Scientific Racism

[Gigantic Faggot]

Cultures sometimes merge with each other or mutate without genetic change in the population, though. See: American culture spreading all over the globe thanks to the media. People are gradually abandoning their traditions in favor of what America says is cool.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Rr8ljRgcJNM

Yes. I was most impressed by Africans adopting the American culture of advanced physics research.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

Yes. I was most impressed by Africans adopting the American culture of advanced physics research.

They're not becoming American. They're adopting fragments of American culture and creating a hybrid. Their culture is mutating even though Americans aren't actively breeding with them.

 

[Gigantic Faggot]

They're not becoming American. They're adopting fragments of American culture and creating a hybrid. Their culture is mutating even though Americans aren't actively breeding with them.

They're adopting some superficial elements while remaining fundamentally African in any aspect of any importance.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

They're adopting some superficial elements while remaining fundamentally African.

Sure, depending on what you consider to be fundamentally African. Still, it shows that some cultural change can occur without biological change.

 

[Gigantic Faggot]

Sure, depending on what you consider to be fundamentally African. Still, it shows that some cultural change can occur without biological change.

Not this again. Please read this and remember it. Nobody ever said everything was 100% genetic.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

Not this again. Please read this and remember it. Nobody ever said everything was 100% genetic.

Saying "culture is the downstream of genetics" certainly sounds like saying genes are the only important factor.

I think we agree on most things but keep getting into misunderstandings, lol.

 

[Gigantic Faggot]

Saying "culture is the downstream of genetics" certainly sounds like saying genes are the only important factor.

I think we agree on most things but keep getting into misunderstandings, lol.

To me it means it's the most important factor, with potentially other "tributary" factors coming in.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

To me it means it's the most important factor, with potentially other "tributary" factors coming in.

Source on that claim? I've seen people make some pretty big cultural jumps.

Of course, the ability to easily modify your behavior according to setting is probably a trait controlled by genes..

 

[Gigantic Faggot]

Source on that claim?

Looking at the world.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

Looking at the world.

Fascinating. For me, it's the opposite. We must have lived very different lives. I assume behavior is something like 55% nature and 45% nurture, but I'm always willing to be proven wrong.

 

[Deepland Bystander]

This is asking in good faith for people who believe in race realism (I don't - and this is coming from biology background), there's this disparity I noticed.

One of the common argument for race realists are the IQ studies, which mentioned that East Asians and Jews have even higher IQ than whites. In America, Southeast Asians tend to get lumped into the same race with East Asians. However the average IQ for SEA is much lower than East Asians, Whites, and Hispanics. We're just above Blacks. So why are the races that are 'believed' to be the most closely related, have a huge IQ gap?

I'm from Thailand and I do know that my country is an undeveloped shithole, and the recent Chinese immigrants do much better than natives economically in my country that they are pretty much dominating everything at this point. I wouldn't be offended if you say that most Thai people are lazy because I feel that is true too. Though I've always assumed this is mostly culture, which is while stemmed from geographical conditions. These people, if were raised in a different environment, would not act like that and there hasn't been a significant changes to people's gene that much to explain why there's such a gap.

 

[Gigantic Faggot]

So why are the races that are 'believed' to be the most closely related, have a huge IQ gap?

Why wouldn't they? There's variation within races. South Asians have skin color closer to Africans rather than Europeans, who they are more related to, who have skin color closer to North East Asians. I don't understand why this is hard to believe. And the gap isn't really so huge. SE Asians are in the same ballpark as NE Asians, versus Africans or Native Americans. Within nation endogamy is a powerful thing, and the Chinese have a long history of scholarship and technology. Also dense populations drive evolution.

These people, if were raised in a different environment, would not act like that and there hasn't been a significant changes to people's gene that much to explain why there's such a gap.

Citation needed.

 

[Deepland Bystander]

Why wouldn't they? There's variation within races. South Asians have skin color closer to Africans rather than Europeans, who they are more related to, who have skin color closer to North East Asians. I don't understand why this is hard to believe. And the gap isn't really so huge. SE Asians are in the same ballpark as NE Asians, versus Africans or Native Americans. Within nation endogamy is a powerful thing, and the Chinese have a long history of scholarship and technology. Also dense populations drive evolution.

What do you mean of the same ballpark? There is barely any technology and innovations coming out from SE area compared to China or Japan. In fact this gap is something that made me believe that traditional, classification of race isn't robust.

 

[Gigantic Faggot]

What do you mean of the same ballpark? There is barely any technology and innovations coming out from SE area compared to China or Japan.

versus Africans or Native Americans

Yeah, the smart fraction of a 105 IQ versus 95 IQ is going to be significant. Nevertheless they're in the same ballpark overall.

