4chan archive /sci/ (index)
similar threads
2015-01-09 10:07 6999511 Anonymous (Impala-Stare[1].jpg 1200x667 924kB)
Why is it that humans look so different even though we are the same species, but all other animals of the same species look exactly alike?

2 min later 6999516 Anonymous
>>6999511 >but all other animals of the same species look exactly alike? Have you ever pondered that this is because a) you don't interact with those animals on a daily basis and b) because you don't have the brain of that animal?

2 min later 6999517 Anonymous
>>6999511 All Asians look the same to me. Just like a herd of Impala. But a moose looks completely different than an Impala.

4 min later 6999523 Anonymous
>>6999516 Well, I dont have to intereact with animals everyday to notice this. Every American Toad ive ever seen looks exactly the same, granted some size differences. Every Daffodil ive seen looks the same. Every crow ive seen looks the same. But not humans. Each one looks different unless they have a twin or something.

5 min later 6999527 Anonymous
>>6999517 >But a moose looks completely different than an Impala. Yes, but they are not the same species.

13 min later 6999543 Anonymous
>>6999517 Great laugh

17 min later 6999549 Anonymous
>>6999523 It's mostly because you have a human brain and a large part of your brain is designed for the specific purpose of telling humans apart. You've also been trained extensively in this skill since the day of your birth. If you really took time on the subject you could tell impala apart.

17 min later 6999550 Anonymous
>>6999511 You should watch "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" episode of Star Trek.

19 min later 6999553 Anonymous
>>6999511 >all other animals of the same species look exactly alike Really? So it's just an illusion that my roommates two cats, who are the closely related by blood, have distinguishing characteristics? You're not looking close enough.

22 min later 6999561 Anonymous
>>6999511 Take all different deer like things(reindeer, impala, moose, goats (are goats related to deer? Probably if you go far enough back), etc) and put them in a picture. They look vastly different. At some point in the past they looked very similar because they all evolved from the same species. But differences in enviroment caused pressures on the reproduction of that species which lead to a wide variety of Humans were in the process of speciation, but were not far enough along for reproduction to be impossible by the time the species spread from localized tribes to worldwide colonization.

26 min later 6999572 Anonymous
>>6999553 >i can tell my roommates cats apart!! Well obviously, two different breeds or mixed breeds of cats are going to look different and be easy to tell apart. Im speaking more along the lines of animal species that aren't as homogenous. You can't tell me that biologists at an Otter Sancutary don't get confused which otter is which, despite naming them.

30 min later 6999585 Anonymous
>>6999516 >>6999549 This. Babies can recognize faces at something like two days old. And probably 10x more of your cortex is dedicated to seeing faces than other common tasks (like doing math,for example) Facial recognition is one of the most heavily selected areas of brain evolution because telling whether someone is friend or foe; telling whether someone is pissed or calm; can mean the difference between life and death, success and failure(even in our relatively safe modern culture) With animals, there are relatively few circumstances when being able to identify a particular tiger is gonna save your life. All tigers are probably equally dangerous from an evolutionary perspective.

34 min later 6999606 Anonymous
>>6999511 Google "prosopagnosia". It's a human cognitive disorder where you aren't able to distinguish human faces from one another, much like a clutch of chicks. The brain is hardwired to recognize human faces, not animals.

35 min later 6999607 Anonymous
Check out prosopagnosia.

35 min later 6999609 Anonymous
>>6999585 >>6999549 >>6999516 additionally, a BIG part of the reason that humans look so different is because of fashion. If it wasn't for clothes, haircuts, tattoos, piercings, shaving, different amounts of excercise etc it would be much much harder to tell people apart. Imagine if every guy you knew had a full beard, the same clothes, and the same level of physical activity. It would be a lot harder to tell them apart.

44 min later 6999626 Anonymous
>>6999511 Look at that picture. Look at it closely. YOu can instantly tell the males from the females because of their horns. Look closely at the faces of hte does looking your way. The coloration on their faces is greatly varied. Some have more slender faces, some how greater. You forget taht the human brain has an entire section of it devoted specifically to identifying the human face. It's why you can recognize a face without remembering anything else about hte person. It's why we see faces in inanimate objects. It's why babies know instinctively that a smile is good and a frown is bad. If your brain was wired the same way to see these creature's faces, they'd all look as different as night and day too.

