Race/Ethnicity Statistics and Research Megathread

[byron]

@Joseph McCarthy this PDF is a treasure trove. If you're collecting quality content in the OP, you might consider adding it there.

 

[Mister Fister]

I’m going to make a controversial statement here, the White on Black crime rate is higher than stats show, the criminals are smart enough to not get caught here.

 

[Unredacted TND]

This might be a silly question, but maybe I can get a good answer here; do these stats ever account for cheating or selective testing? Here in Canada, there has been quite a few scandals involving cheating and Chinese/Indians, so it makes it a lot tougher to take any stats on I.Q seriously.

Of course not, but if all stats support one thing, it probably is true. For example, Asian Americans have higher IQ than general population, score higher on tests, have higher salary than general population and are most likely to break out of poverty. Given all stats point to them having higher IQ, it's ridiculous to dismiss IQ test as "fake" or "they're cheating".

 

[Woke Goy 1488 TND]

Race statistics is pretty pointless when you can just see how a racial group performs in the real world either as a community or a country.

As someone who used to be very into this, it is more just a research hobby of people. It won't actually convince anyone to change their minds on this topic, you are more likely to get into it if you instinctively just hate shitskins.

 

[moocow]

I’m going to make a controversial statement here, the White on Black crime rate is higher than stats show, the criminals are smart enough to not get caught here.

But you can never actually prove that and you'll drive the anti-racists nuts as they try while giving them no concrete evidence to support the claim.

 

[Mister Fister]

But you can never actually prove that and you'll drive the anti-racists nuts as they try while giving them no concrete evidence to support the claim.

I like where this is going.

 

[Smart Turtle]

That tortoise is racist

0:22

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

Fuck it, Let me take a dump in this thread real quick:
The problem with the debate between "race realists" and mainstream biology is that they're basically talking past each other. As convincing as these racial arguments about FST distances or SNP gradients may look, they fundamentally do not address the argument that actual biologists are making. It's not a question of "how distinct the average member of one group is vs. the average member of another." It's about what that variation looks like from a bird's eye view. It's a clade vs. cline distinction.

If you track the genetic diversity of the entire human population, the gradient is, for all practical purposes, differentiably smooth. That is to say there are no hard breaks. There is no gene or set of genes you can reliably use to indicate someone is a member of one "race" vs. another. Nor can you reliably use any specific sequence to indicate introgression from one "race" into another. Companies like "23 & Me" wish such a sequence existed, it would make their results infinitely more reliable. For now they're stuck inferring that a lizard is 80% Ashkenazi Jew or whatever that incident was.

I will emphasize that this is not a spectrum fallacy. No one who knows what they're talking about has ever said that there's literally no genetic differences between these arbitrary racial categories. The claim is very specifically that these racial categories are, indeed, arbitrary in a way that precludes any possible designation as a "subspecies" or anything of the sort.
If you want biologists to address the claims you're making about race, make it clear you're talking about clinal variation rather than cladistics and understand what that means regarding the kinds of arguments you are even categorically capable of making about it.

Thanks for listening to my TedTalk.

 

[Male Idiot]

Fuck it, Let me take a dump in this thread real quick:
The problem with the debate between "race realists" and mainstream biology is that they're basically talking past each other. As convincing as these racial arguments about FST distances or SNP gradients may look, they fundamentally do not address the argument that actual biologists are making. It's not a question of "how distinct the average member of one group is vs. the average member of another." It's about what that variation looks like from a bird's eye view. It's a clade vs. cline distinction.

If you track the genetic diversity of the entire human population, the gradient is, for all practical purposes, differentiably smooth. That is to say there are no hard breaks. There is no gene or set of genes you can reliably use to indicate someone is a member of one "race" vs. another. Nor can you reliably use any specific sequence to indicate introgression from one "race" into another. Companies like "23 & Me" wish such a sequence existed, it would make their results infinitely more reliable. For now they're stuck inferring that a lizard is 80% Ashkenazi Jew or whatever that incident was.

I will emphasize that this is not a spectrum fallacy. No one who knows what they're talking about has ever said that there's literally no genetic differences between these arbitrary racial categories. The claim is very specifically that these racial categories are, indeed, arbitrary in a way that precludes any possible designation as a "subspecies" or anything of the sort.
If you want biologists to address the claims you're making about race, make it clear you're talking about clinal variation rather than cladistics and understand what that means regarding the kinds of arguments you are even categorically capable of making about it.

