Did he really debunk race?
he wouldn't be able to say the say things today now that the genomes have been sequenced
>>16806864How so?
>>16806885
>>16806862Yeah
>>16806885.
>>16806899thats practically a subspecies
>>16806899This is interesting. Thanks for sharing
How do you "debunk" race? Did he never meet a black person or something?
>>16806899Frankly, I don't understand how anyone could look at different races, and say "Yep, I don't see any pattern there." Do some people not understand that genotype creates phenotype?
>>16806862No he was a jew communist fraud.
>>16808218Technically speaking blacks are a different species.
>>16806862Race is a made up bullshit American nonsense . No one framed 'race' in the way it is thought of today until America came along. We are all equal in God's eyes. I love my Blacks . I love my orientials and indians and hispanics and Latins. I love my fellow whites.
>>16808218Modern society is not set up to breed for intelligence. If you were to start putting in place mechanisms to breed for intelligence, in some societally instituted form of eugenics, you’d be called a racist.
>>16806862You should read this: https://archive.is/JUGfA
>>16808256My knee jerk reaction from living in this world and interacting with people is that intelligence is going down the drain. Things that come to my mind are things like plummeting university and academia standards, the replication crisis, and the emerging competency crisis. But if you have data showing the opposite, that IQ is increasing across the board, then I hope so and I’ll have to take your word for it. But I’m really skeptical.
>>16808256Leaded gasoline was banned and they have more white ancestry now. These are the only factors needed to explain any change in IQ
>>16808249If you don’t think that even modern society selects for intelligence, you thereby must believe that both blacks and whites are similarly subject to the same selective pressure (none) so should have equivalent genetic propensity for intelligence.
>>16808284What? Has modern society been around since the beginning of time?
>>16808218>>16808256>be smart black>tell your kin that burning down their own neighborhoods scares investors away, reducing job opportunities>don't care, niggers keep burning down their own neighborhoods in 2020 because wacysm or somethingThey're not becoming smart fast enough.
>>16808289Do you think that agrarian farmers had their reproductive capacity determined by their intelligence more so than a modern white collar worker?
>>16808301We have objective data. Right now there are breeding patterns favoring lower intelligence.
>>16808218you don't see a reason to be racist because you don't live around black people
>>16808307What does that have to do with the image? College standards and demographics change over time. The only thing I was discussing right now was current fertility patterns, Anon.
>>16808300>Let them burn down their neighborhoods, it means only the most intelligent among them will be successful>be american nigger>make 10 kids with laquesha before being shot in a gang war>laquesha gets to be a single parent, lack of father figure fucks up the children, they end up disrespecting authority and behaving impulsively>"Dude it's natural selection, it's working dude"
>>16808306>>16808313What you don't seem to understand is that this has been a constant throughout all of human history. This isn't a product of 'modern society'. It is a product of 'society'.
>>16808317Still not what I am arguing btw. I'll just assume you gave up on that point (that being, that current breeding patterns are dysgenic at least in the USA).I'll move on to your point now, which is tautologically untrue (i.e. that selection pressures have always favored the generally less intelligent)Why don't you show us something to that effect. Prove that in the 16th or 17th century England the lower classes were out-producing the upper classes in surviving children.
>>16808316>get angry>choose random logical fallacy to attack meTongue my anus.
>>16808218> By any account, all races are by definition the same species since they're all capable of breeding with eachother.Only if you use an outdated definition of species that was wrong even when it was written. >Wolves, Coyotes, Dogs>Dolphins and (False) Whales>Horses and Donkeys>Lions and Tigers>Neanderthals, Humans, and Denisovans>Humans and an unknown ghost species in Africa Need I continue?Many biologists find themselves against the concept of species, at least as currently described.
