How hard can it even be to combat race realism like you don’t need a team of jobless nobodies like come the duck on you dumb retard

Also the skeptic community is certifiably retarded, it’s literally just people bitching about how smart and intelligent and W O K E they are and it’s populated completely by teenagers

How do you get a PhD in skepticism? You don't believe in it.

Start a youtube account with a patreon and make the usual anti-sjw pro-athiesm videos.

How hard can it even be to combat race realism like you don’t need a team of jobless nobodies like come the fuck on you dumb retard

Debunking bullshit is usually one order of magnitude harder than spouting bullshit. That kind of makes actual science very hard to defend for laymen.

Race realism comes from scientific literature, so to debunk you have to understand that literature and demonstrate how the peer reviewed journals got it wrong.

This is too difficult for most antis, who would rather flop into their fainting couches in righteous indignation while crying "Das rayciss" over and over. They can't stand that the scientific evidence is against them

You are aware you won't stop the mayocide with this, isn't it?

The Jews are the smartest race apparently. They can do the stuff you too dumb-dumb to

"There Is No Future But What We Make Of Of It" - u/imnotagayboy

Race realism comes from scientific literature

Dweeby, white trash 'sketpics' talking about skull sizes n' shit from their half-lit basements and uploading it on StormFront doesn't count as 'scientific literature', sorry.

We're talking about papers from respected peer reviewed journals, my dear uninformed manlet

You spend you ranting ranting about jews and how the south was right

Your a very strange individual

What's my take on Jews?

Not your undergrad group's Tumblr race fanfic

Are you having a stroke? This is legit just buzzword diarrhea. Lay off the oxy, Cleetus.

Don't blame me for your boy being a walking parody

Manlet? Why is every trump supporter so insecure they need to refer to every non-trump-sucking male as a manlet?

you'd benefit from visiting /r/beholdthemasterrace, fucking disgusting mayo.

Why is every trump supporter so insecure they need to refer to every non-trump-sucking male as a manlet?

Projection, m8. Projection.

Read a book

kill yourself

You'd be a lot less angry and confused if you read up on the subject

"lol u mad"

Imagine being this much of a failure at social interaction.

Jokes on me I guess, you were only pretending to be mad

you were only pretending to be mad

You must not interact with very many people if you think I'm mad. Again, sick rebuttal dude.

Jokes on me I guess

yeah pretty much

Kerpow

This nigga gets it.

These people don't care if you're right or wrong. They only care about the fact that people will pat them on the back if they say one thing, as opposed to another.

This sub has become a shithole of left-wing agenda posters and SRS mentalities. Just give up on it. It's not worth posting to more than once or twice a week anymore. If even that. It's nothing but SubReddit Drama 2, or SRS 3.

Sometimes I ride the train and read The Bell Curve and every few minutes I'll chuckle, semi-loudly.

No one has proved me wrong, unless you count glaring at me as proving me wrong.

unless you count glaring at me as proving me wrong

I do.

I mean you also juat describes the alt right youtube "community"

It's pretty hard when your opponents have truth on their side.

😩

How hard can it even be to combat race realism

Race is used in biological sciences such as immunology and pharmacogenetics because there is a significant biological base for it.

We really gotta bring the alt right bullshit up in here? I hope this blows up. This shit better be worth it.

/r/drama has become so much worse since the alt-right discovered it

I hate ethnic minorities

"There Is No Future But What We Make Of Of It" - u/imnotagayboy

disgusting cumskin. white children will be no more by 2050.

/r/beholdthemasterrrace

That shit been boiling in her over a year, fam

Peeepeeeeeeeeeee

Why the fuck is an actual neuroscientist getting into a retarded pissing match with some youtube fag?

autism. The answer is autism

It is the answer to all questions.

Because he can't get any gussy

when did your real life credentials matter on the internet. we're all equal here, so i can shitpost next to stephen hawkins about how shit blackholes and general relativity is and nobody will know he's spending 30hrs a week railing against a guy in a buried thread on the ass end of an irrelevant post.

bring back actual qualification in public debate and end cultural marxism, but unironically.

Im a molecular biologist and im wasting my time on /r/drama

Wait, wait are you saying that scientists agree with Alt-Right?

They do

Souce: me

Around 83% of experts in the field agree regarding group differences in cognitive ability having a significant genetic/evolutionary component. Presumably they don't agree with their actual politics, scientists tend to skew pretty left-wing.

Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of International Differences in Cognitive Ability Tests (2016)

2013 survey of expert opinion on intelligence See slides 16 and 30. Also slide 22-24 on "Accuracy of news sources relating intelligence testing" is pretty funny.

Presumably they don't agree with their actual politics, scientists tend to skew pretty left-wing.

