+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 191

Thread: In the genes?

  1. #151

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    (Jackals Pic)
    Discuss?
    Clearly there are different species or at least subspecies. The left creates it's own butthurt here because there's nothing wrong with saying that. You can still fall in love and make babies or do whatever you want with any other person on the planet if you want to. There's no reason to freak out about the wording. If we were birds or jackals no one would bat an eye calling us different subspecies and if a scientist wanted to name something that day he could probably call us different species.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aeinna View Post
    There are people who have to believe that either race does not exist or that the only way it exists is a social construct.
    Looking back at a rough map of how Homo Sapiens migrated out of Africa, it's clear that skin color is a non-arbitrary separation with meaning in genetics, lineage, heritage, ethnicity, whatever you want to call it. This is where I find common ground with you guys. However, it's not the ONLY non-arbitrary separation. If you google "Nordic woman" and "British Woman" and "French Woman" you can make the same argument that we have subdivisions there. A quick google shows a lot of different numbers, but we spent, I'll say at least 35,000 years there divided up and distinguishing groups around Europe. Same thing in areas with black skin color. Same thing in places with Asian facial shapes. Drawing a big circle around the round eyed white people seems totally arbitrary to me and I can't see how to rationalize it as anything but a social construct. You guys create your own butthurt here. There's nothing wrong with saying you identify with people culturally similar to you. You can still be a "white nationalist" or even a "white supremacist". It doesn't invalidate or even argue any of your positions. But does seem to be a social construction.
    Last edited by VKhaun; 03-13-2018 at 07:02 PM.
    Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    1,102

    Default Re: In the genes?

    However, it's not the ONLY non-arbitrary separation
    No one ever said it was but the more we learn about genetics, the more clear it becomes how large a factor they play into what makes you, you.

    You want to believe that we can all be equal, we don't believe that is possible (which does not mean we are better just different) and living in a world where white people are a minority is bad, even if you can not understand that.

    I'm not going to bother linking studies because that has been pointless with you because you keep arguing from feelings, so we can do that. Which is fine, i'm okay with people feeling that something is wrong or not being able to stand behind an idea because it goes against their morals.
    In this world is the destiny of mankind controlled by some transcendental entity or law? Is it like the hand of god hovering from above? Perhaps men have no control even over their own will.

    You're right, we are mortal and fragile. But even if we are tortured or wounded, we'll fight to survive. You should feel the pain we feel and understand. I am the messenger that will deliver you to that pain and understanding.

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,961

    Default Re: In the genes?

    There is something to be said for a lot of black people in the US that want and need a place like Wakanda to be true:

    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    "I do think that most atheists are fat out of shape faggots that would be ok with other men shagging their women. The few that can actually get a woman. General failures at life in every regard. " Zavon

  4. #154

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aeinna View Post
    You want to believe that we can all be equal.
    I have never -NEVER- argued for this in a single generation, existing individuals sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aeinna View Post
    feelings
    You just dodge my entire line of reasoning to drag my argument into hyperbole. Again. Which is sad because you only have one fucking topic left on this board and you can't get near it without going off the deep end with multiple defense mechanisms instantly.

    I think you're projecting here and I think you know it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aeinna View Post
    I'm not going to bother linking studies because...
    Either you play the same game as everyone else, citing a good fact, drawing a conclusion and then retreating to pretend I'm arguing the fact when I argue your conclusion. Or you link shitty studies that say what you want and haven't been peer reviewed and act like they're some "real" truth that (((science))) is suppressing.

    Speaking of projecting, Marou put up some Hitler quote the other day about Jews "forgetting" their failures. No matter how many times I come back to this board and try to continue existing conversations, I get hand waves of "I don't care about genetics today" or "Whatever it's not my responsibility" or "You're just saying we're all equal like some libtard" or "You just think they need rice" and then a day later you guys talk down to me like I lost and I won't listen.
    Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    1,102

    Default Re: In the genes?

    I have never -NEVER- argued for this in a single generation, existing individuals sense.
    Okay, then i'm wrong.