45 min later 6999631 Anonymous
>>6999626 Inb4: furry

1 hours later 6999676 Anonymous (sawada-school[1].jpg 560x404 94kB)
>>6999511 If one of these girls stole your phone would you be able to pick her out?

1 hours later 6999686 Anonymous
>>6999676 What is this a school for ants?

1 hours later 6999687 Anonymous (Two chicks at the same time.jpg 498x263 27kB)
>>6999676 Third from the left, second row up.

1 hours later 6999690 Anonymous
>>6999676 Yes, but studies show that people are better at recognizing their own race than other races.

1 hours later 6999695 Anonymous (pink goats.jpg 800x600 107kB)
>>6999511 you are not an impala, look at the face markings, they vary from one to another

1 hours later 6999703 Anonymous (asians-all-look-the-same_fb_1895745[1].jpg 300x300 108kB)
>>6999690 So only an Asian could pick out the Asian girl thief.

1 hours later 6999706 Anonymous
>>6999703 >goto europe >be white >rob bank >cant reach verdict against me because jury are all muslims and cant tell white people apart >aaaaaay

1 hours later 6999712 Anonymous
>>6999676 The one that has the upskirt photo on my phone

1 hours later 6999716 Anonymous
>>6999511 They don't always. Look at Salmo Trutta for example. Most biologists concider all of them to be the same specie, with no subspecies.

4 hours later 7000205 Anonymous
>>6999690 races don't exist.

4 hours later 7000211 Anonymous
>>6999686 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ- 8IuUkJJc

5 hours later 7000315 Anonymous
>>7000205 Fuck off faggot

6 hours later 7000340 Anonymous
>>7000205 Sure, but fucking slanted eyes do and black skin do.

6 hours later 7000362 Anonymous
>ctrl+f >no "because we're the >apex< species and only one apex species can live on earth/per one planet (citation needed). Seriously?

6 hours later 7000365 Anonymous
>>7000362 You're mad because nobody has said anything that incredibly stupid? Wow.

6 hours later 7000386 Anonymous
>>7000315 I'm just saying it's a scientifically outdated concept.

6 hours later 7000390 Anonymous
>>6999690 >>6999703 No, the studies show that it's more about the environment they grow up in due to some eigenface shit. In other words, if you take an asian grill and have her grow up in a community consisting of only pale red haired irish people then they would also have trouble distinguishing the grills in the picture.

6 hours later 7000401 Anonymous (bf.jpg 433x152 55kB)
>>6999511

6 hours later 7000431 Anonymous
All animals of the same species don't look the same. You aren't observant enough.

19 hours later 7001271 Anonymous
>>6999511 Other animals would think the same. To deer, we all look the same. Animals just recognise differences in their own species..

23 hours later 7001635 Anonymous
>>6999511 Your brain isnt wired to notice small differences in other animals like that. If you were a deer, then you would be capable of telling other deer apart easily. There's also the factor of scent marking.

23 hours later 7001650 Anonymous
But we are all equal :^)

23 hours later 7001675 Anonymous
>>6999609 hair colour, skin colour, facial structure

23 hours later 7001683 Anonymous
>>7000386 so... asians are the same as africans? k

23 hours later 7001692 Anonymous
>>7001650 this I think you're all forgetting what our elementary school teachers taught us. Don't judge me by the color of my skin but by the weight of my heart.

23 hours later 7001697 Anonymous
>>7001692 my elementary school teacher was black, and who am I to believe what a black man says

23 hours later 7001704 Anonymous
>>7001697 I think you need to open up your hearts and mind and see people past their skin color.

23 hours later 7001709 Anonymous
>>7001683 Not that anon but In some scenarios yes, relatively speaking. There are africans with slim builds, light skin, epicanthic folds and non-nappy curly hair. If you compare those africans with certain eastern and south eastern asian populations they will appear similar enough to give an illusion that the two are at least from the same region when in fact they are not.

23 hours later 7001710 Anonymous
>>7000386 We see the sun setting, but the sun does not actually go below the horizon; it is mostly a perception. Get over it, you scientistic fag. >>7001683 Yes, we are all equal; there is more difference between an Asian and another Asian in the same area than between an Asian and an African.