Eh... not exactly. The harder the science (heh) the less liberal idiocy you see. I've known my share of right wing scientists but they usually get out of of academia.

"Social scientists" are almost all flaming lefties, but those aren't real scientists anyways.

"Libertarian right" wouldn't agree with the "alt-right" on poltics either. The first survey I found in a quick search said 55% of scientists identified as democrats, 32% as idependent, and 6% as republican, though it's from 2009 and doesn't break down by actual field. Most of the experts were psychologists, though it's possible the specific sub-field of "intelligence, cognitive abilities, and student achievement" skews more right than average for psychologists because the evidence points in a direction that is especially taboo among the left.

Notice of the study was emailed to experts who published articles on or after 2010 in journals on intelligence, cognitive abilities, and student achievement. The journals included Intelligence, Cognitive Psychology, Contemporary Educational Psychology, New Ideas in Psychology, and Learning and Individual Differences. Notice of the study was also emailed to members of the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR), and posted to the web site for the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences (ISSID). ISIR and ISSID support intelligence research and host professional conferences with intelligence researchers. Finally, the study was announced at the 2013 ISIR conference in Melbourne, Australia. A total of 1345 people received an email invitation. An expert was defined as a person who had published on cognitive ability or who had attended intelligence conferences and presented research.

Participants worked in the fields of psychology (80%), education (8%), biology (5%), economics (3%), sociology (2%), and physical anthropology (2%). 87% had a Ph.D.

"alt-right"

The alt-right is mostly a internet boogieman to put anyone pro-Trump in a negative box.

Being pro-Trump alone is more than enough to put you in a negative box. Largerly because you deserve it.

I can't hear you over the winning bitch, now go post another agenda post to /r/drama like the little bitch you are. You like that bitch don't you.

Why u mad?

Mad? I'm horny.

If that's how you talk when you're horny I feel bad for your sisterwife.

Thats only for bussy.

"sisterwife"? Really? Come on, man, be fair.

He's much more the daughterwife kind of guy.

Stfu retard

Shhhhh bby is ok I still ❤️u

Darkies hate leaders who don't tolerate their dumb shit

ALT RIGHT IS AN INTERNET BOGEYMAN THAT DOESN'T EXIST

You

I LOVE DADDY AND AM SUPERIOR DUE TO MY MIRACLE WHIP MAYO GENES

Also you

Really makes you think....

Technically that would be the Chinese superior genes. I've got Celtic genes, lower IQ's than other European groups. I counter it with a side of ((superior)) though.

You're ghinese and Irish? How do you even walk upright? Sorry, I guess its a little presumptuous of me to assume you can actually walk.

((u dumb))

Hmmm

I'm not sure how they would identify in studying intelligence, because you aren't really allowed to be honest in the field. Everyone knows the issue, but you can't talk about it or you get fired.

Well when you publish "Blacks are genetically stupider" I can see why the public and your fund raisers would wonder what the fuck you are doing with your time

Public policy its useful when it comes to education.

And if it is true..... just on that off chance, would it still be a waste of time?

Indeed. Like you need a scientist to state the obvious like that.

After having the funding for his stupid black research pulled, Dr.Hans had to switch to his green grass research instead

"There Is No Future But What We Make Of Of It" - u/imnotagayboy

Its because its psychology you mong; more right wingers dwell in the hard sciences

daily reminder that social science is rigorous and good, the often-silly one is sociology.

Psychology gets pretty darn flaky too.

Presumably they don't agree with their actual politics, scientists tend to skew pretty left-wing.

Eh... not exactly. The harder the science (heh) the less liberal idiocy you see. I've known my share of right wing scientists but they usually get out of of academia.

This is basically my story. So happy I left academia for business. As a bonus I actually make money now too

This but unironically. Ever wonder why the literal nazis (oh how the libtards have watered down that phrase) had scientists who got the job done? Cause they werent beating themselves up for being white and male, knowmsayin?

"There Is No Future But What We Make Of Of It" - u/imnotagayboy

Where are you getting those numbers? I don't see anything like that in the text. This is from the abstract:

Education was rated by N = 71 experts as the most important cause of international ability differences. Genes were rated as the second most relevant factor but also had the highest variability in ratings. Culture, health, wealth, modernization, and politics were the next most important factors, whereas other factors such as geography, climate, test bias, and sampling error were less important.

