Humanity and the races

[drain]

. Plus correct me if im wrong but mixed race people have a lower chance of autism due to a wider set of genes.

lol no, i can guarantee that

Non-Human.

Unintentionally hilarious, as a rule.

 

[Male Idiot]

There are four big according to un-SJW infested old timey science: Europeans, Africans, Asians and Australians (the aboriginals).

And all these come in all the little flavours that are further divided into subtypes.

There are definately differences but most of these are adaptations to the environment and not something that really matters when it comes to intelligence.

The fact that whites uplifted this planet into the technological age I think is caused by superior culture, not superior genes, for the most part. If raised badly, whites can be just as dumb as the dumbest black from the ghetto.

Just look at Shia Lebarf, he is a walking proof against white supremacy.

 

[Joan Nyan]

There are definately differences but most of these are adaptations to the environment and not something that really matters when it comes to intelligence.

Why would different groups of people who evolved completely separately for millennia have evolved different skin color, facial features, propensity to different diseases, but precisely the same intellectual capacity?

The fact that whites uplifted this planet into the technological age I think is caused by superior culture, not superior genes, for the most part.

Does culture just appear out of the aether? People create culture, and better people create better cultures.

 

[Male Idiot]

Why would different groups of people who evolved completely separately for millennia have evolved different skin color, facial features, propensity to different diseases, but precisely the same intellectual capacity?


Does culture just appear out of the aether? People create culture, and better people create better cultures.

I did not say exactly precisely the same.

Spoiler: But whites can be stupid too and here is the proof.

Culture also depends on geology and weather conditions I think.

 

[Joan Nyan]

I did not say exactly precisely the same.

Spoiler: But whites can be stupid too and here is the proof.

Michael Moore and Shia are probably both pretty intelligent actually, they just waste that intelligence pushing leftist garbage. And besides, I could mention Ben Carson or even Obummer as examples of intelligent Black people, that wouldn't change the fact that the average White person's IQ is significantly higher than the average Black person's IQ.

 

[Male Idiot]

Michael Moore and Shia are probably both pretty intelligent actually, they just waste that intelligence pushing leftist garbage. And besides, I could mention Ben Carson or even Obummer as examples of intelligent Black people, that wouldn't change the fact that the average White person's IQ is significantly higher than the average Black person's IQ.

While I think you are hopefully optimistic in the first part, I'm just not sure about the second part's cause.

I mean yeah, it is true, whites generally have better average IQ, but I'm just not sure I can put it firmly on genes, and not the fact that the US refuses to force them to study. Is it genetics, or is it the fact that the average ghetto black's education consist of how to use a gun and how to push his pants to his ankles to show off his garish butt garments like a baboon? With such a strong environmental factor against black IQ I just don't feel sure enough to make a statement about it being gene related.

 

[Arse Biscuit]

As far as genetic/evolutionary things go, low levels of civilization select for intelligence. Areas with higher levels of civilization select for disease resistance. On the other hand, in highly civilized areas, a person is far more likely to have been raised on an adequate diet and therefore avoids cognitive issues caused by malnutrition.

And IQ is a crappy method of measuring intelligence. The only actual test of intelligence is whether or not you succeed or fail. Smart is being a competent doctor or the leader of a gang or some other position where you exceed the accomplishments of the average Joe. Karl Rove, for example, is about the smartest man in politics, and Hillary Clinton LOOKS smart, but is actually a failure.

Race really has nothing to do with it.

 

[TowinKarz]

Any sufficiently large human population will produce a few "smart" people.

One of the most persistent and frustrating fallacies that race-baiters of all stripes cling to is to assume social constructs and conditions that make it likely for those smart people to get into positions where they can exploit their smartness (access to schools, access to markets, access to investment capital, etc) don't exist.

So, a smart person in an ethnic ghetto who never got anyone's attention with his/her brilliant ideas is written off as naturally inferior because they "wasted" their potential, while the smart person born to a privileged family like the Rockafellers where his/her genius was noticed early on and capitalized on is held up as "proof" of their inherent genetic superiority.

It's been refuted a million times that race has nothing really to do with the ability to be or not be smart, but class does, but there is just a certain percentage that refuse to not back that dead horse.

 

[AnOminous]

Lolcows often boast about their IQs despite being stupid as fuck.

 

[Male Idiot]

Yeah, people really never factor in education and culture.

If two twins are separated and one gets to live with a family of scientists, the other in some third world shithole where school is a distant myth, one will be smarter than the other.

This is why the whole "Uncle Tom" thing keeps poor ol' Tyrone from ever getting smarts.

 

[MMMMMM]

Why would different groups of people who evolved completely separately for millennia have evolved different skin color, facial features, propensity to different diseases, but precisely the same intellectual capacity?


Does culture just appear out of the aether? People create culture, and better people create better cultures.

It's interesting how we accept without question that people from other parts of the world have as good of a sense of smell as we do, and they can taste the same range of tastes/see the same range of colours. But intellect? The one quality we haven't even been able to quantify? Oh no, there's no way we could be equal. After all, we look different.

The question about culture is a better one, but there are too many cultures that disprove this line of thinking. Countries once famous for being barbaric and ignorant turned out to reach pinnacles no other nation had dreamt of, and paragons of civilisation have fallen into base tribalism. Sometimes within a couple of generations.