23 hours later 7001737 Anonymous
>>7001710 >Yes, we are all equal; there is more difference between an Asian and another Asian in the same area than between an Asian and an African. But the actual differences between Asians and Africans group together in clusters that can be used to tell both groups apart. These grouped clusters correspond to geographical seperation and also the traditional notion of races to some degree.

23 hours later 7001741 Anonymous
>>7001737 but its also arbitrary and serves no purpose

23 hours later 7001764 Anonymous
>>7001741 GUARANTEED REPLIES.

26 hours later 7002005 Anonymous
>>7001764 Technically, you weren't wrong.

26 hours later 7002033 Anonymous
I once read sth about a study, that showed that infants can recognize and distinguish faces of sheep. This ability is later lost because people are generally more around people and not e.g. sheep. Quick google search gave me http://sites.jmu.edu/cogdevlab/file s/2012/12/Simpson-et-al-2011.pdf Cba reading thru it atm tho.

26 hours later 7002053 Anonymous
Some species have more variation than others. Humans, rats, wolf/dog all have huge gene pools and very wide ranges. During the last ice age there were only a small number cheetahs left alive. Effectively the whole species are cousins. For this reason when a virus passes through the population it moves very fast since it does not have to tweak itself for each new individual like it would to move from one rat to the next.

26 hours later 7002070 Anonymous
>>7001683 Yeah it's just skin deep, when you look at the bones there is no difference.

27 hours later 7002090 Anonymous
>>7001709 You mean Capoids.

27 hours later 7002131 Anonymous
>>7002070 ...yes there is.

28 hours later 7002268 Anonymous
>>7002070 >>7001741 >>7001709 >>7000386 1995 called, it want's its theories back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nZ PvhIb-mk

29 hours later 7002281 Anonymous (image.jpg 1011x654 198kB)
>>7002053 Tasmanian devils are going extinct for this reason: Sexually transmitted facial tumors. It could never spread if their gene pool wasn't so narrow.

29 hours later 7002355 Anonymous
>>7002268 If black people are dumb how how come Ethiopeans and Nigerians are the most educated foreign immigrants in america?

29 hours later 7002363 Anonymous
>>7002355 Education=/=intelligence Somebody has to pay for degrees from shit tier state unis. And if you're a Nigerian you can do that to stay the fuck out of Nigeria.

30 hours later 7002384 Anonymous
>>7001692 those with enlarged hearts must die

30 hours later 7002389 Anonymous
>>7002268 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_b FpmNSBiY full video

31 hours later 7002502 Anonymous
>>7002268 >>7002389 >There are differences between people, therefore races exist. You're the one pushing 1995 pseudoscience anon. We now speak in populations which are a superior generalization to races and provide us with better tools for studying the differences between people. Race is an antiquated notion that predates modern genetics.

31 hours later 7002518 Anonymous
>>7002502 Exactly. I think that's the most important thing for people to understand. "Races" doesn't really make sense, because you have groups like "Metizos" that are mixed Spanish and Amerindian; they're not really a "race," but we can certainly study them as a population. Take a look at this study: http://openpsych.net/OBG/wp-content /uploads/2014/04/OBG_PolSelIntel_fi nal.pdf Not a single word about races.

32 hours later 7002532 Anonymous
>>7002518 Yes, and more importantly there are probably much more useful ways to break down those populations than by easily identifiable physical features. Populations also allow us to study lots of different overlapping at the same time without any specific "set of populations" being the canonical set (the assumption that people talking about races make). As an example of the power of populations I could study the population of people living in wealthy communities compared to the population of people living in ghettos in the context of intelligence. I hypothesize that I would find a correlation between the population and intelligence. Of course, provided my hypothesis is confirmed, it still isn't sufficient to imply that destitute people are inherently inferior to wealthy people. It isn't even sufficient enough to imply that destitute people are inherently dumber than wealthy people. It does however provide us with a direction in which we can take further study. That paper does talk about races. >Given the strong signal of recent selection found on height increasing alleles, ANOVA was carried out to determine whether allele frequencies differed significantly between races. By doing this it introduces subjectively defined partitions of races and uses them to gather data. Of course, this is probably the reason the paper is published in an open journal. By the way, I've seen this paper linked several times in another thread by a shitposter from /pol/, given your post it's obvious you didn't read it. Are you that same shitposter?