Should also point out that the survey asked about differences between regions, not race or ethnicity so drawing any conclusions along those lines is speculative at best. Don't forget- this is a survey of psychologists, not an experiment testing correlations between haplogroups and IQ.  The main limitation can be seen in the low response rate (20%)."). So you cannot conclude that 93% say genes matter some way, when the survey as a whole had a low response rate, and many questions may have been left unanswered in cases where there was a response. Further, you're cherry-picking from the article. The main conclusion is the most important part, "Experts rated the two educational factors together (quantity and quality) as the most important cause of international differences in cognitive ability (cross-national: 21.64%, single countries' average: 28.29%)." The authors refer to education as an environmental factor and claim that, "The relative importance of environmental factors does not mean that genetic factors were seen as irrelevant. Based on expert opinions, the genetic-evolutionary factor was the single most important cause of international differences in cognitive ability (cross-national: 16.99%, single-country: 19.72%): Experts attributed about one-sixth to one-fifth of international ability differences to genes. While the rated impact of genes was remarkable, it was still well below the rated impact of environmental factors (around 50%)." [emphasis added]

As for the second paper, the graph (16) that deals with racial IQ differences does refer to a 1984 survey, At the time the concept of race was still disputable, on the other hand it's widely accepted that race plays a very small role on genetic differences due to scientific  very important scientific  breakthrough in the last 30 years. We will talk about this later. 

It's pretty laughable to accuse the scientific community of political bias when the history of recent 'race realist' scientists is filled with intellectual dishonesty, political bias (look at the history of the Pioneer fund) and skewed research. Here just an example everyone can acknowledge by reading just Wikipedia: 

In the 2002 book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, and IQ and Global Inequality in 2006, Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen created estimates of average IQs for 113 nations. They estimated IQs of 79 other nations based on neighboring nations or via other means. They saw a consistent correlation between national development and national IQ averages. They found the highest national IQs among Western and East Asian developed nations and the lowest national IQs in the world's least developed nations in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. In a metaanalysis of studies of IQ estimates in Africa, Wicherts, Dolan & van der Maas (2009), p. 10 concluded that Lynn and Vanhanen had relied on unsystematic methodology by failing to publish their criteria for including or excluding studies. They found that Lynn and Vanhanen's exclusion of studies had depressed their IQ estimate for sub-Saharan Africa, and that including studies excluded in "IQ and Global Inequality" resulted in average IQ of 82 for sub-Saharan Africa, lower than the average in Western countries, but higher than Lynn and Vanhanen's estimate of 67. Wicherts at al. conclude that this difference is likely due to sub-Saharan Africa having limited access to modern advances in education, nutrition and health care.[55] A 2010 systematic review by the same research team, along with Jerry S. Carlson, found that compared to American norms, the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans was about 80. The same review concluded that the Flynn effect had not yet taken hold in sub-Saharan Africa. A 2007 meta-analysis by Rindermann found many of the same groupings and correlations found by Lynn and Vanhanen, with the lowest scores in sub-Saharan Africa, and a correlation of .60 between cognitive skill and GDP per capita. Hunt (2010, pp. 437–439) considers Rindermann's analysis to be much more reliable than Lynn and Vanhanen's. By measuring the relationship between educational data and social well-being over time, this study also performed a causal analysis, finding that when nations invest in education this leads to increased well-being later on

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

Some criticisms have focused on the limited number of studies upon which the book is based. The IQ figures are based on 3 different studies, one study in 34 nations, and two studies in 30 nations. There were actual tests for IQ in 81 nations. For 104 nations there were no IQ studies at all and IQ was estimated based on IQ in surrounding nations.[2] The limited number of participants in some studies has also been criticized. A test of 108 9- to 15-year-olds in Barbados, of 50 13- to 16-year-olds in Colombia, of 104 5- to 17-year-olds in Ecuador, of 129 6- to 12-year-olds in Egypt, and of 48 10- to 14-year-olds in Equatorial Guinea, all were taken as measures of national IQ.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations And just to add some more info 

The average American in the year 1900 had an I.Q. that by today’s standards would measure about 67. Since the traditional definition of mental retardation was an I.Q. of less than 70, that leads to the remarkable conclusion that a majority of Americans a century ago would count today as intellectually disabled.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/opinion/kristof-its-a-smart-smart-smart-world.html

Race and intelligence

The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate in both popular science and academic research since the inception of IQ testing in the early 20th century. While tests have broadly shown differences in average scores based on self-identified race or ethnicity, there is considerable debate as to whether and to what extent those differences reflect environmental factors as opposed to genetic ones, as well as to the definitions of what "race" and "intelligence" are, and whether they can be objectively defined at all. Currently, there is no non-circumstantial evidence that these differences in test scores have a genetic component, although some researchers believe that the existing circumstantial evidence makes it at least plausible that hard evidence for a genetic component will eventually be found.

