Race/Ethnicity Statistics and Research Megathread

[Audit]

Isn't that kind of semantics? Because some Germans and French married we can't differentiate Germans from French?

Yes, it's intentionally misleading politics to avoid addressing an obvious distinction. Dogs arguably are comprised of many different species now because of their obvious heritable distinctions in behavior and appearance. The concept of species is infamously badly defined in biology and subject to endless debate and spergery. However, the colloquial understanding requires little subtlety and works under most circumstances without controversy (outside of propagandists trying to convince you a pitbull is the same as a golden retriever).

 

[Male Idiot]

Yes, it's intentionally misleading politics to avoid addressing an obvious distinction. Dogs arguably are comprised of many different species now because of their obvious heritable distinctions in behavior and appearance. The concept of species is infamously badly defined in biology and subject to endless debate and spergery. However, the colloquial understanding requires little subtlety and works under most circumstances without controversy (outside of propagandists trying to convince you a pitbull is the same as a golden retriever).

Pibble and black lives matter. It is almost funny how there is a dog for every type of hominid. A cosmic symmetry. The sad part is that they both maul people, and together they can maul more people.

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

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

It's not *that* these crossbreeds exist. It's that they're the rule rather than the exception.
Species, or even subspecies, requires sufficient reproductive isolation that you can definitively say one set of genes comes from one group and another from the other.

If you decided to double down on this and declare that one particular sequence is the clade you're describing, you would just lose most of the correlation to other genes in the process to the point where you have people more closely related to each other across clades than within them. That would obviously defeat the purpose.

 

[Male Idiot]

It's not *that* these crossbreeds exist. It's that they're the rule rather than the exception.
Species, or even subspecies, requires sufficient reproductive isolation that you can definitively say one set of genes comes from one group and another from the other.

If you decided to double down on this and declare that one particular sequence is the clade you're describing, you would just lose most of the correlation to other genes in the process to the point where you have people more closely related to each other across clades than within them. That would obviously defeat the purpose.

Is that the same for dogs?

In that case we just need to add a new category. Species, subspecies and a subsubspecies that isn't requiring Total Isolation.

Again still seems like a cohencidentally inserted systemic barrier to me, done out of sheer lazyness and hand rubbing.

Sheer lazyness and retard friendlyness was the main argument for downgradig Pluto too.
Too many Kuiper belt mini planets meant that highschoolers wouldn't be able to learn them all, so it was dumbed down.

 

[Cherry Eyed Hamster]

Native Hawaiians, from experience interacting with them, are somehow remarkably dumber than their cousins from the phillipines or new zealand. The biggest stand out physical trait of this race is their tendency for obesity, which is likely an adaptation for surviving long ocean voyages. I'm genuinely stunned by how dumb they are despite their history of incredible navigational skills.

I remember reading that Hawaii had some of the highest literacy rates in the world after the introduction of the Latin alphabet and the Native Hawaiians were so industrious and hard-working that the colonizing whites were astounded they didn’t want to take Sundays off for church.

I also didn’t think there were many Native Hawaiians left, a majority are most likely of mixed race with white and Asian/Filipino admixture. Perhaps the smart ones died off?

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

Is that the same for dogs?

I'll be honest with you, the answer I wanted to give by knee-jerk was wrong (I assumed it was purely clinal). So thank God I double checked.
Turns out there are exactly 23 genetically identifiable clades of domestic dog, with clinal variation within each clade. Think how there's like a billion different breeds we call "pit bulls" and pedigree autists get mad if you conflate them even though they're obviously basically the same thing.
A lot of the cross-clade hybridization exists due to humans actively breeding them and the genetic variation across observed clades is much greater and more consistent than even the most genetically distant human populations. So there's valid reasons for why the analogy breaks down here.

Your broader point about "laziness" is... meh? Simplicity is valued over complexity in most cases. I was never upset to hear about Pluto's demotion as a planet. They wanted to set a rigid definition and if Pluto's a casualty then that's fine.

 

[Unredacted TND]

You really don't need to test for IQ when you can see how groups perform relatively to each other just from their economic output.


Link

 

[Cherry Eyed Hamster]

Despite trade ties existing between north and central america, north america never adopted metallurgy, mayan brickwork, mathematics, a written language, or a calendar.