    You just dodge my entire line of reasoning to drag my argument into hyperbole. Again. Which is sad because you only have one fucking topic left on this board and you can't get near it without going off the deep end with multiple defense mechanisms instantly.

    I think you're projecting here and I think you know it.
    Because your line of reasoning is based off your feelings and always has been. You always, ALWAYS resort to this bullshit. If we give studies, you say its crap or flat out ignore them, which means there is no point in offering them anymore. There is no defensive mechanism here, you literally said it SEEMS to be a social construct. People have tried to show you how its not and you just don't want to believe it. What exactly am I projecting? What is my defense mechanism, please enlighten me o' wise one.

    I keep having to repeat this crap to you because you keep doing the same god damn thing.

    Either you play the same game as everyone else, citing a good fact, drawing a conclusion and then retreating to pretend I'm arguing the fact when I argue your conclusion. Or you link shitty studies that say what you want and haven't been peer reviewed and act like they're some "real" truth that (((science))) is suppressing.
    Retreating? To what? Just because YOU think it is a shit study doesn't mean it is. Just because YOU don't like the answer doesn't mean it isn't correct. I have yet to see you give anything that refutes what we believe. You have jack shit and have always had jack shit.

    Speaking of projecting, Marou put up some Hitler quote the other day about Jews "forgetting" their failures. No matter how many times I come back to this board and try to continue existing conversations, I get hand waves of "I don't care about genetics today" or "Whatever it's not my responsibility" or "You're just saying we're all equal like some libtard" or "You just think they need rice" and then a day later you guys talk down to me like I lost and I won't listen.
    If I had the ability to shake the shit out of you, I would. We do care about genetics because it helps people understand but it doesn't solve the question unless you want to commit eugenics. I have no idea where you are getting the not my responsibility thing from, you'd have to refresh my memory. I said the equal thing because that is how you come across. I should not have to explain to you why Zav and Marou throw the rice thing at you.

    You want to bitch about us talking down to you but what do you think you are doing. You try to start a conversation by saying i'm projecting, using hyperbole and that I know it. You want to have a good conversation? Stop being an ass.

    I wasn't being being an ass by saying you are arguing from feelings, if it read that way, that wasn't what I intended. That is just how you come across. I said I wasn't going to use studies because there is evidence now showing how white people probably did not come from Africa and didn't feel like getting into that with you. Was perfectly happy just talking about how we felt instead of using data.

    If you want me to break down what you said before, fine.

    Yes, there is different types of white. Just there as there are different types of Asians and Africans. What is shared among these different groups of whites, the ones who are coming together is white values. Which has been perverted by our society. Everyone else can have values and culture but not white people. These things also stem from genes. What is the social construct here?
    Last edited by Aeinna; 03-14-2018 at 04:55 AM.
    In this world is the destiny of mankind controlled by some transcendental entity or law? Is it like the hand of god hovering from above? Perhaps men have no control even over their own will.

    You're right, we are mortal and fragile. But even if we are tortured or wounded, we'll fight to survive. You should feel the pain we feel and understand. I am the messenger that will deliver you to that pain and understanding.

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    1,102

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Another point I would like to make after thinking about it. Do you know why we dismiss you when you say the studies we use are shit?

    Galileo

    Ignaz Semmelwiez

    Nikola Tesla

    Among many others throughout history, just because your "peers" ridicule, laugh and call you crazy, doesn't mean you are. To sneer at studies because it goes against what is deemed by society to be right or normal, doesn't mean it is or that it is wrong.
    In this world is the destiny of mankind controlled by some transcendental entity or law? Is it like the hand of god hovering from above? Perhaps men have no control even over their own will.

    You're right, we are mortal and fragile. But even if we are tortured or wounded, we'll fight to survive. You should feel the pain we feel and understand. I am the messenger that will deliver you to that pain and understanding.

  7. #157

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Your stance on science is absurd. Finding some “study” out on its own with no peer review that says what you want to hear and calling it “the answer” is a stupid position on its face. Telling me I’m not listening or don’t like “the answer” that you picked from a catalog of every possible answer is 100% you putting your problem on me.