The first test showing differences in IQ test results between different population groups in the US was the tests of United States Army recruits in World War I. In the 1920s groups of eugenics lobbyists argued that this demonstrated that African-Americans and certain immigrant groups were of inferior intellect to Anglo-Saxon whites due to innate biological differences, using this as an argument for policies of racial segregation.

IQ and the Wealth of Nations

IQ and the Wealth of Nations is a 2002 book by Richard Lynn, Professor of Psychology, and Tatu Vanhanen, Professor of Political Science. The authors argue that differences in national income (in the form of per capita gross domestic product) are correlated with differences in the average national intelligence quotient (IQ). They further argue that differences in average national IQs constitute one important factor, but not the only one, contributing to differences in national wealth and rates of economic growth.

The book has drawn widespread criticism from other academics.

^{[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source | Donate ] Downvote to remove | v0.28}

2ND PART
Now let's talk about actual research. Let's start with a  survey of Anthropologists (a field you would expect  knows the science of human biodiversity better than a neuroscientist )   on the concept of race: : http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.23120/full

-. The human population may be subdivided into biological races  86% disagrees 

-. Racial categories are determined by biology 88%  disagrees 

- There are discrete biological boundaries among races 88% disagrees 

-Genetic differences between racial groups explain most behavioral differences between individuals of different races.  95% disagrees 

Keep in mind that if 80% disagrees it doesn't mean that 20% agrees, 'I don't know' responses are included too. 

Now actual science: First let's look at basic claims of race realism. First it's claimed that racial groups are significant biological taxonomies, markings deep, or reasonably deep evolutionary and genetic divisions. These taxonomies are expected to reasonably resemble folk racial categories. Second the evolutionary divisions of these groups relate strongly to phenotypic differences between groups.

Now let's look at some facts of human genetics and evolution.

DNA analysis does not recreate folk racial categories.

Between group differences only account for ~10-15% of genetic variance

Genetic differentiation of human populations is reflective of genetic drift and migration caused by movement out of Africa and not related to strong selective differences.

Traits derived by local adaptation are the exception, not the norm and typically relate to pathogen resistance.

Locally adaptive traits often evolve convergently in independent populations (sickle cell anemia, dark skin, lactase persistence, etc), and therefore are not useful for racial classification.

Neutrally evolving, polygenic traits have between group variance only of ~10%, meaning that a small proportion of trait variance is attributable to between group differences.

The facts don't support the suppositions of race realism.. There are methods to detect regions of the genome under selecton and craniometric, neuroanatomical, and cognitive performance regions have never been detected while numerous other traits have. If IQ is highly polygenic it's  possible that some aspects of random drift and migration affect a few genes that contribute to IQ. The problem is the cumulative effect will almost certainly be very, very small. Something on the magnitude of 1-3 IQ points if I were to hazard a guess.

If you'll entertain a short tangent, let me elaborate on some things. First some basic things to acknowledge.

1. heritability is a population specific value. So heritabilities found in large studies of (mostly European) UK inhabitants, like this paper, tells us virtually nothing about heritabilities in other populations (like say, Americans with African ancestry). Heritability is even less useful to analyze between group differences since it is restricted to one particular population at one point in time. ([Vischer et al 2008](2008](https://www.biostat.wisc.edu/~kbroman/hgjc/hgjc_2012-03-09b.pdf))

2. GWAS results and other molecular genetic techniques will likely differ to some extent between populations due to differences in linkage disequilibrium. This typically doesn't produce any functional differences but it effects how tag SNPs will associate with 'causal' SNPs in GWAS or selective sweeps tests (Frisse et al 2001, [Conrad et al 2005](2005](https://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v38/n11/full/ng1911.html),[ Sawyer et al 2005](http://medicine.yale.edu/lab/kidd/research/441_237190_284_29476.pdf))

3. Even once loci are identified and frequencies are compared between populations, that doesn't necessarily imply that they explain differences in populations. For example, lactase persistence evolved convergently in two different populations by two distinct variantes (Tishkoff et al 2006). Naively basing your estimation of African ability to process lactose based on Eurpoean allele frequencies would have led one to conclude Africans can not process lactose, but obviously this is false. This can be further demonstrated by this recent paper from Graham Coop's group that looked at polygenic adaptation based on polygenic gene scores and found that often times polygenic scores could not be extrapolated for between population analyses (Berg, Zhang and Coop,2017 page 2)

Next I want to challenge the expectation that physiological brain differences necessarily imply cognitive differences. The opposite was observed  when looking at gender based neurophysiological differences (Grabowska 2016)

A few other things to note. As early as the late 70's we knew that degree of white ancestry did not predict IQ scores ([Scarr et al 1977](1977](https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/absence-of-a-relationship-between-degree-of-white-ancestry-and-intellectual-skills-within-a-black-population.pdf)). Also based on phenotype explained in that GWAS Edit (sorry meant this GWAS)from this post (5% of variance) it's put on par with or less impactful than several environmental effects on IQ like maternal cortisol levels ([LeWinn et al 2009](2009](https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/38/6/1700/669439/Elevated-maternal-cortisol-levels-during-pregnancy)) and failure to thrive Corbett and Drewett 2004) Note these aren't even between population analyses so it's not perfectly clear how any of these features effect betweeng group differences.