Sorry for the separate responses to your post. There is Chalcolithic evidence that one North American tribe developed metallurgy such as coppersmithing, but for reasons unknown it was subsequently abandoned. My guess is the tribe was conquered by another tribe who never bothered to learn it. There’s also been evidence of sophisticated agrarian societies in the Southwestern United States such as the Hohokam people. There’s also the Pueblos and their stone cities. I wouldn’t dismiss NA as a whole for being technologically and societally stagnant. Some areas saw greater advancement than others, mainly the Southwest. To the degree of the Olmec or Mayans though? Doubtful.

I think part of what drives people to evolve is competition and limitation. North America is so massive geographically that if a tribe were to be attacked by another tribe, the attacked tribe could pick up their things and relocate. A lot of Native societies were nomadic for this reason. The Mayan were located in dense, hot jungle and they were surrounded by predators and competing tribes. Eventually when you figure out how to establish intensive agriculture and literacy, you can more easily assimilate the savages around you, or destroy them through militial prowess. It becomes a net negative to be a tribal when your neighbor is a city-state with self-sustaining food sources and is the one controlling the trade of local resources.

 

[Male Idiot]

Simplicity is valued over complexity in most cases.

I think that is a problem. Generally hard stem sciences do not thrive if dumbed down.

Entomology for example is too complex even for me. Generally bug stuff can get down to very tiny details.

Rigid definitions also don't work that well the closer you get to biology and farther from math.

All in all, the method is flawed if it can not map onto reality. There are limits, of course a paleontologist can not get DNA to check for smaller changes and has to use lienage specific features of fossils to guess what a tiny fragment was.

This does run into the specialisation problem that may be a hard limit on stem fields. There are scientists who exclusively focus on neutron star chemistry for example.

Perhaps we'll never be able to map Quantum and Eibsteinian phyiscs together. Our brains maybe just not evolved enough to compute it. Perhaps in the future cyborgs or ai can do it, who knows.

You failed to adress the neanderthal and other hominid issue altogether.
So we can not take species as a rigid scientific concept at all, as it doesn't work.

Therefore, there is zero reason why ethnicities can't be categorised outside of "icky chud theories would make me loose my grant-gibs". It would not be a neat 1-1 continental map to geographical areas and races, but that is a copout.

Science needs to be the field of rich autists once more.

You really don't need to test for IQ when you can see how groups perform relatively to each other just from their economic output.
Ver archivo adjunto 8965396

Link

Economics is not always reliable. It has some areas where there are other factors.

Like Yugoslavs being poor due to recent war. Or Israel or China in that graph.

Even me the Autistic Thunderdome Obergruppenführer can't claim bongs are a good 30% smarter than Chosenites.

I would be curious to find out why the Mayans and such never had metallurgy. It wasn't an IQ problem, their architecture and astronomy was too complex. Were their areas metal poor, or at least where it was harder to access?

 

[Unredacted TND]

Like Yugoslavs being poor due to recent war. Or Israel or China in that graph.

Even me the Autistic Thunderdome Obergruppenführer can't claim bongs are a good 30% smarter than Chosenites.

This data is only for people who immigrate to Netherlands. Most Israelis aren't ashkenazim and most Ashkenazi Jews would stay in their own countries rather than to immigrate to Netherlands.

 

[Male Idiot]

This data is only for people who immigrate to Netherlands. Most Israelis aren't ashkenazim and most Ashkenazi Jew would stay in their own countries rather than to immigrate to Netherlands.

That makes way more sense, figuring into brain drain and immigrant wageslaving.

 

[Unredacted TND]

That makes way more sense, figuring into brain drain and immigrant wageslaving.

You can just copy paste American jews' performance if you want to find out about ashkenazim. America has world's largest ashkenazi population and most American jews are ashkenazim.

 

[Audit]

I would be curious to find out why the Mayans and such never had metallurgy.

They did have metallurgy. They were in the bronze age as of ~600's. It's their northern cousins who were stuck in the stone age. It should also be stressed that a lot of the metals they used were imported from S. American mines.

 

[Male Idiot]

They did have metallurgy. They were in the bronze age as of ~600's. It's their northern cousins who were stuck in the stone age. It should also be stressed that a lot of the metals they used were imported from S. American mines.

I know they had golden trinkets or Eldorado would never been a thing, but they did not use bronze or iron for weapons. I just wonder why not.

 

[Audit]

they did not use bronze or iron for weapons. I just wonder why not.