In fact this gap is something that made me believe that traditional, classification of race isn't robust.

What do you mean by "robust"? Does it mean 100% predictive of every trait for every individual? Another of the "100%" strawmen. People's understanding of behavior genetics these days is mostly parroting lame strawman one-liners based on some imagination that factors and categories have 100% predictive power. We can sort people into ancestry clusters, that's race, and that is predictive for various things. It's basically just a self-evident fact. I know it's fashionable to say "race isn't real" and you have the whole compromised cultural Marxist academic establishment behind you. Unfortunately it's obvious bullshit to anyone with an understanding of taxonomy and science.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

Gigantic faggot gave good responses, but I'd like to add one thing.

I'm from Thailand and I do know that my country is an undeveloped shithole, and the recent Chinese immigrants do much better than natives economically in my country that they are pretty much dominating everything at this point. I wouldn't be offended if you say that most Thai people are lazy because I feel that is true too. Though I've always assumed this is mostly culture, which is while stemmed from geographical conditions. These people, if were raised in a different environment, would not act like that and there hasn't been a significant changes to people's gene that much to explain why there's such a gap.

It's a mix of culture and biology, though I'm inclined to think it's mostly culture in this case. As far as I know, the Chinese immigrants who get to leave China are carefully selected by their government. The Chinese are also notoriously nepotistic-- they'll hire one of their own before a native most of the time, leading to their group dominating the landscape.

I'm sorry China is meddling with your country, btw. The Chinese seem really unpleasant as far as colonizers go.

 

[Chad Nasty]

That idea is like ivy league pedigree bullshit I see in STEM all the time. If you don't have a degree your resume goes in the trash without even giving you a chance.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

That idea is like ivy league pedigree bullshit I see in STEM all the time. If you don't have a degree your resume goes in the trash without even giving you a chance.

Acknowledging general trends within groups doesn't necessarily mean judging people for the group they come from.

Everyone should be given the chance to prove themselves, imo.

 

[Forgetful Gynn]

They formed a distinctly different culture partly because of biology and partly because they were treated distinctly differently for many years. It's the result of long term slavery and segregation.

Then why didn't the first generation freed slaves form that culture? The whole culture of criminality and vice didn't come about until at least 3 generations after slavery, when the harshest forms of the different treatment had already past.

A lot of them have European blood. If their natal biology dictated most of their behavior, there wouldn't be such a wide culture gap between them and White Americans.

Your chart shows that they're still 74% African. Would you want to drink something that was 74% piss? That's a significant amount of genetic contribution and while I will not doubt that a good deal of the intellectual difference between them and pure sub-saharan blacks can be attributed to that admixture, it simply isn't enough to overpower their mental characteristics anymore than it's enough to overpower their physical characteristics.

Some immigrants come from races that are already in the country, unless you mean to imply Austrian Whites and American Whites aren't both Caucasian.

Obviously not, since more Caucasian stock would not qualify as "new races".

Right now they're only able to form little cultural enclaves because they come in packs. Integration is possible, although it takes time.

Assimilation is a choice that largely has to be forced on people. With no pressures to change, they simply won't. That's why there are so many parts of the country where you still see business signs in chinese, korean, and now increasingly indian.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/09/measuring-assimilation/

So I am pretty sure I found the actual study for that and from my quick read of it they omit a hell of a lot of details, don't actually prove what the article says they proved, and are obviously coming from an extremely biased position considering their past body of work. At most they are saying that more whites go to prison than immigrants, which makes sense because whites are still the majority of the population and isn't really disproving anything about immigrants causing a disproportional amount of crime. I don't doubt that most of the chinese or indian immigrants aren't committing a lot of crimes, but the black and hispanic ones are.

Immigrants probably have a higher crime rate than White natives, particularly if they come from poor backgrounds.

There really isn't any good data which show poverty as being a significant factor for criminal behavior. The poorest white neighborhoods have lower crime rates than the richest white neighborhoods.

"Between races, we find that at low levels of wealth both blacks and Hispanics still had a higher incarceration rate than whites. At higher levels of wealth at the baseline, although the black-white incarceration disparity was reduced for males, it was not eliminated."

After trying to explain this enduring gap by “differential exposure to discrimination,” the study then admits that:

"We do observe that for Hispanic males starting with higher levels of wealth, odds of incarceration are similar to those of white males at comparable wealth levels. Why Hispanic males experience this convergence but not black males, we leave to further study.

The thing is, we don't understand how all genes interact with each other or how outside influences affect biology.