>>16808220>>16808222>>16808309>>16808314meltdown
>>16808325Why don't you ask the discoverer of the Flynn Effect>Fifth, these results tell against most of the explanations advanced for the Flynn effect, namely that it is attributable to increased test sophistication and education (Tuddenham, 1948), “improvements in education reflecting more effective teaching” (Meadows, Herrick, Feiler, & the ALSPAC Study Team, 2007, p.58), the greater complexity of more recent environments providing greater cognitive stimulation (Williams, 1998), greater cognitive stimulation from television and media (Greenfield, 1998) and from computer games (Wolf, 2005), improvements in child rearing (Elley, 1969), more confident test taking attitudes (Brand, Freshwater, & Dockrell, 1989), the “individual multiplier” and the “social multiplier” (Dickens & Flynn, 2001) and “an enhanced real-world capacity to see the world through scientific spectacles” (Flynn, 2007, p.42). All these hypotheses predict that the effect should be absent or minimal among infants and should increase progressively through childhood and adolescence as these environmental inputs have cumulatively IQ boosting impacts, and most of them predict that that the Flynn effect should be greater for verbal abilities that are taught in schools than in non-verbal abilities. The early evidence falsifies these predictions and arguably leaves the nutrition theory impacting on infants as the most plausible explanation of the secular increase of IQs, although this has also been criticized (Flynn, 2008).In other words he holds advances in nutrition/and-the-like have masked a decreasing genetic predisposition in intelligence even among just the natives of Western countries (i.e. not counting low IQ immigrants).
>>16808331If that was right, then I would be correct. You're saying that the popular usage of species is viewed as wrong by many biologists. Which is exactly what I just said. You're not correct, though. If you broaden the scope it would lose all scientific relevance.
>>16808330>asserting some hypotheticals>Let them burn down their neighborhoods, it means only the most intelligent among them will be successful
>>16808345>i was pretending to be retarded in a 4D chess debate just to call you out on your bullshit about niggera burning neighborhoodsThen you got mad and called me an autist, what a brilliant mind.
>>16808291That guy isn't even full black
>>16808218>the same species since they're all capable of breeding with eachotherThis is only one metric to determine whether or not two populations are considered the same species. Bison and cattle can produce fertile offspring and they're not even the same genus. >no reason to believe blacks aren't subject to the same evolutionary forces as everyone elseNo two human populations have been subjected to the same evolutionary forces. Our environments have shaped us all a little differently. The more different the environment, the more different the people. And Sub-Saharan Africa is pretty different from Ukraine or Henan.
>>16808356*assimilation
>>16808356
>>16808256>The is absolutely not trueThe slowing/reversal of the Flynn effect isn't some kind of secret. >there is no reason to believe otherwiseThe modern welfare state is flagrantly dysgenic. You cannot pay the least productive members of society to have children and expect anything other than a gradual population wide reduction in not only intelligence but fitness in general.
>>16808374
>>16808378>3 posts = spamWhat other implications might there be than natural selection, genius?Do you think it's a good thing for the general population to downgrade themselves by assimilating the genes of the mentally inferior?If there is positive selection, there must also be negative selection
>>16808375>you see i am kind of right, just take things from the perspective of a single race gaining 4 IQ points over time because they got less black
>>16808366>but I would argue some parts of SSA are basically Eastern Europe-tierThat would be a very dumb thing to argue.
>>16808390>t. can't see the forest through the trees
>>16808390Dodged like a true gamer.
>>16808392>I mean in terms of developmentMe too. Evolutionary development. Which is heavily influenced by environmental factors like climate. Look no further than the geographic distribution of sickle cell anemia to see that where your ancestors lived shapes your genome.Two populations having access to similar technologies for a century is essentially nothing compared to them living for tens of thousands of years in completely different environments.
>>16808229Buttmad
>>16808306Ok so if you believe that modern society selects for lower intelligence, then whites and blacks face that same selective pressure and should be expected to hve the same genetic propensity for intelligence. Proving that society has a negative, neutral, or positive skew towards reproduction by intelligent people does not prove a difference in selective pressures for white and black populations - it just establishes your view of the selective pressure facing both.You need to prove that European society used to select for intelligence but now does the reverse, while African society never selected for intelligence and now does the reverse (or at least selected for it to a significantly lesser extent). You cannot do that.
>>16808327Taxonomers are against it, not biologists. Big difference.
>>16808579>Ok so if you believe that modern society selects for lower intelligence, then whites and blacks face that same selective pressure and should be expected to hve the same genetic propensity for intelligenceNo, this doesn't follow at all. The fact I even have to explain why makes this discussion worthless
>>16806862Yeah and he debunked gravity too.
>>16808579Nobody needs to prove anything. Admixture studies finished any debate years ago, European admixture is associated with higher IQ.
>>16808307College standards have significantly dropped and there’s no correlation between having a degree and high intelligence. It’s not hard to get into college and to graduate. Black womenswear have the most education despite having generally lower IQs. College is free in many western countries and it’s encouraged as a highly profitable racket in the US. It’s not a measure of increasing IQ.