    Whining about feelings to a bored introvert who pokes this bear while waiting for installs or for a store to open is also a projection.
    Last edited by VKhaun; 03-14-2018 at 08:32 AM.

  8. #158

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    Your stance on science is absurd. Finding some “study” out on its own with no peer review that says what you want to hear and calling it “the answer” is a stupid position on its face. Telling me I’m not listening or don’t like “the answer” that you picked from a catalog of every possible answer is 100% you putting your problem on me.

    Whining about feelings to a bored introvert who pokes this bear while waiting for installs or for a store to open is also a projection.
    This is where you're way off base and functionally retarded. This is why I've stopped engaging with you on anything related to facts or their interpretation. Some things (especially hard statistical or genetic data) speaks for itself. If you sample 100,000 random people from different racial groups and come up with certain average IQ's, and you use a flawless methodology - there is nothing you can say about that - which is why none of the findings are challenged by science. Instead people just say "dats racis" and close their ears. Many of the findings you've seen here were inadvertently found by people trying to debunk the Bell Curve that instead ended up further validating it.

    I realize perfectly well YOU are incapable of interpreting this sort of data, however it's pure projection that you think other people are like you and see a quorum of people pushing the same idea as your only way to validate something. If we were talking advanced physics or something - sure, I'll give you only certain people are capable of understanding the implications of the maths being presented. However, we're not.

    Trying to talk about this subject with you is like trying to explain tax filing strategy to a child, it's why I've stopped. Many of the things being discussed aren't even scientific papers, they are just facts.

    The list of facts:
    • Racial Differences in IQ (That have been demonstrated in every set of IQ tests ever given, including by people who were looking to debunk the fact)
    • Racial differences in Crime rates to the extent that poor whites (<20k/y) commit less crime than rich blacks (>200k/y)
    • Racial differences in SAT scores to the extent that poor whites (<20k/y) perform about the same as rich blacks (>200k/y)

    The only science part of this is "Yes, there is a genetic basis for behavior and intelligence that explains 50-80% of these attributes". If you reject that premise what the fuck do you believe? There is a magical basis for behavior and intelligence? The only argument you've ever offered is "better food?", although I think this is astoundingly racist because at that point you're saying black people that make over 200k a year don't feed their fucking children.

    So yes, I've essentially given up on your ability to have a rational discussion on this topic.

    Bottom line: Culture is downstream from race. It's why whites starting with nothing in Rhodesia and South Africa ended up making advanced civilizations. When whites leave or are driven from these places they revert back to their natural state. Mud huts and spears, because the native culture is incapable of maintaining what they have taken or been given.

    Regardless - You can object to that premise on purely moral reasons, and argue that better INDOCTRINATION into WHITE WESTERN VALUES is needed, better or different TEACHING METHODS are needed, and that's fine by me; I understand those feels. Just be honest instead of acting like you've debunked any of the facts that have been presented. You haven't.
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    1,102

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Your stance on science is absurd. Finding some “study” out on its own with no peer review that says what you want to hear and calling it “the answer” is a stupid position on its face.
    I love how you keep saying its one study, when it is many and many have been posted but keep on keeping on I guess. And I love how you ignore my last post, which just proves my point. You are no better than the people who opposed men who changed how we see the world. You have never offered anything to change these views besides for what you are doing right now. You challenge us on nothing. You are full of word salad and verbal diarrhea that leads to no where besides for you flinging accusations that we are defensive or run away when we challenge, what we now consider, to be your stupidity.

    Ignaz Semmelwies didn't even have studies to back him up, just what he fucking saw and practiced and what he found out changed the medical world. He was ridiculed by some of the highest ranking medical professionals. Keep on saying peers matter.

    Telling me I’m not listening or don’t like “the answer” that you picked from a catalog of every possible answer is 100% you putting your problem on me.
    What other answers? Tell us please! Share your knowledge of these things. Oh wait, you fucking can't.