Nor did we need to know those things in order to domesticate animals or create countless new breeds of plants and animals based solely off of how they looked or behaved after crossing them with like members. What your proposing won't solve anything because it can easily push the criterion for "we understand where intelligence comes from" out to absolute certainty, which is fundamentally impossible to attain. It's also not a thing that would be easy to test with genetic engineering because you'd need a lot of human subjects to conduct experiments with. Turning on the genes for what we think results in higher intelligence or turning them off, and seeing what sort of genius or retard babies you'd get out of it. While such experiments would be extremely enlightening, they'd be a just tad unethical and quite unlikely to receive proper funding.

We can't predict if someone will be born with mutations that will affect their life in strange ways.

Yes we can.

Having a sociopathic father doesn't guarantee the kid will be a sociopath too, know what I mean?

Yes, it does.

It increases the odds, but the kid's fate isn't sealed.

I think assuming someone is bad because they come from bad stock is only useful for people who are bad at reading social cues.

It depends.

They're not going after Asians

You think the Chinese are doing well under the communism they created?

Cheap labor is a bad reason to let immigrants in, for sure.

It is the underlying factor for all immigration proponents.

I'm not surprised. Humanity has been very brutal throughout history.

And yet, how much of this "anti-colonialist, anti-slavery" song and dance is directed at the arabs, who were far more brutal in every way?

It wasn't an insult, just an observation.

You can't deny that it isn't an insulting insinuation.

That other poster noticed it too and it lowered his opinion of this ideology.

Noticed what? That some people who are dumb believe certain things? Does that mean ideas are responsible for their people?

If you bring up the topic with others, maybe try stressing the fact that you're arguing the fact that Asians and Jews are (generally) superior to Whites and deserve to be the ruling class.

I don't think that they deserve to be the ruling class. The majority population should be the ruling class of any place. Chinese should run china, jews israel, English brittain, etc etc. If another race wants to take over, they should at least have the decency of doing it like a man and fighting a war for it.

To be clear, I'm not being a tricky Jew asserting dominance here. I'm mixed and the close descendant of genuinely primitive people, lol.

And aside from one slight, I've not used that against you because doing so would obviously be a reflection of the weakness of my argument. It would also be a dick move.

Closing the borders altogether might be beneficial I suppose.

I don't just think it would be good for us, I think it would be best for them in the long term.

Lol, why?

The brain keeps track of who is number 1 in a society. There has also been some research done which shows blacks have a more hyperactive "status-tracking" part of their brain as well. It will always bug people when they're part of a minority group, it seems to especially bug black people.

Feeling chronic shame or pride over other people's actions is usually counterproductive.

Not if it motivates you to be better. I'll always be proud of my dad, for example.

 

[Chad Nasty]

Acknowledging general trends within groups doesn't necessarily mean judging people for the group they come from.

Everyone should be given the chance to prove themselves, imo.

But that's what generally happens. It's unfortunate. I'm experiencing it now, I have to work 10x harder than a 4year grad because of this. It overall doesn't change much for me, but it is infuriating.

 

[polyester]

Acknowledging general trends within groups doesn't necessarily mean judging people for the group they come from.

Everyone should be given the chance to prove themselves, imo.

That's a nice thought, but in practice it's often not feasible to "judge everyone as an individual".

Consider this thought experiment:

Imagine you're a taxi driver, and you see two people waiting for a taxi: A stereotypical white lady in a nice dress, and a stereotypical black dude with tattoos and saggy pants.​

Which one are you gonna stop for?​

Judging them based on group stereotypes tells you: Driving the white lady gives you a high chance of getting a nice tip, and a low chance of getting robbed or killed. Driving the black dude: The opposite.​

"No, I should judge them as individuals!", you protest.​

Well, how?​

Are you gonna get out of your car and interview them?​

Are you gonna invite them to a cup of coffee at a nearby Starbucks to get to know them first?​

Ain't nobody got time for that. They're in a hurry to go wherever they need to go, and you're in a hurry to dispatch as many customers as you can per day.​

So you're gonna go with the quick and easy stereotype-based cost/risk analysis.​

And even in situations where it is technically feasible to "judge everyone as an individual" (e.g. when hiring employees), it still generally increases the cost and risk, so people will avoid it.
You simply can't stop people from letting their decisions be affected by patterns they've noticed.

That's why I can actually sorta kinda understand the Woke Left's strategy of rabidly enforcing the taboo against noticing those patterns, even if it means they have to descend into all-out science denial on questions relating to cognitive traits in humans. I don't approve of it, but I get why they do it.