Thanks for listening to my TedTalk.

Yet the heeb academia differentiates species very, very autistically.

While there is a splash rather than clear lines, they are just being autistic and refusing to do any grouping into breeds.

By their own standards, neanderthals may be a subspecies.

Academia has lost all credibility after ww2.

They can tell you the ancestry but refuse to group and categorise it or check if they differ in IQ, metabolism or any other way.

The nu-male and female soyence of today finds it icky and hard! Yuck just beileve all people are the same! Clinate will be Venus or Ice age any minute now.

Sure, accurate and updated races (or breeds, because dogs have the same issue) would not fit 100% onto skin colour. You would get different steppe nomad and neolitic farmers. Africa itself would likely get a dozen races. Hybrids would be there too.

Some negros got ghost hominid genes some do not.
Soyence is wrong because it says no differences.
Proper Science would say, there are multiple races of negroes. Same with other races, we would get subspecies all over. Irish and Swedes would not be the same race.

Western Soyentists categorically refuse this, even though subspecies would fit the offspring able to reproduce bar.

I am sure some chinaman is already in a lab working out what races are best at which traits to make the uber-chink to go into space.

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

Soyence is wrong because it says no differences

Nigger, did you actually read a single word I wrote? Or is this whole post of yours just mental illness manifesting itself as a backlash against a perceived authority?

 

[Male Idiot]

Nigger, did you actually read a single word I wrote? Or is this whole post of yours just mental illness manifesting itself as a backlash against a perceived authority?

When was the last time scientists tried to look into IQ and genetics and race? None. Just because they can't fully fit a genetic marker to white, and they are too lazy to call it Central and east indo european/R1a subrace clade or something like that. Organising it would be hard, but that's why the eggheads are getting paid.


I am just pointing out kikery. How parasitic ethnic populations behave:

 

[Unredacted TND]

Nigger, did you actually read a single word I wrote? Or is this whole post of yours just mental illness manifesting itself as a backlash against a perceived authority?

I agree with you, i think we would be much better off by just comparing the outcome of the races/ethnicities rather than obsessing over DNA.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

I thought the hjernevask (brainwash) norwegian sociologist documentary covered the topic well. It's on youtube with subtitles.

It's also notable that the last covered IQ study they stop just short of admitting openly that the only reason they could do the race IQ study, is because they explored (and got a result) of ashkenazi jewish IQ being slightly higher.

Fuck it, Let me take a dump in this thread real quick:
The problem with the debate between "race realists" and mainstream biology is that they're basically talking past each other. As convincing as these racial arguments about FST distances or SNP gradients may look, they fundamentally do not address the argument that actual biologists are making. It's not a question of "how distinct the average member of one group is vs. the average member of another." It's about what that variation looks like from a bird's eye view. It's a clade vs. cline distinction.

If you track the genetic diversity of the entire human population, the gradient is, for all practical purposes, differentiably smooth. That is to say there are no hard breaks. There is no gene or set of genes you can reliably use to indicate someone is a member of one "race" vs. another. Nor can you reliably use any specific sequence to indicate introgression from one "race" into another. Companies like "23 & Me" wish such a sequence existed, it would make their results infinitely more reliable. For now they're stuck inferring that a lizard is 80% Ashkenazi Jew or whatever that incident was.

I will emphasize that this is not a spectrum fallacy. No one who knows what they're talking about has ever said that there's literally no genetic differences between these arbitrary racial categories. The claim is very specifically that these racial categories are, indeed, arbitrary in a way that precludes any possible designation as a "subspecies" or anything of the sort.
If you want biologists to address the claims you're making about race, make it clear you're talking about clinal variation rather than cladistics and understand what that means regarding the kinds of arguments you are even categorically capable of making about it.

Thanks for listening to my TedTalk.

Pretty rare that I learn 4 new words/concepts from a single posts. Thanks for posting that.

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

When was the last time scientists tried to look into IQ and genetics

The relationship between genetics and IQ is actively and extensively studied. Here is one of the top results when I fucking Google it:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5985927/

The problem is you are committing a category error by acting as if these "races" are meaningful in a population genetics sense. They aren't.

too lazy to call it Central and east indo european/R1a subrace clade or something like that.

Y-haplogroups are a perfect example of clinal variation, really. Despite what these meme maps appear to show, real world populations have a gradient. It's not like everyone originating from one region has one haplogroup and everyone from another has a different haplogroup. They exist as a rough way to determine patrilineal heritage but they don't actually represent a clear-cut geographic origin in the way you're attempting to apply it here.