    Whining about feelings to a bored introvert who pokes this bear while waiting for installs or for a store to open is also a projection.
    Who is whining? Making shit up again? Seems so. Now you have devolved down to, "Oh, i'm just bored". No, what you are is ridiculous. At this point I could teach the retarded stray cat we take care of to properly fold toilet paper to wipe their ass than to get you to have a decent conversation on this topic.
    Last edited by Aeinna; 03-14-2018 at 10:14 AM.
    In this world is the destiny of mankind controlled by some transcendental entity or law? Is it like the hand of god hovering from above? Perhaps men have no control even over their own will.

    You're right, we are mortal and fragile. But even if we are tortured or wounded, we'll fight to survive. You should feel the pain we feel and understand. I am the messenger that will deliver you to that pain and understanding.

  10. #160

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aeinna View Post
    Ignaz Semmelwies didn't even have studies to back him up, just what he fucking saw and practiced and what he found out changed the medical world. He was ridiculed by some of the highest ranking medical professionals. Keep on saying peers matter.
    So everything you want to be true happens to be true, because every random not peer reviewed study you pick happens to be written by an Ignaz Semmelwies and everyone else who says what you don't like must be an idiot? All of them? Every time? Just for you because you feel like it's true? This stance is ABSURD. You cannot just pick whatever study you want that has no peer review and call it "the answer" that everyone has to bow to or else be "not listening". Call me every name under the sun, project your emotions onto me all you like, this will still be nonsensical.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aeinna View Post
    What other answers? Tell us please! Share your knowledge of these things. Oh wait, you fucking can't.
    What do you mean what other answers? What do you mean I can't? Literally any answer. Google anything you want to believe in and there's a study. You can find studies that say the earth is flat. Last time we talked climate change you guys were linking some geologist who said in the 90's that the great barrier reef was going to be just fine. There are studies claiming to prove God, studies claiming magnets are pain relievers. If this actually has to be illustrated then you're definitely better off talking to cats than people. Remember eggs in the late 90's early 00's? OMG every other week there was some shit on TV going back and forth with studies on eggs being good or bad.

    What if a black guy posted some we wuz kangz study showing black people are the smartest and made the same argument? His study is from a modern Ignaz Sammelies he says, or some other super intelligent hobbit. He says this is "the truth" and you're just "not listening". How do you argue with your own position?
    Last edited by VKhaun; 03-14-2018 at 12:37 PM.
    Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    1,102

    Default Re: In the genes?

    So everything you want to be true happens to be true, because every random not peer reviewed study you pick happens to be written by an Ignaz Semmelwies and everyone else who says what you don't like must be an idiot? All of them? Every time? Just for you because you feel like it's true? This stance is ABSURD. You cannot just pick whatever study you want that has no peer review and call it "the answer" that everyone has to bow to or else be "not listening". Call me every name under the sun, project your emotions onto me all you like, this will still be nonsensical.
    That isn't the point and you know it. So every study that you don't like, because some may not be peer reviewed (though history proves that peer reviews often are meaningless, which is another thing that seems to be going over your head) is shit? All of them? Every time? Just because VK says so? ABSURD. You can not just ignore all the studies that show everything we've talked about and call them shit because you don't like it. Call us anything you want, tell us we are being defensive and running away, project your bullshit all you want man but you are still, fucking retarded.

    What do you mean what other answers? What do you mean I can't? Literally any answer. Google anything you want to believe in and there's a study. You can find studies that say the earth is flat. Last time we talked climate change you guys were linking some geologist who said in the 90's that the great barrier reef was going to be just fine. There are studies claiming to prove God, studies claiming magnets are pain relievers. If this actually has to be illustrated then you're definitely better off talking to cats than people. Remember eggs in the late 90's early 00's? OMG every other week there was some shit on TV going back and forth with studies on eggs being good or bad.
    Yet again, you have nothing, thanks for more word salad.

    What if a black guy posted some we wuz kangz study showing black people are the smartest and made the same argument? His study is from a modern Ignaz Sammelies he says, or some other super intelligent hobbit. He says this is "the truth" and you're just "not listening". How do you argue with your own position?
    They do, often and they have no data to back their shit up. We have data, you have this same ol' crap. It is all you have, it is all you will ever have. It is not our fault you do not understand data and statistics.
    In this world is the destiny of mankind controlled by some transcendental entity or law? Is it like the hand of god hovering from above? Perhaps men have no control even over their own will.