Ultimately, to me, this points to non-biological explanations for between group cognitive differences

Further readings* Unfortunately there don't seem to be a lot of books on the subject. There's certainly not anything I would consider a proper book response to things like The Bell Curve or A Troublesome Inheritance. Academics are quick to point out the flaws through typical academic channels (provided they even consider the claims worth addressing) but rarely as a book.

The closest I can think is Kevin Laland's [Sense and Nonsense: Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behavior](Behavior](https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2KcbFVBSxWYC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=info:PGz-FnNdP0YJ:scholar.google.com&ots=0p9JWbRjb1&sig=Xuob41c96KYdz0R404ZzZ4iJ0iA#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Or Aaron Panofsky's [Misbehaving Science](Science](https://books.google.com/books?id=9bHBAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=misbehavingscience&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjagZvA553WAhWlx4MKHWkDALwQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=misbehavingscience&f=false)

A bit more dense, but there's also Jonathon Kaplans [The Limits and Lies of Human Genetic Research](Research](https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=WYFEAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=info:EsUrk_rclzMJ:scholar.google.com&ots=8HZPr1f8fz&sig=eLYS89OjBZ0T0OgVfQl7wBaAmVA#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Unfortunately I don't know where to direct you to free versions of these books. A few good blog posts I can recomment are :

[Scientia Salon on heritability](heritability](https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/heritability-a-handy-guide-to-what-it-means-what-it-doesnt-mean-and-that-giant-meta-analysis-of-twin-studies/)

[Scientia Salon on genetic causation](causation](https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/07/02/exploring-genetic-causation-in-biology/)

This article by Dalton Conley on race, IQ and genetics

Some blog posts that are good, but not perfect from Joshua Tenneson on [Race and IQ](IQ](https://adaptivediversity.wordpress.com/2016/12/10/race-ed/)

Molecular Ecologist on Nick Wade's book

NothinInBiology on [Wade's book](book](https://nothinginbiology.org/2014/07/01/a-guide-to-the-science-and-pseudoscience-of-a-troublesome-inheritance-part-i-the-genetics-of-human-populations/)

NothingInBiology on e[volutionary driven differences between races](races](https://nothinginbiology.org/2014/07/15/a-guide-to-the-science-and-pseudoscience-of-a-troublesome-inheritance-part-iii-has-natural-selection-produced-significant-differences-between-races/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=2912&relatedposts_position=1)

please god don't tell me you wrote all this shit

1ST PART Where are you getting those numbers? I don't see anything like that in the text.

2016 survey regarding international differences:

In the current study, experts attributed the low results in sub-Saharan Africa to genetic-evolutionary factors (18.58%), followed by educational quality (12.27%), health (11.73%), and educational quantity (11.60%). The two educational factors together had the strongest rating (23.87%), and health had a high rating compared to other regions and countries (12%). While genes were rated as the most important single factor, there was considerable diversity of opinion: 10 of 60 experts gave genes a rating of zero (17%), and the standard deviation in ratings for genes was the highest of all factors (SD = 24.88; all other factors: SD < 10). Similar to other countries and regions, sub-Saharan Africa had low ratings for discrimination and methodological problems (sampling error, test bias, test knowledge).

17% of experts in the field said that "genetic/evolutionary" differences were responsible for 0% of the low results in sub-Saharan Africa (on a scale using 5% increments). 83% rated it as responsible for at least 5%, and on average all the experts (including the 0% ones) rated it as responsible for 18.58% of the difference.

2013 survey, slide 16:

What are the sources of U.S. black-white differences in IQ?

0% of differences due to genes: (17% of our experts) 0-40% of differences due to genes: 42% of our experts 50% of differences due to genes: 18% of our experts 60-100% of differences due to genes: 39% of our experts 100% of differences due to genes: (5% of our experts) M=47% of differences due to genes (SD=31%)

Of the 74% of experts who had an opinion it coincidentally was once again exactly 17% who thought 0% of the difference was due to genes. Conversely 5% thought genes were responsible for 100% of the difference. Most were somewhere in between, with high variance. Since the difference in environmental factors between a black person in the U.S. and a white person in the U.S. is much smaller than the difference with someone in sub-Saharan Africa, they of course estimated the fraction of the difference caused by genetics to be much higher.