They had obsidian and shark teeth in great abundance that they'd make into swords by hammering them into sides of wooden planks. It was a fairly effective weapon, albeit disposable, that would leave glass shards in the victim. Obsidian is about as sharp as any glass you'll find. It made for fairly effective melee weapons.

They did not have iron. This is not particularly surprising given that it took the old world a few thousand years to go from the bronze age to the iron age. If the bronze age begins ~A.D. 600 in mesoamerica, you wouldn't really expect the iron age to begin until at least the 1500's, or more realistically even later.

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

the method is flawed if it can not map onto reality

It does map to reality. Just not in the way you want it to.
As I already mentioned, population genetics exists to answer a lot of the kinds of questions you want answered. But the clade/cline distinction matters.

You failed to adress the neanderthal and other hominid issue altogether.

I "addressed" it by saying you were missing the point.
Hell, I'll do you one better: nearly all species of bear are capable of interbreeding with fertile offspring. Search "Ursid Hybrid."
We stopped relying on capacity to interbreed as a metric for species a long time ago because it's, as you said, arbitrary as fuck.

However, the fact that we can look at someone's genes and pick out exactly what bits came from archaic homos indicates that this is, in fact, a clade distinction (between Sapiens and said homos). Those genes are not naturally present in the Sapien lineage. They were introduced via cross-clade interbreeding.

 

[Male Idiot]

They had obsidian and shark teeth in great abundance that they'd make into swords by hammering them into sides of wooden planks. It was a fairly effective weapon, albeit disposable, that would leave glass shards in the victim. Obsidian is about as sharp as any glass you'll find. It made for fairly effective melee weapons.

They did not have iron. This is not particularly surprising given that it took the old world a few thousand years to go from the bronze age to the iron age. If the bronze age begins ~A.D. 600 in mesoamerica, you wouldn't really expect the iron age to begin until at least the 1500's, or more realistically even later.

Those swords were some mean shit. So they just had so much of obsidian that they never really needed iron? I heard Romans liked iron because it was not an alloy but an element and for bronze you needed, what are they in English, tin and copper?

It does map to reality. Just not in the way you want it to.
As I already mentioned, population genetics exists to answer a lot of the kinds of questions you want answered. But the clade/cline distinction matters.


I "addressed" it by saying you were missing the point.
Hell, I'll do you one better: nearly all species of bear are capable of interbreeding with fertile offspring. Search "Ursid Hybrid."
We stopped relying on capacity to interbreed as a metric for species a long time ago because it's, as you said, arbitrary as fuck.

However, the fact that we can look at someone's genes and pick out exactly what bits came from archaic homos indicates that this is, in fact, a clade distinction (between Sapiens and said homos). Those genes are not naturally present in the Sapien lineage. They were introduced via cross-clade interbreeding.

Well that is more like it. I made a deepdive with Overly Serious on genomes a few months ago on the conspiracy thread.

The skizo youtubers were saying humans populations maybe twice as old as before. Yesterday Microslop recommended me an article in the MSN about it.

Some nigs don't have neanderthal dna, but some of them have ghost hominid dna.

What I find problematic is that modern soyence doesn't dare to try and check intelligence and other traits onto it.

We know just how different a corgi can be from a Smashed and Slammed microbully. So why wouldn't it apply to human populations?

I'll look into the bears, sounds interesting. I'll show you the boneless dog.

 

[Unredacted TND]

 

[Smart Turtle]

This tortoise still hunting niggers he is a future police officer

0:23

 

[No-Eyed Square Guy]

You really don't need to test for IQ when you can see how groups perform relatively to each other just from their economic output.
Ver archivo adjunto 8965396

And you don't need economic rankings if you test (properly) for IQ. And you don't need crime stats, literacy rates, developmental milestone comparisons, etc. They'll all be almost interchangeable. We are who our relatives are, with rare exceptions, and qualities cluster predictably.

This is a nerd thread—one that seeks to reduce racism (great/dominant) to charts (lame/submissive). It doesn't matter what a chart says. Chartness is for losers. A defining feature of the nerd/loser is needing to be explicitly told the "implicit" rules of society (even when they're explicit). Here's one such:

If "systematic white supremacy" (or some other term for the same idea) is taken as axiomatic—as it is by every academic discipline—what you've posted is a ranked list of how strongly Whiteness™ favors various groups.

They ("they") already have cute stock answers for why white supremacy—the same phenomenon that is the KKK, etc.—elevates Japs and Jews. Or they just say it doesn't, and fuck you. Because they're not nerds.