicating that the black white racial IQ gap is in large part genetic.
you clearly have no hope of refuting any of them, much less all of them, nor will you ever bring any evidence showing that the racial IQ gap is entirely environmental because there is none.

lol I'm sure environmentalists have much stronger evidence that the all racial IQ gaps are entirely environmentally caused and every race on earth has the same genetics for IQ on average despite evolving in genetically drifting in very different environments for thousands of years
>1000s of years is not enough time for evolution of differences in IQ
wrong. More evolution in humans took place in the last 15000 years than in the previous 1500000 years https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0707650104
Reich et al found evidence from polygenic scores on ancient DNA showing recent evolution of IQ gains in Europeans https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.09.14.613021v1
replicating an earlier study by Kirkegaard and Piffer https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38444325/

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:29:21 UTC No. 16630983

>>16630695
lol first you ask for IQ studies to control for socioeconomic factors, then when IQ studies control for socioeconomic factors you claim that this is "low standards for what counts as evidence " and "third class studies" without demonstrating the error.
>" Controlling for these variables reduced the mean difference score to 11.23 points."
lol you're literally a retard who doesn't understand anything that he is trying to say and are flinging out nonsensical objections that you hope sound authoritative because you can't follow the argument or know that your counter argument is nonsensical and don't care because you just wantto lie and mislead people or troll


Also you claim that the WAIS-IV is the work of "race scientists" when in the WAIS-IV one of the most used adult intelligence tests in the world and they never even endorsed that racial IQ gaps are predominantly genetic, they just collected and analysed the socioeconomic data and ethnic data when gathering a nationally representative sample to normalise their IQ test with.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:30:22 UTC No. 16630985

>>16630814
see >>16630457

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:41:45 UTC No. 16630991

>>16630955
>the multiple studies have already ruled out that racial IQ gaps are purely or predominantly caused by the socioeconomic factors of household wealth growing up or household education because when when you control for those things most of the racial IQ gap remains as shown in
Your studies aren't controlling for shit as I've already explained multiple times. Keep up with the argument anon.
>the psychologists on your side
Let's be clear: there are no psychologists on my side since I consider the field intellectually bankrupt. Why don't you be more intellectually honest and post arguments made by psychologists on "your side", instead?
>>16630959
> I said that their parents were highly educated , not that they were high IQ.
Now you think education isn't correlated with IQ scores lol
>>16630960
>You can't refute the fact that when you control for income and education level the IQ gap mostly remains
Already refuted. Your "control" is a total single-brain-celled bogus model with no scientific importance. If you think that you can control for societal factors by some simple regression like these studies do, then you must be mentally retarded.
> but it doesn't most of it remains.
> is wrong.
Go on, keep repeating this instead of addressing the severe methodological issues which invalidate the entire field of race science.
>>>16630961
Are you really that stupid that you think racism doesn't exist? Lmao, no wonder race retards aren't taken seriously by anyone other than themselves.
>>16630962
>measurement invariance
Circular argument: "This study controls for socioeconomic factors because it's measurement invariant! It's defined to be measurement invariant because it controls for socioeconomic factors!"
What a joke
>>16630983
Explain how exactly a retarded regression model accounts for socioeconomic factors you retard.
>most used adult intelligence tests
Used only by other clowns such as themselves and not by any serious groups.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:45:15 UTC No. 16630993

>>16630974
They're all refuted a priori because of methodological flaws. See >>16630991
>>16630959
>So basically back children with every socioeconomic advantage that is meant to entirely account for the racial IQ gap still did worse on the SAT
The race scientists now suddenly know all the possible socioeconomic advantages that factor into intelligence? Lmao, what a bunch of frauds

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:47:27 UTC No. 16630996

>>16630967
>IQ subtests that are more g-loaded and more heritable
More pseudoscience. You have no way of knowing the "heritability" of iq.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:59:45 UTC No. 16631009

>>16630991
>>16630993
>>16630996
lol thank you for making it so obvious to everyone that you aren't engaging with the evidence , aren't even attempting to understand the arguments and evidence presented to you in order to refute them and can only respond blatant strawmen, and are resorting to simply denying the results of research by making hollow , unsubstantiated claims without demonstrating that they are incorrect "it's methodologically flawed! it's a single braincell model! it didn't control for anything"

thank you for showing everyone so obviously that you have nothing.
I hope you enjoy knowing that people who are high IQ and actually care about the truth and improving the world who will be the elites of the future will read the thread and see that I provided strong evidence and arguments and you only provided illogical, irrelevant, delusional, unsubstantiated, strawman garbage and will leave the thread more convinced that racial IQ gaps are caused in large part by genes than they were before.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:01:00 UTC No. 16631011