Further, you're cherry-picking from the article. The main conclusion is the most important part, "Experts rated the two educational factors together (quantity and quality) as the most important cause of international differences in cognitive ability (cross-national: 21.64%, single countries' average: 28.29%)."...

How is that cherrypicking? Nobody I've ever heard of thinks education isn't important to cognitive ability, not even the "alt-right". On the other hand most people don't think that genetic/evolutionary differences between population groups affect cognitive ability, let alone to that degree, and in fact it's a very taboo thing to believe. That is where the experts diverge from the general population. The more scientifically-inclined racist/"alt-right"/etc. people naturally pay close attention to this sort of thing and agree with the experts, which was the original question.

As for the second paper, the graph (16) that deals with racial IQ differences does refer to a 1984 survey, At the time the concept of race was still disputable, on the other hand it's widely accepted that race plays a very small role on genetic differences due to scientific very important scientific breakthrough in the last 30 years.

No, it's a 2013 replication of the famous 1984 Snyderman & Rothman survey (with some questions added), which you can read here for comparison purposes. The 1984 survey presented the answers as a percentage of all survey-takers, including those who were unsure or didn't answer the question, so you need to recalculate them as a percentage of those who gave an answer (like the 2013 survey did) for a direct comparison. Once you do so, in the 1984 survey 24% of experts thought the difference was entirely environmental, 1% thought it was entirely genetic, and the remainder thought it was a mixture (the 1984 survey didn't ask for more specific percentages). By comparison in the 2013 survey 17% of experts thought it was entirely environmental and 5% thought it was entirely genetic.

At the time the concept of race was still disputable, on the other hand it's widely accepted that race plays a very small role on genetic differences due to scientific very important scientific breakthrough in the last 30 years.

You speak pretty authoritatively about the subject for someone who doesn't know enough about it to recognize the Snyderman survey or read closely enough to realize the 2013 survey was a replication. Meanwhile the proportion of experts who thinks genetic differences aren't one of the causes for the gap has actually gone down.

The main limitation can be seen in the low response rate (20%)."). So you cannot conclude that 93% say genes matter some way, when the survey as a whole had a low response rate, and many questions may have been left unanswered in cases where there was a response.

20% is below average for an online survey but doesn't seem very unusual given the length, and you haven't given any particular reason to assume respondents were a biased sample. For comparison I looked up some expert surveys regarding global warming. Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change had a 30.7% response rate, but says "To maximize the response rate, the survey was designed to take less than 2 minutes to complete". Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature asked climatologists to rate whether their specific papers endorsed anthropogenic global warming, a more time-consuming procedure than the previous survey, and got a 14% response rate.

Now let's talk about actual research. Let's start with a survey of Anthropologists (a field you would expect knows the science of human biodiversity better than a neuroscientist) on the concept of race

Why the hell would typical anthropologists know anything about cognitive ability, cognitive testing, and the causes of cognitive ability differences? Is your logic that since a minority of anthropologists are physical anthropologists, and some physical anthropologists use genetics, anthropologists must be knowledgeable about everything genetics-related, even though not even actual geneticists are typically going to be knowledgeable regarding every specialized subject like this? By comparison, here is the criteria the 2016 survey used to find experts (which incidentally did not include a significant number of "neuroscientists"):

Notice of the study was emailed to experts who published articles on or after 2010 in journals on intelligence, cognitive abilities, and student achievement. The journals included Intelligence, Cognitive Psychology, Contemporary Educational Psychology, New Ideas in Psychology, and Learning and Individual Differences. Notice of the study was also emailed to members of the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR), and posted to the web site for the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences (ISSID). ISIR and ISSID support intelligence research and host professional conferences with intelligence researchers. Finally, the study was announced at the 2013 ISIR conference in Melbourne, Australia. A total of 1345 people received an email invitation. An expert was defined as a person who had published on cognitive ability or who had attended intelligence conferences and presented research. Compared to Snyderman and Rothman (1988, pp. 46–49), our selection criteria were based more on publications in specific scientific journals and less on membership in scientific organizations.

Participants worked in the fields of psychology (80%), education (8%), biology (5%), economics (3%), sociology (2%), and physical anthropology (2%).

The rest of your second post is a bunch of copypasta from this reddit thread. Attempting to seem knowledgeable by literally copy-pasting a random person on the internet who was in turn just cherrypicking whatever bits of science vaguely sounded like they were on his "side" is, needless to say, not going to lead you to understanding. If you want to delve into specific research "The facts that need to be explained" is supposedly a decent compilation of the case for the B-W gap being partially genetic. Since it was written there's also been a bunch of studies identifying genes associated with intelligence in individuals, and if you take the SNPs that replicate across multiple of those studies and look at how common they are in different populations compared to random SNPs the results are just what the experts would expect (study published in Intelligence, blog-post updating with new SNPs). But at the end of the day I'm typically going to place more value in what the people publishing research in the field believe than my ability to evaluate specific arguments.