    You're right, we are mortal and fragile. But even if we are tortured or wounded, we'll fight to survive. You should feel the pain we feel and understand. I am the messenger that will deliver you to that pain and understanding.

  12. #162

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marou View Post
    Trying to talk about this subject with you is like trying to explain tax filing strategy to a child, it's why I've stopped. Many of the things being discussed aren't even scientific papers, they are just facts.
    For the record, I called this before you did it. I argue a conclusion, you state I'm arguing with facts and shut down. This is used to death by literally everyone. It's nauseating and I can't get used to it. Imagine a gun control person listing their side of the argument as "facts" and then telling you to hand your guns in. You would recognize this INSTANTLY if someone else did it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Marou View Post
    The list of facts:
    • Racial Differences in IQ (That have been demonstrated in every set of IQ tests ever given, including by people who were looking to debunk the fact)
    • Racial differences in Crime rates to the extent that poor whites (<20k/y) commit less crime than rich blacks (>200k/y)
    • Racial differences in SAT scores to the extent that poor whites (<20k/y) perform about the same as rich blacks (>200k/y)

    The only science part of this is "Yes, there is a genetic basis for behavior and intelligence that explains 50-80% of these attributes".

    Bottom line: Culture is downstream from race. It's why whites starting with nothing in Rhodesia and South Africa ended up making advanced civilizations. When whites leave or are driven from these places they revert back to their natural state. Mud huts and spears, because the native culture is incapable of maintaining what they have taken or been given.
    As always, you are putting both of your carts before the horse.

    1) Your definition of "race" does not match isolated populations. Are pure blood Spaniards "white people" at 101? What about Romanians @ 94? Bulgarians? Greeks? You can be correct about ALL of the above, but your concept of "race" is still a social construct. You go directly from perfectly arguing genetics with better statistical understanding than myself, to this hamfisted definition of your groups as a bunch of American mutts from all over Europe and mixed with everything else.

    2) Your prioritization of factors is absurd. If you starve an infant and their IQ goes to shit by 50-80%, can I make the same argument back about food? If you educate blacks in America and their average flies upwards from 64 to 85 in a few generations, some of which they were enslaved and used/bred purely for non-intelligence tasks, can I make the same argument for education? Healthcare? No.

    Bottom line: Culture is downstream from IQ. Not from your idea of "race". This is why we find common ground on social issues. The world is what the world is. IQ is where IQ is. My pattern seeking human brain makes the same connections yours does and I see "white people" just like you do. I'm not looking to go moving to Africa. If you're right and we balkanize, I'll gladly join the white team rather than be murdered for my farm. The only difference between where I am and where you are, is that I'm not so invested in my bias that I rationalize the world to fit it.
    Last edited by VKhaun; 03-14-2018 at 01:34 PM.
    Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

  13. #163

    Default Re: In the genes?

    You're arguing feels with Aeinna instead of addressing the facts I iterated.

    Do you have contention with any of the 3 bullet points? If so, on what basis?



    /edit: I was gonna write up a response to your social justice, but it's so retarded I'ma eat my lunch instead. You can't even understand when I address any of your complaints. Races are genetic haplogroups, not skin color.
    If I show HIGH IQ RICH BLACKS commit more crime than POOR LOW IQ WHITES (and I can), it means nothing to you, because you're incapable of processing the information. You make me misanthropic.
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  14. #164

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marou View Post
    You're arguing feels with Aeinna instead of addressing the facts I iterated.

    Do you have contention with any of the 3 bullet points? If so, on what basis?
    Patience nigga. Patience.
    Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

  15. #165

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aeinna View Post
    That isn't the point and you know it. So every study that you don't like, because some may not be peer reviewed (though history proves that peer reviews often are meaningless, which is another thing that seems to be going over your head) is shit? All of them? Every time? Just because VK says so? ABSURD. You can not just ignore all the studies that show everything we've talked about and call them shit because you don't like it. Call us anything you want, tell us we are being defensive and running away, project your bullshit all you want man but you are still, fucking retarded.
    They're not shit because VK says so. They're arbitrary because they're arbitrary.