 

[Joan Nyan]

people from other parts of the world have as good of a sense of smell as we do,

Wrong

they can taste the same range of tastes

Wrong

see the same range of colours

Wrong

 

[Male Idiot]

Huh you would think Africans got better noses, because they always had to smell the lion coming up while we europeans were safe with bows, swords, chainmail and castles.

Though the eyesight one is spot on this evolution related theory, since europeans did not suffer so much from NOT seeing the dangerous wildlife for longer.

 

[AnOminous]

It's interesting how we accept without question that people from other parts of the world have as good of a sense of smell as we do, and they can taste the same range of tastes/see the same range of colours. But intellect? The one quality we haven't even been able to quantify? Oh no, there's no way we could be equal. After all, we look different.

IQ isn't exactly a measure of "intelligence," but it is certainly an objective measurement of some specific cognitive tasks that have relevance to intelligence and are generally associated with social success. I think it is dangerous to make assumptions based on imperfect metrics like this, but it's hard to ignore the fact that some populations, particularly Asians and Ashkenazi Jews, score markedly higher on such tests than the human norm.

The Ashkenazi Jewish results are particularly notable because it is a highly discrete genetic clade, and the results are pretty consistent and tied to much more concrete results in reality. The number of Jewish Nobel Prize winners and the objective importance of the discoveries that led to them is pretty undeniable. Even comparing the Nobel Prize winners to other Nobel Prize winners, the Jewish cohort is outstanding.

 

[MMMMMM]

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Did you read these?

The first one focuses exclusively on people over the age of 75, and is a study on how different groups of people lose their existing sense of smell. If white people are less likely to lose their sense of smell when they hit 80, that doesn't lead to the conclusion "White people have a better sense of smell", it just leads to the conclusion that they maintain this sense for longer.

The one concerning taste isn't exactly conclusive, it states that some things are inherited but not related to ethnicity, and that black kids are more likely to choose cereal with more sugar. It's possible but you could also make the argument that this is partially cultural. Certainly the people conducting the study aren't arriving at your conclusion.

The one about colourblindness doesn't even need to be explained. It's about colourblindness. You can't say "X group has a 2.4% higher chance to be colourblind, therefore X people see colour differently from Y people".
Imagine if somebody had data that proved black people were more likely to have lost both their eyes in accidents, and concluded that because a higher percentage of black people were blind, we can make the claim they have poorer eyesight on average. While overall that would be statistically true, it's clear that this would be a disingenuous thing to say when talking about inherent ability.

IQ isn't exactly a measure of "intelligence," but it is certainly an objective measurement of some specific cognitive tasks that have relevance to intelligence and are generally associated with social success. I think it is dangerous to make assumptions based on imperfect metrics like this, but it's hard to ignore the fact that some populations, particularly Asians and Ashkenazi Jews, score markedly higher on such tests than the human norm.

The Ashkenazi Jewish results are particularly notable because it is a highly discrete genetic clade, and the results are pretty consistent and tied to much more concrete results in reality. The number of Jewish Nobel Prize winners and the objective importance of the discoveries that led to them is pretty undeniable. Even comparing the Nobel Prize winners to other Nobel Prize winners, the Jewish cohort is outstanding.

IQ isn't a metric, by definition. I gave up on comparing IQ scores when I discovered what the Q stands for. The value of each IQ point changes all the time based on how well people taking the tests perform, so comparing somebody's score from 2001 to another score from 2015 is a nightmare, since even if they scored the same, you still can't say they are equal unless there's some way to adjust for IQ inflation/deflation that I'm not aware of.

That's not really relevant when discussing consistent trends like we are I suppose, but I really wish somebody would come up with something better.

 

[Male Idiot]

The sugar makes sense. In Europe with more food, preference for higher sugar content was not as necessary as it was in the African plains. Makes evolutionary sense.

 

[IAmSad]

Humans are just a species of animal, you know your a human when you can have child-bearing children with another human. And yes, races are like breeds of dog, while the differences between them are much less pronounced than a chihuahua compared to a great dane, that is the closest parallel.

 

[Morose_Obesity]

Arabs have developed the ability to stink up the Walmart in Skokie, Il and demand discounts on akready low everyday prices. Seriously after working in a Skokie store smelling cumin sweat just pisses me off anymore.
White people build up neighborhoods, brown people devalue them.
Asians have rice dicks and like used panties.

 

[Woodcutting bot]

And IQ is a crappy method of measuring intelligence

Sounds like something an idiot would say.

While yes there are high IQ failures and low IQ winners out there, do you honestly think success and IQ aren't highly correlated?

So, a smart person in an ethnic ghetto who never got anyone's attention with his/her brilliant ideas is written off as naturally inferior because they "wasted" their potential, while the smart person born to a privileged family like the Rockafellers where his/her genius was noticed early on and capitalized on is held up as "proof" of their inherent genetic superiority.

This should be common knowledge, but unfortunately it isn't. If you leave your descendants with a lot of resources, they are going to have better opportunities than people who don't. Those supposed bright bulbs in the ghetto can do nothing and whine about their situation, or they can use their greater intelligence to build a better life for themselves, and their descendants.

 

[Arse Biscuit]

Sounds like something an idiot would say.

While yes there are high IQ failures and low IQ winners out there, do you honestly think success and IQ aren't highly correlated?

There is absolutely no evidence that IQ tests are a causal factor in success.

The only people that still think IQ has any meaning at all are idiots like Arthur Jensen.