The survey I posted was published on a scientific journal, one of the two survey you posted wasn't , I'm talking about the one about black-white IQ differences which also presents the lowest response rate. It was described in a (http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.it/2013/12/genetics-genetic-groups-intelligence.html?m=1)[2013 blog post) about a conference presentation, The survey described in that post has resulted in two published articles , neither of which presents data on opinions regarding the black-white difference. The studies do, however, report that only about 5 percent of people who were invited to participate responded to any one set of items. 

The survey on cross-national differences you posted is maybe the most controversial given that it compares intelligence between all different every  'race' but it was published on a peer-reviewed journal for it can be considered  reliable. according to this survey about 1/6 to 1/5 of cross-national differences can be attributed to genetics. We know that average sub-Saharan IQ is 85 after meta-analysis (read my previous posts), 1/5 means that about 3 IQ points differences are due to genetics which corresponds to the previous estimate a cited. 

I'm well aware of GWAS studies but context is important, the latest famous GWAS study with the biggest gene dataset (it also  made the headlines in major newspapers) managed to explain almost  5% of intelligence variation. 

You can read  this figure in the articles below which comprehend interviews of the researchers: 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/intelligence-and-the-dna-revolution/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/science/52-genes-human-intelligence.html

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/may/22/scientists-uncover-40-genes-iq-einstein-genius

Here the study:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3869

These guys are scientists in the same way a burger flipper is a chef.

No. But they disagree with that retard.

That niggers are dumb? Obviously.

You don't need to be a published scientist to make that observation and inference, knowmsayin?

"There Is No Future But What We Make Of Of It" - u/imnotagayboy

I meet plenty of racists online and all their arguments are bunk. Just about every single high profile scientific study has concluded essentially without error that if you remove environmental biases, it actually turns out that every single race is equal at every single activity, be that physical or mental.

Wording it like that might sound strange but if you think about it, it's true.

Some things we were all taught in school were plainly wrong, for example weed being as bad as heroin. Don't trust everything your teacher tells you!

But some things we were taught at school are still true to this day -

All racial groups collectively (being within the margin of error) are EQUAL at literally every single conceivable task when you remove privilege, etc. It's fascinating when you think about it, and it will really make you think.

"love /r/drama, hate racism"

- /u/broden

You already used that line here, be more varied in your trolling in the future.

Yeah I made a ninja edit.

getting hooked

The most respected scientists of the YouTube community

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHA

respected

YouTube community

U WOOT MATE

3 million scientists, and only 6 of them are funny

To be fair, you have to have a high IQ to understand the difference between a raven and a crow.

So the racists are the good guys? Wait, Kraut isn't the good guy. I'm so confused.

Fingers crossed Justicar drags his fag self into this somehow

I hope he pulls out a whiteboard and draws logic diagrams for basic speech like we're a bunch of fucking children lmao

"There Is No Future But What We Make Of Of It" - u/imnotagayboy

he got the whiteboard out and lectured about probabilities! you were so close!

lmao perfect

"There Is No Future But What We Make Of Of It" -

u/imnotagayboy

Ding ding ding ding! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO9xcpyncQc&amp;feature=push-u&amp;attr_tag=JWcZUVvepYns5xzN-6

yay!

Is society a boomerang

I thought we settled the "this bump means he is genetically geared toward crime" a long time ago

Well it certainly isn't a train ride to Utopia

Society is cyclical, yes. This is like poli sci 201.

I dunno if it's their on average lower intelligence, or if their skin is just itchy all the time so they are irratable, but something makes blacks of african descent love crime

"There Is No Future But What We Make Of Of It" - u/imnotagayboy

race realism

scientific issues

Pick one.

Isn't JF making an argument from nature fallacy? Confusing natural things (sexual strategies for reproduction) with artificial things (economic and class imperatives).

That's also the alt-right fallacy. It's biological determinism and argument from nature.

Confusing natural things (sexual strategies for reproduction) with artificial things (economic and class imperatives).

Where does he do that specifically?

In the first response video.

Timestamp?

I dunno, it's about half way through, when he starts responding to Kraut's basic point. I think Kraut is essentially right, though he might have some of the details wrong. You can't straightforwardly apply Darwinist concepts to man-made institutions in society. It's called Social Darwinism, and is a huge fallacy.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. This discussion between kraut, JF and thealthype is about empirical matters and appropriate methodology, not about policy or ideas about how society ought to be structured.