    The answer may, or may not be on the wheel. Regardless, spinning the wheel to get your answer is absurd even if you happen to land on the right one sometimes.
    Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

  16. #166
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    1,102

    Default Re: In the genes?

    So says the guy who doesn't even know that Spaniards ARE white or I am even guessing that Jews aren't.

    Do you even know what arbitrary means? Because you are using it like you don't. Data and statistics are not arbitrary but the fact that you think this is how it works, alrighty.

    The answer isn't on a wheel, even if it makes you feel better to think we come from a place that uses such a method.
    In this world is the destiny of mankind controlled by some transcendental entity or law? Is it like the hand of god hovering from above? Perhaps men have no control even over their own will.

    You're right, we are mortal and fragile. But even if we are tortured or wounded, we'll fight to survive. You should feel the pain we feel and understand. I am the messenger that will deliver you to that pain and understanding.

  17. #167

    Default Re: In the genes?

    This was published yesterday.

    Researchers at Harvard and the Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology at Edinburgh University have announced that they can now accurately predict what range a person’s IQ will fall in based on DNA alone.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-017-0001-5

    tldr: The distribution of those genes is NOT the same between different racial phenotypes, and in fact some of the genes responsible for intelligence are directly tied to certain racial phenotypes. Ex. We can now say based on DNA alone, "Your IQ will be between 78 and 85, 85 if have a great environment/nutrition/education, and 78 if you don't."
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  18. #168
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,961

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    The only difference between where I am and where you are, is that I'm not so invested in my bias that I rationalize the world to fit it.

    Ok, Ok, Ok. I think I finally understand VK's perspective-- Not trying to be coy or rude, just that these arguments go all over the fucking place and its hard to put a central thesis on things. This sentence, I think sheds light on the issue. You are saying you are open to factors other than genetics accounting for this difference, whereas Marou is not. You are saying he'd reject any data that argues environmental factors due to his world view?

    Do I understand it?
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    "I do think that most atheists are fat out of shape faggots that would be ok with other men shagging their women. The few that can actually get a woman. General failures at life in every regard. " Zavon

  19. #169

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marou View Post
    This was published yesterday.

    Researchers at Harvard and the Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology at Edinburgh University have announced that they can now accurately predict what range a person’s IQ will fall in based on DNA alone.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-017-0001-5

    tldr: The distribution of those genes is NOT the same between different racial phenotypes, and in fact some of the genes responsible for intelligence are directly tied to certain racial phenotypes. Ex. We can now say based on DNA alone, "Your IQ will be between 78 and 85, 85 if have a great environment/nutrition/education, and 78 if you don't."
    That shit is fucking fascinating, but I'm not following it well. I'm looking at the heat map. I get the concept of +/- correlation, but I'm not following the genetic part because there are a bunch of lines where two non-genetic things are opposed. Education vs Self Rated Well Being? Which is genetic? How? o.O - Continuing to read the tax return until Mom makes me clean up my room.

    I don't see any reference to race in here, except that they specifically removed everything except "British". British are white, but your definition of "white" is not limited to the Brits, AFAIK.








    Quote Originally Posted by Zavon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    The only difference between where I am and where you are, is that I'm not so invested in my bias that I rationalize the world to fit it.
    Ok, Ok, Ok. I think I finally understand VK's perspective-- Not trying to be coy or rude, just that these arguments go all over the fucking place and its hard to put a central thesis on things. This sentence, I think sheds light on the issue. You are saying you are open to factors other than genetics accounting for this difference, whereas Marou is not. You are saying he'd reject any data that argues environmental factors due to his world view?

    Do I understand it?
    No, I think he'd follow facts if it was that clear cut. It's not that clear cut, so he's picking genetics as the top factor to suit his bias and studying the output of genetics research. His arguments against helping others are that it would require a genetics-based approach, eugenics. He does this so that IQ and it's effects MUST = genetics, so culture must = genetics, so he can pull the slight of hand that genetics = "race" even though he knows he's making an arbitrary selection when he lumps specific isolated past heritages together based on eye-roundness-but-not-blackness.