>>16630991
>>16630993
>>16630996
I mean you aren't even trying to give any semblance of demonstrating your claims anymore lol.

loser

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:07:07 UTC No. 16631016

>>16631009
>>16631011
You're the one making the grandiose claims of having controlled for socioeconomic factors in your models. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that this has been done successfully. I understand that race scientists are frauds who are used to getting no pushback against their narratives because their field is kept alive by incestuous nepotistic racists, but in real science, just fitting a regression model and claiming that solves all methodological issues simply doesn't cut it. You can consider this a lesson on how to distinguish science from pseudoscience.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:30:44 UTC No. 16631036

>>16630991
a bonus just for fun
>Explain how exactly a retarded regression model accounts for socioeconomic factors you retard.

That's literally the point of any multiple regression lmao you know-nothing retard.

A fitted linear regression model can be used to identify the relationship between a single predictor variable xj and the response variable y when all the other predictor variables in the model are "held fixed" {CONTROLLED}. Specifically, the interpretation of βj is the expected change in y for a one-unit change in xj when the other covariates are held fixed { CONTROLLED } —that is, the expected value of the partial derivative of y with respect to xj. This is sometimes called the unique effect of xj on y. In contrast, the marginal effect of xj on y can be assessed using a correlation coefficient or simple linear regression model relating only xj to y; this effect is the total derivative of y with respect to xj.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:41:21 UTC No. 16631047

>>16631036
Your retardation just showed lmao. You can fit a linear regression model to any pair of variables. The fact that you can fit it tells you absolutely nothing about how the variables are actually related to each other in reality. It certainly doesn't imply they are related even approximately linearly and so the claim that taking into account the dumbfuck linear model's prediction as a correction for the predictor variable is the height of pseudoscientific brainrot. These simple issues are completely unintelligible to race scientist frauds like yourself.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:45:36 UTC No. 16631052

>>16631016
now you're backpeddling . before you conceded in >>16630684
that even if you give blacks better wealth and better educated parents as children , they still do worse in IQ than whites with much worse wealth and worse educated parents as children
And you shifted to another excuse about muh racist culture
>Did you try giving the white children a culture suffused with centuries worth of racial discrimination too?

Now you're backpedalling because you realise that conceding that blacks have worse IQ even when wealth and educational upbringing favour them is too damaging so you're back to claiming that they haven't been controlled. even when >>16630073
clearly shows that black children with highly educated parents (such that those children are brought up on average in higher socioeconomic class, and on average receive better schooling), do worse on the SAT than whites with parents who are highschool dropouts (such that those children are brought up on average in lower socioeconomic class and on average receive worse schooling)
So basically back children with every socioeconomic advantage that is meant to entirely account for the racial IQ gap still did worse on the SAT, which is highly correlated with IQ, than average whites.

So the explanation that blacks have lower IQ on average than whites simply because blacks don't grow up with the socioeconomic advantages of wealth and educated parents is wrong and completely refuted by the evidence

this even further proves earlier evidence from the longitudinal survey of youth and WAIS-IV that shows the same thing >>16630622
>>16630623

It seems like you think a good strategy is to backpeddle on what you said earlier and repeat disproven claims hoping that people will only read the posts at the end of the argument rather than read the whole thread and see everything you say get btfo

anyway I've already presented the evidence showing that the hereditarian hypothesis is true and that and don't need to do any more.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:50:43 UTC No. 16631059

>>16631052
*yawn* You just keep screeching the same assertions about what these "studies" show despite the several flaws in them having been pointed out to you already. Try coming up with something better like actually addressing these flaws.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:30:47 UTC No. 16631108

>>16631047
>The fact that you can fit it tells you absolutely nothing about how the variables are actually related to each other in reality.
No one is claiming that, retard.
The unique effect of a variable on the dependent variable obviously isn't given by the goodness of fit of the regression model, it's given by the beta value.
https://openpublishing.library.umass.edu/pare/article/1343/galley/1294/view/
>The regression weight for each given independent variable is interpreted as the expected difference in the dependent variable score between people who differ by one unit on that independent variable, with all other independent variable scores held constant (Hoyt, Leierer, & Millington, 2006; Johnson, 2004).
so yes, retard , the WAIS-IV had data for education and income variables as well as race and IQ in their sample, they included education and income variables in their regression, were able to find the unique effect of race on IQ while controlling for income and education and the result was reduction in the unique effect of the race variable on IQ corresponding to the racial IQ gap only being reduced from 14.5 to 11.23 when education and income variables were held constant.
like it says on page 126 https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2010-WAIS-IV-Use-in-Societal-Context.pdf