 

[Male Idiot]

The relationship between genetics and IQ is actively and extensively studied. Here is one of the top results when I fucking Google it:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5985927/

The problem is you are committing a category error by acting as if these "races" are meaningful in a population genetics sense. They aren't.


Y-haplogroups are a perfect example of clinal variation, really. Despite what these meme maps appear to show, real world populations have a gradient. It's not like everyone originating from one region has one haplogroup and everyone from another has a different haplogroup. They exist as a rough way to determine patrilineal heritage but they don't actually represent a clear-cut geographic origin in the way you're attempting to apply it here.

All right, I admit I maybe too stupid and not well versed enough in the lore, but generally, wouldn't it be possible to at least get a national average? Scandinavians, Finugrics, Germans, French etc? I know even Britons propably split into 3 sub variants.

There is clearly a hierarchy there, and we can even see some relations like how Germans and Austrians are close, while Irish and Scots maybe related too, Swedes and Norvegians? Finns aren't related to them.

If you gave scientists 10 shitbull and 10 havanese dog DNA samples, they should be figure out which is which, same with humans. Than they should just study those genes, group per group. Unless your point is that the genes are so different that there can be no comparison, we don't have the brainpower to analyze it all?

 

[Lemmingwiser]

The problem is you are committing a category error by acting as if these "races" are meaningful in a population genetics sense. They aren't

Of course it is a category error, because they're both two different tools for different purposes.

You have on the one hand an academic inquiry to understand genes and the resulting phenotypes that has to be rigourous but also politically correct.

You have on the other hand a political inquiry to understand population groups and the resulting societal results when put in different compositions.

The first is a much more zoomed in analysis (also because the zoomed out version is taboo), and the second is zoomed out more, which loses some of the detail, but allows it to be used for bigger questions and problem solving.

Like it would help you understand why even affluent nigs are more criminal than poverty whites. The fact that american nigs are 20% white is interesting, but negligable for most of those analyses, so the preciseness (or lack thereof) of haplogroups is almost irrelevant for the tool and purpose used.

 

[Audit]

Despite what these meme maps appear to show, real world populations have a gradient.

This is a solved problem. Data clustering is N-dimensional space is a standard problem in machine learning.

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

This is a solved problem. Data clustering is N-dimensional space is a standard problem in machine learning.

Unless your point is that the genes are so different that there can be no comparison,

The "problem" isn't that we can't map these variations and make fairly accurate inferences. We can. It's that we have mapped them and haven't found anything indicating the sort of reproductive isolation that would be required to designate a subspecies.
Clade designations don't just require a long genetic distance. They require hard breaks.

Population geneticists do identify and study human populations. So it's not like The Science isn't looking into the sorts of things you're interested in. But, as @Lemmingwiser alluded to, this is a much more "zoomed in" analysis that doesn't really map well to any modern conception of race.

Of course, political correctness is a factor. I am not going to be delusional and pretend it's not. The point is there are legitimate reasons that races do not constitute a recognizable biological category which go beyond simple stigma.

 

[Male Idiot]

Isn't that kind of semantics? Because some Germans and French married we can't differentiate Germans from French? Wolves and dogs can have viable offsprings too. One is Canis Lupus, the other Canis Lupus Familiaris? I understand that mules can't reproduce so with horses and donkeys it is easier, but if they can tell a wolf apart from a weiner dog, they should be able to tell a nignog apart from an indigenous lets say Britbong. Neanderthals also reproduced with humans and had viable offspring, yet they aren't even considered the same species.
So if I put a wolf in the yard of some nigger and let it fuck shitbulls, dogs would no longer be a species?

At least they could be not lazy and be consistent.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

Because some Germans and French married we can't differentiate Germans from French?

I think the point is that if you classify by clades, you would have smaller categories than broad ones such as french and german, and they wouldn't map onto each other wirh any significance.

If you view it from a clade perspective, then your question is irrelevant. Because if a member of clade 1 and a member of clade 2 would have a child, it wouldn't change the clades.

So no it isn't semantics. The concept od clades solves at the base level exactly the kind of problem you're suggesting with your example of french and german. Except the categories are probably a lot less satisfying for political purposes.

And clades aren't necessarily one species either. They're defined by having a common ancestor. Which deals with the kind of madness of ring species.

Or so I would think. I'm just a layman trying to wrap my head around some new concepts.