32 hours later 7002541 Anonymous
>>7002532 sry, I just typed IQ, populations, rs7171755 into google scholar and skimmed the article. Didn't see that, nice catch.

32 hours later 7002557 Anonymous
To them, we likely all look the same

32 hours later 7002567 Anonymous
racism goes to >>>/pol/

32 hours later 7002575 Anonymous
>>7002532 Fuck you, I'm the "shitposter." Are you >implying >that ALFRED, a resource of gene frequency data on human populations supported by the U. S. National Science Foundation, is racist? >Or that top down analysis isn't a thing? Because either way you're unscientific. I love how just because the article says race, you throw everything out the window as if that somehow changes the data.

34 hours later 7002658 Anonymous
>>7002575 >Fuck you, I'm the "shitposter." Indeed you are. Inb4 300 posts of "it's a conspiracy theory", "I win", "Internet /pol/ Defense Force". Anyone using this to support the existence of race is misinterpreting the research. Go back to your containment board you shitposter.

34 hours later 7002680 Anonymous
>>7002575 You know why I haven't been banned? And I bet you've been reporting me. It's because I have sources. Good sources. That article was written by taking replicated top down studies that show a link between IQ, some gene, and some neurological difference; looking up world wide allele distribution on ALFRED and then posting the chart. ALFRED!!! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art icles/PMC3245092/ This is like being mad at Wolfram Alpha. You can do this for gene after gene after gene. You can do this. At home. So far /sci/ has >denied top down analysis >implied acetylcholine response has nothing to do with cognition. >implied neuroplasticity has nothing to do with learning >responded to data controlling for socioeconomic factors, by blaming socioeconomic factors(?) You know what got me into this? I was an everyday /sci/ poster. Then one day, /sci/ called Watson a crackpot, and then said top down analysis wasn't a thing.

34 hours later 7002683 Anonymous
>>7002658 Jesus fucking christ. The point isn't races exist. The point is intelligence differences between genetic population groups exist. If you think the existence of a "race" is in any way central or relevant to my argument, you're arguing with a strawman.

34 hours later 7002686 Anonymous
Because you don't care about it's inner emotions, thoughts or goals in life. You just see meat on legs. Which may be responsible for out sociopathic impulses toward nature -just a side note. However humans, being the social creatures we are, are find of anything on the same 'team' as us (in this case humans vs all other animals). We care and can sense emotion just by looking at facial expressions. Probably why we pay more attention to faces of things we can actually communicate with.

34 hours later 7002690 Anonymous (You don't know shit.jpg 332x303 76kB)
>>7002680 >This shitposter >Thinks populations are races. >denied top down analysis What the hell are you talking about? >implied acetylcholine response has nothing to do with cognition. >implied neuroplasticity has nothing to do with learning No one has implied this. >responded to data controlling for socioeconomic factors, by blaming socioeconomic factors(?) (?) >>7002683 >The point isn't races exist. That was the only point other anons were making above. >The point is intelligence differences between genetic population groups exist. No one disagrees with this. It's obviously true and to be expected. Even between population groups that aren't defined explicitly via genetics. >If you think the existence of a "race" is in any way central or relevant to my argument, you're arguing with a strawman. This is all fine by itself but in past threads you strengthen the conclusion in several ways to say ridiculous shit like "therefore blacks are inferior". The correct conclusion is just that there exists evidence that there exists intelligence differences between the genetic population groups described in X paper.

34 hours later 7002699 Anonymous
>>7002690 >>implied acetylcholine response has nothing to do with cognition. >>implied neuroplasticity has nothing to do with learning Not that guy, but in literally every thread in which someone posts research papers showing genetic differences among races for receptor genotypes and such, a shitstorm ensues that "you can't define race, that's racist", "privilege is a better determinant", "the results are up to interpretation", to even flat out "but this other disputed paper shows no genetic differences 'actually' exist" To be pedantic, races are a sample, not a population.

34 hours later 7002705 Anonymous
Far right is best impala

34 hours later 7002707 Anonymous
Forgive me /sci/ for this question, but I study something that isn't genetics. Is race in humans supposed to be like different dog breeds for dogs? I'm pretty sure that makes sense as a question.