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:33:06 UTC No. 16631111

>>16631047
> It certainly doesn't imply they are related even approximately linearly
Are you claiming that linear regression requires that the curve describing the relationship of the variables has to be linear like like a striaght line y = mx + c ?
that would be totally wrong. see pic related.
Linear regression means that the PARAMETERS i.e. the beta values are linear . The independent variables can be transformed basically arbitrarily as long as the parameters are linear.
So IQ = B1 * race + B2 * Exp(income) + B3 * education ^0.5 is a valid linear model but
IQ = IQ = B1^2 * race + B2 * Exp(income) + B3 * education ^0.5 is not
And they aren't using non-linear parameters so it seems like you just saw the word "linear" and made up an excuse on the fly to try and complain about the WAIS-IV analysis without knowing anything about what the "linear" in linear regression means.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:47:25 UTC No. 16631133

>>16631108
>>16631111
>the linear regression doesn't give the real effect of the variables!
>the parameters in the linear regression do!
Wow. Good going there, you mouthbreathing retard.
>i.e. the beta values are linear
No you retard, it means the dependent variable is a linear (or affine) function of the independent variables. Your examples show this but you're too stupid to even use the right terminology. Even then, none of these studies use variables like "race^2" etc as the independent variables, and even if they did, that would still only be a small class of unnatural possibilities among the endless complicated forms of dependence you can have on the independent variables, especially when you consider systems as complex as human beings. Your retarded models can do nothing to address this, so they should all be thrown out.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 19:06:23 UTC No. 16631154

>>16631111
Also, using "B1^2" instead of B1 and changing nothing else doesn't make it non-linear lmao, you're just redefining the coefficient B1 obtained using linear regression.

Eyedol at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 19:07:58 UTC No. 16631156

I.Q is not the subject of this thread, it's completely irrelevant

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 12:12:55 UTC No. 16632566

>>16630081
NTA but part of the controversy lies in the indications that the capacity for abstract thinking is something people outside Africa received with Neanderthal admixture. And since Neanderthals were long considerd stupid brutes, it was therefore racism to even hint that also Africans had genes from Nenderthals.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 12:15:56 UTC No. 16632568

Has anyone mentioned
>because the idea of a super race is inherently incestuous and thus self-destructive as xenophobia prevent adaptation and any maximum can only ever be local given unbounded growth
yet?

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 13:10:06 UTC No. 16632618

>>16629985
>All tetrapods (amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals) are just one clade among many clades of fishes within the vertebrates.
What, exactly, did you think this proved? All this tells me is that you have no clue about diversity among fish/non-tetrapods.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 18:58:48 UTC No. 16633000

>>16632568
>because the idea of a super race is inherently incestuous
I don't understand how you can use incestuous in this context. A race will have to belarger than one family to be meaningful.
>and thus self-destructive
Directly or through pompousness leading to moral decay?
>as xenophobia prevent adaptation
By breeding??
>and any maximum can only ever be local given unbounded growth
How does the history of the Greeks fit in withou your framework?

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 20:39:55 UTC No. 16635417

It's funny because doesn't the crux of the race debate rely on genetic diversity in races, it would seem that the race realist could argue for races if they accept Africans as been different races, but they don't seem to wanna do that. Even though there is more genetic difference inside a race than there are between races

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 20:47:44 UTC No. 16635423

>>16635417
>Even though there is more genetic difference inside a race than there are between races
Can you even explain clearly what that statement is supposed to mean? Have you thought about it?

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:00:48 UTC No. 16635433

>>16635423
>Can you even explain clearly what that statement is supposed to mean? Have you thought about it?


I assume it's referring to the number of Unique genes in each race being a smaller number than the genes that have very low or high frequency in each race. I haven't looked into it

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:11:26 UTC No. 16635449

>>16635417
>there is more genetic difference inside a race than there are between races
Isn't that just compring mean with variance? I am not sure what it is meant to prove.

Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:40:04 UTC No. 16635463

>>16635433
Thanks for being honest.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 13:22:27 UTC No. 16636038

>>16629973
Least retarded /pol/ack

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 13:41:10 UTC No. 16636052

>>16630198
Ah yes, but this is a fallacy. A high genetic divergence between two groups does not mean they are different. Conversely a low divergence does not mean they are similar. Why? Because genes can have an arbitrarily large or small impact on phenotype. For instance in the case of genetic diseases (like cystic fibrosis) a single mutation can be the difference between life and death.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 14:02:44 UTC No. 16636059

>>16630198
>>16636052
The truth is that most animals on the planet have higher genetic diversity than humans, and the example I like to use is cats. Despite them having a higher diversity than humans they don't exhibit the same variance in phenotypes. Sure, cats can vary in coat color, personality, size, etc. but you can take two cats who look pretty much exactly the same with the same personalities and have them be essentially unrelated.

In the same way African "races" are separated by a large number of genes which very slightly change a phenotype, while human races are separated by a (comparatively) smaller number of genes which have a larger change in phenotype. It doesn't actually make two Africans more different from each other in phenotype as an Asian and a European.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 14:36:14 UTC No. 16636072

>>16636052
>>16636059
Finally this is how speciation occurs:
geographic isolation -> selective sweeps on a small number of high impact genes -> reproductive barriers occur -> large numbers of low impact genes attain fixation

If you look at the three main groups (Asians, Europeans and Africans) then they're in the early stages of speciation. This is because if you ignore "outside groups" like Arabs, Indians, south East Asians, etc. then two Europeans can be more closely related to each other than either is to an Asian/African, and the same thing for those other two groups. If you include Indians then this isn't true: one indian can be more closely related to an East Asian than another Indian, or more close to a European, same thing with central Asians, Arabs, etc.

There's also evidence that the differences between the three groups have started to accelerate in the past few thousand years. The only reason full speciation hasn't occurred yet is because 1. non Africans have only existed for 80k years, which is almost 0 time on an evolutionary timescale and 2. humans have undergone nearly continuous cultural development for the past 80k years which can change selective pressures.

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 14:45:41 UTC No. 16636080

>>16636059
*smacks lips*

Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:10:53 UTC No. 16636106

>>16636072
*attain equilibrium

Eyedol at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 04:16:23 UTC No. 16636978

>>16636072
>If you look at the three main groups (Asians, Europeans and Africans) then they're in the early stages of speciation. This is because if you ignore "outside groups" like Arabs, Indians, south East Asians, etc. then two Europeans can be more closely related to each other than either is to an Asian/African, and the same thing for those other two groups. If you include Indians then this isn't true: one indian can be more closely related to an East Asian than another Indian, or more close to a European, same thing with central Asians, Arabs, etc.

Again Africans are not one homogenous group, and mongoloids are a subset of Australoids who with Caucasoids make up the non-African group. Again everything always goes back to the outdated 3 race model, these groups are NOT equally divergent, alot of things have been learned in the last 20 years through computational genetics, but people wanna be stuck in the past

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 09:30:59 UTC No. 16637112

Here’s my hot take: SHUT UP. Who cares. Your elites sold you out, oh well, tough luck. IF you have a triple-digit IQ you have the agency to take care of your FUCKING selves. It’s literally in YOUR hands to either take back power and rid yourselves of aboriginal rule or just LEAVE. I’m tired of hearing about the bullshit legend of the white farmers being murdered by the big bad blacks. DEAL with it if you actually care.

Anonymous at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 11:44:08 UTC No. 16637184

How publicly studied is all of this now a days?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson

“He has also said that stereotypes associated with racial and ethnic groups have a genetic basis: Jews being intelligent, Chinese being intelligent but not creative because of selection for conformity, and Indians being servile because of selection under caste endogamy.[102] Regarding intelligence differences between blacks and whites, Watson has asserted that "all our social policies are based on the fact that their (blacks) intelligence is the same as ours (whites) – whereas all the testing says not really ... people who have to deal with black employees find this not true."”

James Watson has talked about being un-personed for his assertions on genetics and intelligence, so if there is active research on genetics and intelligence can there ever be “uncomfortable” conclusions without people be heavily censored?

Eyedol at Fri, 4 Apr 2025 13:48:12 UTC No. 16637245

>>16637184
>How publicly studied is all of this now a days?

It's very studied

Eyedol at Sat, 5 Apr 2025 15:44:52 UTC No. 16638218

>>16636052
>A high genetic divergence between two groups does not mean they are different. Conversely a low divergence does not mean they are similar. Why? Because genes can have an arbitrarily large or small impact on phenotype.


So you are claiming a native Fijian who happens to have the phenotype of a African American, is that because of their phenotype?

Anonymous at Mon, 7 Apr 2025 03:10:30 UTC No. 16639353

>>16637184