Please provide me a timestamp where JF is committing an actual is-ought fallacy.

I can't find it, the whole thing is too long. But it's about half way through, when he says that r/K selection theory is a reasonable hypothesis to explain immigration and levels of poverty and so on. That is the fundamental confusion, attributing to biological causes what is better attributed to man-made institutions.

That is the fundamental confusion, attributing to biological causes what is better attributed to man-made institutions.

But this isn't an example of the is-ought fallacy.

I didn't say it was.

you:

an argument from nature fallacy

me:

Please provide me a timestamp where JF is committing an actual is-ought fallacy.

What's it got to do with is-ought? He's confusing natural things with artificial things. That's the fallacy.

ahttps://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/36/Appeal-to-Nature

And? The fallacy he has made is a sort of appeal to nature, a biological determinism. A confusion of the natural with the artificial.

This kinda reminds me of when Thunderf00t had a pissing match with Youtube creationists.. which he's still having- a decade later.

Youtuber Braving Ruin published 3GB kraut discord leaks. Featuring a hit list of alt-right related e-celebs, a nytimes journalist and thunderf00t as members, recordings with all kinds of shit-talking.

https://twitter.com/BravingRuin/status/942074856664977408

That is some next level faggotry

"I'm a skeptic look at me I know the truth and you don't" but when it comes down to brass tax stick to their guns and on;ly see things the way they want to

"There Is No Future But What We Make Of Of It" - u/imnotagayboy

man this is the third time i've tried to open this thread and process your post and i still can't do it without my eyes glazing over before i'm even halfway done reading it because of how fucking retarded this is

good find op

>fr*gs

>human

Centrism means learning from everyone with something valuable to say, not walling yourself off in an echochamber. Fake centrists like you are so boring.

Disgusting

There are black french people! Look at the France National Football (Soccer) team!

The only thing worse

French. Canadian. Jew.

THE UNHOLY TRINITY

Some things we were all taught in school were plainly wrong, for example weed being as bad as heroin.

What school was that?

statistically and biologically only

Thanks for this, I needed a good laugh.

Race is a social construct created by colonial perceptions. African Americans do better at sports perhaps because they were bred as slaves by the wh*Te man to be stronger.

As for native Kenyan long distance runners, they do well in sports because such competition leaves much less room for discrimination.

This is backed up by science. We know now that there are two separate realms of the human. The mind and the body. Completely separate except with in motion.

That's why different colour babies grow up with different hair thickness, colour, texture, etc. Same for bone structure and everything else (wait no not bone structure let me take that one back). But with all these clear measurable outside differences, does that mean we are all varied within the architecture of our brain? Of course not.

I mean, if there was any proof race realism was legitimate, don't you think it would be as simple as writing up a scientific paper and getting it published and approved? There's no reason why it would be suppressed surely.

Point being, it's not my job to educate you.

Neoliberals are the biggest nerds in the political arena

Get ready to be wedgied by the fash boyo

french frogs

white

😹😹😹😹😹

People from SEA, Brazil, and Norway have the same ratio of slow twitch to fast twitch muscle fibers across their population

What did he mean by this?

That's bullshit. Most research concludes that intelligence differences between races, for instance, are 50 to 80 percent genetic. This has been popping up in the peer reviewed literature for 40 years or so

People actually bought this bullshit? It's a sad day for r/Drama.

Every time when I see someone posting about nothing but politics on Reddit and Twitter, I just think: What happened in that person's life to make them like this? Is their life so miserable that this is their only outlet? What makes them think what they are doing has any real purpose? Why did they choose to replace a personality and character with political buzzwords?

It's honestly very sad.

every single race is equal at every single activity, be that physical or mental.

Lol... no but if you say so.

This is completely retarded btw....

I'll use something so basic even a fucking leftard could understand, and you are so stupid here I'll assume you are trolling.

Majority of my DNA is Celtic, now how do I need to be raised to avoid skin cancer from intense sun exposure? What factor are you going to correct for?

is this supposed to be sarcasm? ethically and morally are the important ways m8.

Go read about Hume's is-ought problem, pleb.

every single race is equal at every single activity, be that physical or mental.

Yep lactose intolerance is a social construct that will go away as soon as we dismantle white supremacy.

Nah, because the statistics suggest (((we))) are the master race, and the alt right definitely doesn't like that.

Citations Needed: The Post.

Bootlickers

this is 100% true and also a good thing

This is 100% true and also a good thing

Nice signature comrad

"There Is No Future But What We Make Of Of It" - u/imnotagayboy

I mean, seriously. There's such a thing as being TOO center, amirite? The radical mediums go up against the wall first, 'm tellin ya.