34 hours later 7002708 Anonymous
>>6999511 I don't care much for the topic but i sure want to shag those impalas.

34 hours later 7002717 Anonymous
>>7002707 Assuming you're not being an idiot on purpose, it'd be more like if you took an ancient pseudo dog and selectively bred members for different purposes, would they show differences in intelligence, health, stature, etc? Yes, just like people today in different professions do. If you selectively bred a better police officer, or a better scientists, or as literally China did, a better tall person, they could be Yao Ming. Humans have not evolved this way, though valid comparisons can be made on genetic distances and such, if we take measures like that as our definition of a race.

34 hours later 7002723 Anonymous
>>7002707 >Is race in humans supposed to be like different dog breeds for dogs? I'm pretty sure that makes sense as a question. No, dog breeds differ genetically far more than humans with regards to FST. >>7002717 It's worse than that. Dogs have a much higher rate of speciation. That means that even if you selectively bred humans like we have done to dogs then it would take a lot longer for humans to diverge to the same level as dog breeds (we're talking upwards of 100s of thousands of years here).

34 hours later 7002725 Anonymous (hestudiedsociology.png 626x968 85kB)
>>7002690 >implying this is all one person >what the hell am I talking about /Sci/ has denied that using top down analysis to associate IQ (or some other factor) with a gene, is a thing. This prompted this whole thing. Some guy posted this article, someone said "correlation is no causation" in regards to associating IQ with a gene with a neurological factor. I responded "Top down analysis is totally a thing." and I proceeded to be called a racist by 5 separate anons. This has thoroughly convinced me of the "Watson effect." >No one has implied this Pic related, isn't me. Didn't even screen cap this myself. This isn't the best example, but notice how he jumps around the fact that this gene is associated with neurological factors and latches on to "muh sociology?" This is the average quality of /sci/'s responses. >(?) >College board data shows that High SES blacks do worse than low SES whites on almost all measures, including SAT (College Board Data 2008) >Yeah but rich people do better than poor people on IQ tests BTFO!!!! happens like 3 times a day. It's terrifying. >That was the only point other anons were making above. You're talking to me!! What they said is irrelevant!! >No one disagrees with this. It's obviously true and to be expected. Even between population groups that aren't defined explicitly via genetics. No shit. >This is all fine by itself but in past threads you strengthen the conclusion in several ways to say ridiculous shit like "therefore blacks are inferior". The correct conclusion is just that there exists evidence that there exists intelligence differences between the genetic population groups described in X paper. >implying this is all one person

34 hours later 7002727 Anonymous
>>7002717 >Assuming you're not being an idiot on purpose Why does everyone always think this? What about natural differences caused by environmental differences over a great period of time? Bone structure is slightly different in the African male than in the northern European male. Different environments led to different dog breeds, and while they aren't different species, they are certainly classified differently. Or is that classification unscientific to begin with? I thought race was to make distinctions about historical environment and physical features. Even without racism, it still seems like just a method of classification. And while probably unnecessary, I don't recall ever learning from a textbook or teacher that different race means different DNA.

35 hours later 7002735 Anonymous
>>7002727 >why does everyone think this Because 95% of 4chan is retarded shitposting and I've seen the dog breed thing on the front page of sci the last two weeks. Classification could be said to be quite literally the foundations of scientific investigation. You've found that 1) something is different to something else 2) some things have this difference in common to other things and 3)have grouped by this difference. Unfortunately differences very in utility, and some, like bone structure, can be influenced by a ton of factors. Race will mean whatever the person who doesn't like you wants it to mean, and only that, welcome to argument 101. The anti-science people will keep arguing shit like "oh sickle-cell anemia vs malaria protection is valid, but not other genetics" and other nonsense shit if you ever use the word race. It is ultimately futile to use the word race at all because of how foamy they'll get at the mouth, so use words like "regional populations" or something, and be prepared to for stuff like that northern, especially North-Eastern Egyptians are way more civil than central or sporadic African peoples. Geography and some historical background can help a lot for arguing on race related stuff, because for example the Congo is incredibly, incredibly resource wealthy, and most people would agree that because it has a huge amount of wealth it was always faught over, with a possible caveat that it had not only concentrated wealth, it wasn't geographically complicated like Europe is, because despite Europe being relatively resource wealthy, barriers concentrated disparate social groups into controllable yet "leaky" empires.

35 hours later 7002741 Anonymous (1251289533079.jpg 392x500 45kB)
>>7002725 >/Sci/ has denied... Sounds like you went into a shitposting thread and were surprised to find shitposting. >Look at this screenshot of a conversation that neither of us took part in. pic related >happens like 3 times a day. It's terrifying. >I want to strengthen the conclusion only when it's about blacks and whites, but not when it's about rich and poor people because my feelings only tell me that it's only obviously wrong in regards to rich and poor people. This is funny considering it's much easier to give a rigorous definition for "rich" and "poor" people than it is for "black" and "white" people. >You're talking to me!! What they said is irrelevant!! I never implied that there is no intelligence difference between specific POPULATIONS of humans. >implying this is all one person Let's make a list. 1) Reposts the same open journal article. (check) 2) Thinks /sci/ denies there are differences between populations as part of a conspiracy theory. (check) 3) Reposts giant screenshots of past threads. (check) 4) Ends posts in: BTFO T F O The only one missing is 4.

35 hours later 7002748 Anonymous
>>7002690 for you Top down analysis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-do wn_and_bottom-up_design In the end for something like IQ, you would test people's IQ then test their allele frequency and then draw conclusions. We do it with IQ, schizophrenia, depression, loneliness etc etc etc. >>7002723 >No, dog breeds differ genetically far more than humans with regards to FST. Are they though? Asian Dog breeds FST ~15% East Asian to Subsaharan African ~19% The fact that there are some dog breeds, that are considered highly differentiated from each other that are more different than some human groups surely lends credence to the idea that there might be some major differences, no?

35 hours later 7002750 Anonymous
>>7002735 The problem with "race" isn't because people get upset. It's that human beings have traditionally, and still do, use "race" to describe primarily differences in skin color, hair, and eyes. If you use race to describe what you're talking about, you'll have several "races" of Africans, all of which will still be "niggers" to /pol/.

35 hours later 7002759 Anonymous
>>7002727 >What about natural differences caused by environmental differences over a great period of time? Bone structure is slightly different in the African male than in the northern European male. Different environments led to different dog breeds, and while they aren't different species, they are certainly classified differently. Or is that classification unscientific to begin with? >I thought race was to make distinctions about historical environment and physical features. Traditionally races are defined using physical features (cluster analysis does it implicitly). However this method is problematic due to a phenomenon known as convergent evolution. Basically it's possible for things with very different looking common ancestors to end up having almost identical features and it's also possible for things with the same common ancestor to differ in physical features moreso than things with other common ancestors. This explanation is probably very confusing so here are some pictures I got through a quick google search. It's pretty difficult to find good pictures explaining this so the link is pretty shitty. It's a creationist link that claims convergent evolution refutes evolution because it refutes all of the shit we used to believe about evolution before the development of modern genetics. Just skip down to where it says >RANDOM CONVERGING Evolutionary Process 1: Fresh water fishes in the East African lakes (Lakes Victoria, Malawi and Tanganyika): and look at all the pictures and explanation in the random converging sections http://www.ichthus.info/Evolution/e vol-vs-creation.html I'll look around for a better resource but mostly what I'm seeing are a few pictures of cichlids and research papers.

35 hours later 7002761 Anonymous
>>7002741 >This is funny considering it's much easier to give a rigorous definition for "rich" and "poor" people than it is for "black" and "white" people. It would be pretty easy to argue the opposite, actually. "Richness" is region and culture specific, while genes are not. Even if you did ultra-basic classification of race based on assigning a country to a race, you'd get better correlations than using national income for richness outcomes.

35 hours later 7002763 Anonymous
>>7002748 That's cherry picking. In this type of analysis one is more interested in the big picture. http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/cgi /viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&conte xt=eeb_articles

35 hours later 7002766 Anonymous
>>7002741 >implying the "open journal" status affects the fact that article is just a list of connections between studies showing "IQ" genes and allele frequencies as reported by ALFRED >implying I believe in some conspiracy >implying 4 comments is a lot of reading >when "/sci/" makes a good point it's a point by point breakdown of a position; when "/pol/" makes a point some thread becomes a shit posting thread >non-sequitor >admits to the evidence of my position >still attempts to maintain intellectual superiority confirmed for can't into rational discussion.