    My position is that there are multiple factors we know of. Despite the rice jokes no one has actually argued that nutrition is not a factor. We know it is. We know education is some kind of factor. We know health is a factor. We know violence and stress are factors in intelligence. We know culture has an effect on developing intelligence through drive and motivation. So without arguing genetics at all, we can say that if you took any given population of people and gave them excellent healthcare, excellent nutrition, peace and tranquility, and motivated them (READ: no welfare/affirmative action etc) to do well, their IQ should rise TO SOME DEGREE. To argue this is to argue that none of those things are factors. From there it's a matter of degrees for Marou. He wants to tell me I'm wrong, but he's not going to tell you to feed your kid sawdust, infect him with parasites, beat him and let him freeload with the expectation that his IQ won't be affected.

    The great question is simply the weight of the factors. If you go back to the path we took out of Africa, you'll see that intelligence doesn't follow the path. Going back to your castles pic, the Asians built castles and advanced education, the native Americans that came out of Asia had slave trades and didn't get past the teepee and spoken word AFAIK, but then as you go further south you get Mayans and Aztecs and ziggurats and mathematics again, but then the pygmies in the amazon that came from them are the dumbest human beings on the planet IIRC... This and other observations imply to me that the non-genetic factors were strong enough to make the difference between stable civilizations.
    Last edited by VKhaun; 03-14-2018 at 03:37 PM.
    Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

  20. #170

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    I don't see any reference to race in here, except that they specifically removed everything except "British". British are white, but your definition of "white" is not limited to the Brits, AFAIK.
    Within this study they don't make the link, but this can be and will be correlated to the genetic differences between racial groups. What I'm saying to you is, there are (currently known) 500 genes involved in intelligence. From past research we already know as fact that some of these genes appear only in certain racial phenotypes and the intelligence is a secondary effect - not the ONLY thing the gene does. From an RPG perspective think of this as picking perks.

    Perk - Extra melanin, -1 int, resistant to sunburn
    Perk - blue eyes, +1 int, less trustworthy

    This circles back around to something I said earlier. We might at some point be able to get everyone to the same possible IQ range on average through gene editing. However, to do that you'd defacto have to also modify their appearance: because like I said, the genes don't just do *one* thing. If the optimally intelligent human is some cross between genes in semetic, north Asian, African, and European phenotypes this could end up being an odd creature looking, and people birthing such a thing would correctly feel it is not truly their child.

    Black Lips, Jewish Nose, North Asian Eyes (but that are blue), pale skin. It could end up real purty this hybrid ubermensh. The concept is degenerate and I don't think it's moral to do it, but I'm sure some humans will at some point.
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  21. #171

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marou View Post
    It's this study they don't make the link, but this can be and will be correlated to the genetic differences between racial groups. What I'm saying to you is, there are (currently known) 500 genes involved in intelligence. From past research we already know as fact that some of these genes appear only in certain racial phenotypes and the intelligence is a secondary effect - not the ONLY thing the gene does. From an RPG perspective think of this as picking perks.

    Perk - Extra melanin, -1 int, resistant to sunburn
    Perk - blue eyes, +1 int, less trustworthy

    This circles back around to something I said earlier. We might at some point be able to get everyone to the same possible IQ range on average through gene editing. However, to do that you'd defacto have to also modify their appearance: because like I said, the genes don't just do *one* thing. If the optimally intelligent human is some cross between genes in semetic, north Asian, African, and European phenotypes this could end up being an odd creature looking, and people birthing such a thing would correctly feel it is not truly their child.