35 hours later 7002775 Anonymous
Lol, does /pol/ actually think that any genetic variation that may exist between populations is enough to explain the immense disparity in wealth between black and white people? A black kid adopted and raised by a white family is almost completely as likely to succeed as a white kid raised by the same family. The difference that remains is small and inconsequential

35 hours later 7002776 Anonymous
>>7002761 >"Richness" is region and culture specific You can study populations within the same region and you can sidestep cultural definitions by using GDP PPP and or net worth (it shouldn't matter as long as you constrain yourself to a region). For example within the same city. >>7002766 >implying the "open journal" status affects the fact that article is just a list of connections between studies showing "IQ" genes and allele frequencies as reported by ALFRED >implying I implied that. Hold on, let me take a step back. Your argument is >All of /sci/ believes differences intelligence between different populations don't exist and this screenshot of a prior conversation other people have is my proof ? Do you realize how retarded that is? That's like saying >/sci/ doesn't believe in real numbers and posting a screenshot with some posts from a Wildberger thread where people disagreed with you. >when "/pol/" makes a point Hilarious >admits to the evidence of my position When did I ever imply that populations are races?

35 hours later 7002783 Anonymous
>>7002776 If you get a specific as cities and such, then there's no excuse why genotype combinations aren't valid measurements of race. Remember, the goal in classifying is to produce the largest significance of results. With rich you'd have to factor in investments, what relatives/neighbors/whatever have, etc. With race you do a genetic scan, pick 10-30 allelles, and then say there are x groups, and if people have 70-90% of these genes then they fall into one of these groups. It's actually the most reliable way to do race with the most striking correlations, even compared to geographically isolating populations.

35 hours later 7002787 Anonymous
>>7002776 >implying I implied that. > Reposts the same open journal article. (check) >your disdain is evident >implying that's my argument; implying you're not making my argument for me >Hilarious yes, it's hilarious. Every time I say there is evidence for intelligence differences between populations, people imply I'm talking about races, and proceed to "BTFO" me, because "races don't exist." >When did I ever imply that populations are races? When did I ever imply that? >If you think the existence of a "race" is in any way central or relevant to my argument, you're arguing with a strawman.

35 hours later 7002792 Anonymous
>>7002783 >then there's no excuse why genotype combinations aren't valid measurements of race. How would you find out which genotype combinations correspond to which races? In order to do this you would first have to define your races by either asking people to "self identify" (lol) or subjectively identifying them yourself using physical features. You would even have to come up with a list of races before hand and shit. If you're doing that then it's really no more rigorous than asking people to self identify or identifying them yourself. Here's what you sound like. >There's three races, triangle, square, and circle. These guys right here, these guys are definitely all circles, they just feels like circles, you know? I'll use their genetic data to find other similar people to also call circles.

35 hours later 7002803 Anonymous
>>7002787 >people have disdain for something I've reposted tens of times. No shit. >implying that's not your argument; implying I'm your argument for you >yes, it's hilarious. Every time I say there is evidence for intelligence differences between populations, people imply I'm talking about races, and proceed to "BTFO" me, because "races don't exist." Maybe if you started off by talking about populations in your posts instead of talking about races then no one would care. Don't forget that you are in the most pedantic board on 4chan. That said, I was laughing at the notion of /pol/ making a point on /sci/. Here is a typical /pol/ thread on /sci/. >7002580 >When did I ever imply that? If it wasn't you then it was another anon. Allow me to pull out a giant screensho- Oh, wait I don't do that because I'm not a shithead. >you're arguing with a strawman. You're the one arguing with a strawman by implying that anyone on /sci/ thinks there aren't differences in intelligence between populations.

35 hours later 7002804 Anonymous
>>7002792 >you have to do it yourself We have done this literally for every single word in human existence. We have astronomers arguing over dwarf planets, biologists and chemist over life, the list goes on. If you think starting with definitions and logic and then making deductions and inductions based on those systems are wrong, you could literally not be more wrong. >hey look at this red thing >how do you know it's red >because it reflects photons with a wavelength of about 650nm >you just defined red to be about 650nm, but that thing is not red because red means something dumb you can't measure

35 hours later 7002805 Anonymous (strawman.jpg 260x194 9kB)
>>7002792 >phenotype self identification >circles and triangles >same thing 4U!

35 hours later 7002806 Anonymous
>>7002803 failed at linking >>7002580

36 hours later 7002810 Anonymous (giant gummi worm.jpg 1000x1000 179kB)
>>7002804 >If you think starting with definitions and logic and then making deductions and inductions based on those systems are wrong, you could literally not be more wrong. You have to be able to classify thing in a consistent and rigorous way so that you can test it and reproduce the tests. >>7002805 >Print paper forms that have three checkboxes labeled "circle", "triangle", and "square". >Hand them out to people and tell them to check the box they identify the "most" with. >not the same thing 4ME!

36 hours later 7002813 Anonymous
>>7002803 >>yes, it's hilarious. Every time I say there is evidence for intelligence differences between populations, people imply I'm talking about races, and proceed to "BTFO" me, because "races don't exist." >Maybe if you started off by talking about populations in your posts once again. >once again implying i'm other people >You're the one arguing with a strawman by implying that anyone on /sci/ thinks there aren't differences in intelligence between populations. >implying this conversation didn't in part start with me saying >>7002683 >implying that you then didn't continue to argue with me >implying you aren't butt hurt there are differences in intelligence between populations. also >implying you can into cross thread linking.

36 hours later 7002820 Anonymous
>>7002813 Not that anon, but saying "intelligence is different among populations" is misleading. Even if the IQ disparity between a group was 10 points, there'd be plenty of people in the dumber group smarter than the average of the smarter group and plenty of poeple in the smarter group dumber than the average of the dumber group. It just seems a bit silly to make the argument. The difference in intelligence (how are you even measuring that, by the way?) is hardly large enough to account for any of hte socioeconomic disparities of modern populations.

36 hours later 7002825 Anonymous
>>7002810 >You have to be able to classify thing in a consistent and rigorous way so that you can test it and reproduce the tests. Whether asking people what race they are by any definition, or leaving the genetic groups as anonymous classes, there will always be a tremendous genetic component to intelligence which is related to present geographical location, ancestral geographical location, post-historic geographical location, prehistoric geographical location, skin color, heart disease risk, skull measures, height, etc. Can you even fathom NOT needing a label for a group, that you can use simple measures and have reliable differences stand out as correlated characteristics between anonymous classes? Even when you give people the option to classify themselves they will repeatedly and reliably pick the same identification, are you really arguing anything at this point, other than "you can't know nuffin?"

36 hours later 7002828 Anonymous
>>6999676 >>6999690 im asian and i cant tell them apart

36 hours later 7002829 Anonymous
>>7002813 >once again implying i'm other people >implying this didn't start with you claiming to be the shitposter I described in >>7002532 >By the way, I've seen this paper linked several times in another thread by a shitposter from /pol/, given your post it's obvious you didn't read it. Are you that same shitposter? >implying you aren't butt hurt there are differences in intelligence between populations. I have yet to see anyone in this thread disagree with this statement. >implying you can into cross thread linking. low blow, :^( >>7002825 slowpoke.jpg Congratulations you just described how and why populations are used instead of race.

36 hours later 7002835 Anonymous
>>7002820 >IQ difference 10 points Anon, the IQ difference is as high as 50 between some populations. Studies have controlled for socioeconomic factors and found the similar differences between certain populations in America. I'm measuring intelligence with IQ, outcome, educational achievement, SAT, lots of things. I'm not going full full circle with this.

36 hours later 7002836 Anonymous
>>7002835 >Anon, the IQ difference is as high as 50 between some populations. That's nothing, you should compare people from the 1800s with people now.

36 hours later 7002843 Anonymous
>>7002835 All of those measurements are highly dependent on cultural capital. As >>7002836 points out.

36 hours later 7002874 Anonymous
>>7002836 Proof that we are geniuses compared to the stupid people of old!

36 hours later 7002877 Anonymous
>>7002835 Not that anon, but the only population comparisons you can make a difference of 50 IQ is between the khoisan and aboriginal australian vs. east asian and jewish populations. No other population should have such a high IQ difference when compared to each other.

47.329 0.286