    Black Lips, Jewish Nose, North Asian Eyes (but that are blue), pale skin. It could end up real purty this hybrid ubermensh. The concept is degenerate and I don't think it's moral to do it, but I'm some humans will at some point.
    Ah, so that's why they have to do it within a specific population. If they compared everyone they'd just find what we already know. The IQ is where the IQ is so everything would correlate. They have to get more specific for individual studies before going wide.
    Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

  22. #172

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by VKhaun View Post
    Ah, so that's why they have to do it within a specific population. If they compared everyone they'd just find what we already know. The IQ is where the IQ is so everything would correlate. They have to get more specific for individual studies before going wide.
    Yah, ultimately isolated populations are very helpful when trying to isolate genes because it helps remove noise. There are far more genetic differences between a pure African human and a pure Nordic human than there are between a German Shepard and a Pug.

    Certainly there is massive overlap between human populations in genes because we share a common ancestor, but there are also 10s of thousands of years of genetic distinctiveness. Human racial phenotypes/subspecies are more genetically diverse than many other animal subspecies. These differences impact everything from IQ range to empathy, curiosity, the zeal in which we believe in things, and how we respond to different medical treatments. The more we learn the more deterministic everything appears to be, and with a DNA analysis alone you can at this point fairly accurately predict someone's political ideology, IQ range, how empathetic they are, how resistant to authority, and a whole host of other features.

    That to me is pretty astonishing considering the wealth of stuff we *don't know* . It seems likely that within the next decade a cotton swab to the mouth will tell you most of what you need to know about someone. This obviously has great potential for abuse, but "progress" must march forever forward and all. Rather, that is to say; it will regardless of what we think of it.

    /edit: The picture looks something like this (numbers out of my ass)

    200 generic human genes affecting intelligence
    100 north Asian specific genes for intelligence
    100 African specific genes for intelligence
    100 European specific genes for intelligence

    You can enhance further and say, "only nords have this one, only slavs have this one" and so forth, but the genetic distinctiveness within major haplogroups (Spanish vs German) is far less than it is between racial phenotypes (Black vs Asian). So, those differences are much fewer. Also keep in mind a "gene that affects intelligence" doesn't say it's an enhancement, it can be a negative. Also, some genes have a strong effect and some a weak effect, again the RPG perk analogy is appropriate because there is stuff like +1 muscle endurance but -1 int. Some are just negative like -6 int, and +6 cancer chance, because fuck you. Then again, maybe that gene provides protection against a superflu that comes out next year and kills everyone that doesn't have it... And that is just one reason why I think pre-natal genetic modification is a dangerous path to try and walk.

    At this point I don't think it can be said with confidence that any of these genes are *just* intelligence, instead its more accurate to say 1+ (known) effects and ?? number of unknown effects.

    Failure to acknowledge genetic reality leads to nonsense like this:
    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...y-its-so-white
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/14...-students.html

    I could go on and on, but you know the deal.
    "The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

  23. #173
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,961

    Default Re: In the genes?

    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    "I do think that most atheists are fat out of shape faggots that would be ok with other men shagging their women. The few that can actually get a woman. General failures at life in every regard. " Zavon

  24. #174
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,961

    Default Re: In the genes?

    Thoughts on this paper? https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=2625893
    Abstract
    This study examines the birth trends, family structure, economic standing, paternal relationships, and emotional stability of biracial children with African American fathers. For study implementation quantitative research methods were used. Questions were asked through a questionnaire that was administered to 1000 women spanning the united States that were equally ranging from 3 different racial groups; Caucasian, Asian, and Hispanic. Participants were recruited through the internet, radio, and news. This study finds that 92% of biracial children with African American fathers are born out of wedlock and 82% end up on government assistance. The results of this study make it very clear that biracial children with African American fathers are fatherless on a scale much larger than the public may realize.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    "I do think that most atheists are fat out of shape faggots that would be ok with other men shagging their women. The few that can actually get a woman. General failures at life in every regard. " Zavon

  25. #175
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    3,961

    Default Re: In the genes?







    And if you was wondering where the daddy at, here he go:

    https://www.facebook.com/skin1280/vi...5713091464141/
    Last edited by Zavon; 05-26-2018 at 11:18 AM.
    "Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

    "I do think that most atheists are fat out of shape faggots that would be ok with other men shagging their women. The few that can actually get a woman. General failures at life in every regard. " Zavon

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts