>>16991759
>When will science start recognising races again and start studying the different social behaviours of different races?
As soon as you can come up with a non-arbitrary way to differentiate races

lmao, you are in for a lot of hurt anon, keep churning out them useless threads while the rest of the world becomes more brown

>>16991864
Blood donations and certain applications can only be given to certain races.

>>16991864
Nothing is perfectly non-arbitrary. Why not use the same logic as for differentiating subspecies of animals? Like say, if one group appears primarily in northern Europe and has a fair coat and another group appears primarily in Subsaharan Africa and has a dark coat, there is zero chance these wouldn't be classified as two different subspecies.

>>16991759
Here’s a better question.
Would you support moving beyond blanket descriptors like “white, black, and Asian” and following this field to its absolute conclusion?
You’re probably only so vested in this because you believe yourself to be at the “top” of the hierarchy, but this would almost certainly change if you moved beyond the elementary versions of this.
>inb4 D&C
That would be the new cope in this new system, regardless of whether or not a tinyhat says it as part of an agenda.

>>16991869
Are dog breeds different subspecies?

>>16991876
retard thread gets hijacked by a high iq

love to see it

>>16991869
>there is zero chance these wouldn't be classified as two different subspecies.
Don't try to speak of matters who know little of anon. There are many species who exist across extremely large areas of land and water that are all one subspecies. Some only have one species despite spanning continents.

>>16991759
>We would be much better off knowing that certain people react and comprehend in different ways when it comes to certain tasks and ways of conduct, or who don't comprehend them at all
But we do, it's called material analysis and social studies for example
>>16991876
>because you believe yourself to be at the “top” of the hierarchy
I've read something interesting on the topic recently, about how one of the origins of racism in its modern form stems from the time of slavery, when white indentured servants and black salves showed solidarity with each other. A racial wedge was driven between them, so they wouldn't fight their oppressors together. So even if you had a pitiful existence that was almost slavery in all but name you could still feels superior based on being white and would fight to suppress black slaves, instead of joining them to end their and your own oppression.
Not so different from today, now that I think about it.

>>16991903
This doesn't relate to scientific race study. And what you describe is the Virginia surrection in the late 17th century which only resulted in the abolition of slavery for white males during the early 18th century.

>>16991869
>Why not use the same logic as for differentiating subspecies of animals?
That is also arbitrary. If there isn’t even a good definition of subspecies how do you expect to come up with one for race?
>Like say, if one group appears primarily in northern Europe and has a fair coat and another group appears primarily in Subsaharan Africa and has a dark coat, there is zero chance these wouldn't be classified as two different subspecies
There isn’t zero chance of that, there are literally hundreds of examples of that. Coastal brown bears from Alaska are twice the size of inland grizzlies from Montana and have different shaped skulls but are the same subspecies. Barbary lions had dark manes that covered half their body while Indian lions have gimpy yellow neckbeards yet they’re still the same subspecies. Fur colour is the last thing anyone would use to designate subspecies

>>16991867
They can also only be given to certain individuals within a single race

Are you really, really sure you want to poke this ant hill? You may not like the answer you get. Let's outline. There are physical differences which separate one mind from another. Via mental architectural, physical substrate abilities, etc. Not all minds are equally able to replicate themselves. More efficient minds can replicate themselves much easier than simple minds. There is no apparent mechanical reason life cannot adapt to the harsh uncaring universe and therefore displace other, more fragile life, like.. us.

>We can tell because of this animal's appearance that is belongs to a class of animals with a specific behavior
>Heh, kind of like black people
>WELL ACTUALLY YOU CAN'T EVEN DEFINE WHAT "BLACK" MEANS AND IN FACT ALL WORDS ARE ARBITRARY AND EVEN THE IDEA OF CLASSIFYING THINGS IS REALLY JUST A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT PLUS WHO KNOWS IF HUMAN BEINGS CAN EVEN SAY THAT PREDICTIVE POWER EQUALS DIFFERENTIATION OF CONCEPTS

every single time

>>16991759
Why does the Australian skull look friendlier

>>16992036
>anon doesn’t know taxonomy
As usual

>>16991759
>races
wouldn't the correct term be 'subspecies'?
all humans can interbreed

>>16992031
>More efficient minds can replicate themselves much easier than simple minds.
simple minds can't be efficient?

>>16991759
As soon as it becomes politically correct again to emit a sequence of sounds which insinuates that there are physical differences caused by genes

>>16992171
it's to lower your guard so it can kill you easier
don't fall for it

>>16993280
Just the act of replication isn't enough. You need to steer trajectories into the future. You can't predict the future, nobody can with total accuracy. But, you can model it. Minds better able to model a future timeline with accuracy are better able to persist. It's just uneducated guessing really, but the search space of life on the planet is yuge enough that at some point a pattern will emerge which is able to predict events based on current states and different vectors. Your common or garden retard ain't going to do well in this competitive space which rewards actual success and not the longing for success.

>>16993286
some harsh living conditions could lead to the selection of stupid people striving where more complex and demanding individuals wouldn't

File: thinking.jpg (106.0 KB)

>>16991759
>one race is scientifically proven to be the master race and objectively better than all other races
>it's not your race
how would YOU react OP?

>>16991876
>Would you support moving beyond blanket descriptors like “white, black, and Asian”
You are the one injecting those descriptors. It's not in OP. Almost like you want to derail any discussion.

>>16991876
It's just an ancestry-based categorization system that explains genetic trait variation. It gives you more information so that you can make accurate guesses about how populations function and their trait distributions.

Yes, you can zoom in more or less to capture more or less variation, but this is only sometimes more appropriate.

>>16991889
>There are many species who exist across extremely large areas of land and water that are all one subspecies. Some only have one species despite spanning continents.

Here's information about genetic variation, time since divergence, and subspecies.

https://archive.fo/ch1Y9

>>16991903
>the origins of racism
>...
>in its modern form

If you're referring to intelligence differences and the like, then people have understood this since way before the Atlantic slave trade.

This video explains how Europeans weren't the first to understand race differences: https://rumble.com/v3ngfq1-the-ridiculous-idea-that-race-isnt-real.html?e9s=src_v1_sa%2Csrc_v4_sa_o%2Csrc_v1_upp_v

Egyptians understood race 3500 years ago.

Al Jahez, in 9th century Iraq, understood race differences and referred to the Black Africans as the "least intelligent and least discerning of mankind and least capable of understanding the consequences of actions." He wrote that more than 1000 years ago.

al-Masudi, in 10th century Baghdad, referred to Blacks as "people of black color, flat noses, kinky hair and little understanding or intelligence."

Infants can tell races apart by looking at faces.

>>16993329
What descriptors would we use?

>>16993351
>It gives you more information so that you can make accurate guesses about how populations function and their trait distributions.
They extremely vary even within populations.

>>16993370
>Al Jahez, in 9th century Iraq, understood race differences and referred to the Black Africans as the "least intelligent and least discerning of mankind and least capable of understanding the consequences of actions." He wrote that more than 1000 years ago.
>al-Masudi, in 10th century Baghdad, referred to Blacks as "people of black color, flat noses, kinky hair and little understanding or intelligence."
Literal just two giys Many people also said similar things about other groups too lol. Also why did you only use two examples of comments on Africans?
Can you make your self anymore obvious.

>>16993370
>Amren
Holy shit this board is fried.

>>16991903
lol at the implication that people 1000 years ago would look at a northern european and subsaharan african and not discern any physiological differences and just go "when you think about it we're all just like, the same, mannn. there's only one race: the human race"

>>16993476
>when you think about it we're all just like, the same, mannn. there's only one race: the human race"
What do you think Christianity is or the various humanistic system seen in multple cultures.

>>16991947
>there isn’t even a good definition of subspecies
There isn't one for species either.
Ctrl + f "The species problem" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

>>16993447
>why did you only use two examples of comments on Africans?
There were more examples given (about Whites too), it's just that not all were quotes.

>>16993450
>genetic fallacy + no refutation of the central argument.

>>16993479
>neither Jew nor Gentile
Okay, well, pharisees thought they were superior to the Gentiles and that Jesus was wrong, so that's a self-defeating argument.

>>16991759
it will be ignored until everyone is racemixed so hard they dont have to anymore

>>16993447
>They extremely vary even within populations.
So? This is true of species, too.

>>16993496
>until everyone is racemixed
Won't happen.
https://humanvarieties.org/2015/11/01/heritability-of-racial-and-ethnic-pride-preference-and-prejudice/

>>16993490
>genetic fallacy + no refutation of the central argument.
Name dropping fallacies doesn't constitute an argument retard. Amren is a shitty far-right sight filled with senile boomers and articles with no substance in them.

>>16993507
>no refutation of anything + seething
Come back when you have an argument.

>>16993321
OP is a wuss, furthermore, he is a poltroon of low moral character and poor breeding

>>16993447
Wait till you find out about what Romans thought of the barbarous Germans and Gauls

>>16993321
Nobody has made a single claim of a "master race" other than (You), and I'd like that to be clear.

>>16993684
>low moral character and poor breeding
You are literally just making stuff up. Are you only here to write out ad homs?

>>16993524
Lamo what di you get out of this. Point out "fallacies" isn't an argument and questioning shitty sources of info isn major point of dialogue, logic and debate.

>>16993693
>Nobody has made a single claim of a "master race" other than (You), and I'd like that to be clear.
You think people here are dumb or naive? We've got centuries of precedent to know what always ends up happening. You do know what pattern recognition is right?

File: cranialcapacity.jpg (202.0 KB)

>>16993321
There are very few true humans alive, most out there are practically irrational animals.

>>16994286
Neanderthals had bigger brains than H. sapiens sapiens. I don't know where you got that chart from

>>16993693
Don't pussyfoot around the subject. The thread started on the already tenuous topic of race-based differences in behavior, implying a causal link between genetic "racial" groups and how people act rather than going for something like culture or ethnicity-both of which have an implicit extragenetic dimension of inheritance. I don't even deny the existence of race or racial differences but when the TQ is a thinly veiled "why do black people act like niggers?" one must also ask the question "why do white people act like niggers too?"

>>16994289
No, they don't.
The average skull capacity went down after the bronze age collapse for some reason.

>>16991759
The entire purpose of the "Great Society" was to make this globally connected world, meld people into perfect mutt automata, and then iron fist the planet in perpetuity. It was/is a centuries long plan. It started in earnest in the 1930s. The first gial was decimating the white people.

>>16994310
>The entire purpose of the "Great Society" was to make this globally connected world, meld people into perfect mutt automata, and then iron fist the planet in perpetuity.
What?
>The first gial was decimating the white people.
Take your meds.

>>16994311
>Wat??!
OP asked I answered.
>meds!
Suicide yourself.

Probably never because it would instantly get weaponized by /pol/. The only way to make such research possible in current day is to eliminate every neutotypical so only autists who value objective truth over confirmation bias are left

File: Names of Black people who have won a Nobel Prize in science.jpg (22.7 KB)

>>16991759
Don't be racist please.

File: 1752282005561915.jpg (125.2 KB)

>>16994179
>Lamo what di you get out of this. Point out "fallacies" isn't an argument and questioning shitty sources of info isn major point of dialogue, logic and debate

Yes, I was pointing out how he provided no argument. Obviously, even if a murder says that rape is wrong, then that doesn't mean that rape is not wrong because they're a "bad source." That's silly reasoning, and obviously, the actual data is what matters, not you disliking a guy

>non-race denialism therefore Hitler or something!
Picrel

>>16994296
>The thread started on the already tenuous topic of race-based differences in behavior

Kek. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/race ctrl + f "2.5. Behavioral Differences"

>something like culture

"Fuerst noticed that BW*culture_load is mediated by g while the reverse does not stand. I confirm this. Adding to this, we can see that culture load is also (partially) mediated by inbreeding D, or by Gf, or by SES_bio in the prediction of BW difference. The picture below is self-explanatory.
regression-analysis-bw-wisc-with-culture-and-gf-or-g-or-inbreeding-d-or-ses_bio

When using BW-WAIS difference (instead of BW-WISC) the picture looks the same for the effect of g, Gf and SES_bio which fully mediate culture in its relationship with g. However, inbreeding D had a regression coefficient of zero, not surprising since we know that inbreeding*BW-WAIS bivariate correlation was also zero. With regard to h2, there were ambiguities because h2 fully mediates culture in the prediction of BW-WAIS gap when at the same time culture fully mediates h2 in the prediction of BW-WISC gap. In general, and perhaps due to unreliability issues, there is actually no certainty that indices of heritability mediate culture*BW correlation."

"One particular feature of the Wechsler data on black-white difference that does not fit Kan’s theory is that the BW gap is larger on Block Design than it is on Vocabulary (see also, Jensen, 1980, pp. 529-530), and yet Kan (2011) evaluates the cultural loadings of BD at 0.01 and Vocabulary at 0.35. Furthermore, the cultural loadings of all of the Performance (assumingly Gf) subtests are of same magnitude (close to zero), and yet, the BW gap correlates positively with g-loadings among the Performance subtests. The magnitude of the correlations does not even change."

https://menghu.substack.com/p/flynn-contra-rushton-on-principal-component-analysis-a-failed-replication?utm_source=publication-search

>>16991759
That Aboriginal Skull is sketchy.
Bone Clones (which seems to be the OG that all others take from) says it comes from a Bindaboo/Pintupi tribesman in New South Wales.
Except the Pintupi lived on the other side of the continent in the Western Australian deserts.
Like saying that a skull from New York was an Apache skull. It doesn't make any sense.
So the provenance is entirely falsified.

>>16992036
>>We can tell because of this animal's appearance that is belongs to a class of animals with a specific behavior
If only you knew anything about the actual debates regarding classifying species.
Here's a hint. If you're starting with 'appearance', you're about 40 years out of date or are literally only talking about deep time paleontology.

>>16994806
>a class of animals with a specific behavior
>classifying species.
When did he mention species?

>>16994763
>For the serotonin transporter gene, East Asians are significantly more likely to have the short “S” allele (5-HTTLPR) compared to Europeans who are relatively more likely to have the longer “L” allele, which may be a contributing factor to the more collectivist culture in East Asia versus the more individualist culture in Europe.
5-HTTLPR has no link to any variance in individualism vs collectivism in any research.
This is just nonsense.

>>16994815
Do you think he's talking about amniota?

>>16994763
>Even if it is difficult to tell what race someone is from, it’s easier to identify a person’s race the more and more people expose and familiarize themselves with what different people from different races look like. EthnoGuessr is an online game that people could play to improve their ability to guess a person’s race, based on their physical appearance.

>>16994763
You dodged my question instead of answering it.
Niggerly behavior is observable in contemporary low income whites (urban and rural) and historically resembles that of the frontier whites who colonized the wild West

>>16994407
Cremieux isn't a researcher anon. Stop taking Twitter talking heads as authoritative.

>>16994816
>5-HTTLPR has no link to any variance in individualism vs collectivism in any research.
>This is just nonsense.

"Culture–gene coevolutionary theory posits that cultural values have evolved, are adaptive and influence the social and physical environments under which genetic selection operates. Here, we examined the association between cultural values of individualism–collectivism and allelic frequency of the serotonin transporter functional polymorphism (5-HTTLPR) as well as the role this culture–gene association may play in explaining global variability in prevalence of pathogens and affective disorders. We found evidence that collectivistic cultures were significantly more likely to comprise individuals carrying the short (S) allele of the 5-HTTLPR across 29 nations. Results further show that historical pathogen prevalence predicts cultural variability in individualism–collectivism owing to genetic selection of the S allele. Additionally, cultural values and frequency of S allele carriers negatively predict global prevalence of anxiety and mood disorder. Finally, mediation analyses further indicate that increased frequency of S allele carriers predicted decreased anxiety and mood disorder prevalence owing to increased collectivistic cultural values. Taken together, our findings suggest culture–gene coevolution between allelic frequency of 5-HTTLPR and cultural values of individualism–collectivism and support the notion that cultural values buffer genetically susceptible populations from increased prevalence of affective disorders. Implications of the current findings for understanding culture–gene coevolution of human brain and behaviour as well as how this coevolutionary process may contribute to global variation in pathogen prevalence and epidemiology of affective disorders, such as anxiety and depression, are discussed."

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspb/article/277/1681/529/73014/Culture-gene-coevolution-of-individualism

>>16994818
He used the term "class of animals." He was clearly being inclusive of subspecies.

>>16994865
What is this supposed to prove? This is in response to "You can't tell everyone's race with 100% certainty by looking at them."

>>16994868
The lowest family income (1st decile) Whites are in prison less than the second (9th decile) highest family income Blacks (about 4x).

https://archive.ph/v5WEX

>>16994873
>isn't a researcher
This is just a demonstration of your authoritarian view on knowledge. Clearly, there's nothing substantively wrong with the survey, so you have to nitpick about how you don't like the guy who ran it.

>>16994898
This is an 'ice cream sales and people that get crushed by vending machines' correlation.
There's no actionable mechanism attached to that allele that causes any effects germane to the claim.
Beyond that, you're relying on subjective judgments for said societies. "China is collectivist!", except there are common memes about the Chinese not caring about one another and having no empathy for people dying or being injured or being proud about cheating at any given activity, among others. All individualistic and anti-social desires.
Comparatively, the Scandinavians could easily be called extremely collectivist via their Law of Jante and similar cultural ideals.

What an awful study. Weak criteria, and then an allele selected as a causal agent that can't cause the thing that it is claimed to be connected to.

>>16994904
>This is an 'ice cream sales and people that get crushed by vending machines' correlation.

Ahh, yes. The "every correlation is a spurious correlation!" Argument.

>There's no actionable mechanism
It effects hormone levels. Also, so what? If it's predictively valid, then it's predictively valid. "But you need a mechanism to explain everything!" Is a bad argument against predictive validity.

"To determine the specificity of the association between 5-HTTLPR and individualism–collectivism, we conducted a multiple regression analysis with population frequency of S allele carriers as the criterion variable and cultural values of individualism–collectivism as well as four other well-known cultural values, specifically power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity–femininity and long–short-term orientation, as predictor variables. Results indicated that the cultural value of individualism–collectivism was the only significant predictor of the frequency of S allele carriers of 5-HTTLPR across 22 nations (β = 0.52, p < 0.02) (table 1)."

"Second, we sought to determine whether the frequency of S allele carriers predicts cultural individualism and collectivism by conducting a multiple regression analysis with individualism–collectivism as the criterion variable and frequency of S allele carriers, as well as four other economic and health factors previously associated with individualism–collectivism including GDP per capita, inequity in the distribution of wealth (Gini index) as well as historical and contemporary pathogen prevalence as predictor variables (Fincher et al. 2008). Results indicate that allelic frequency of S carriers was the only significant predictor of individualism–collectivism across 29 nations (β = 0.61, p < 0.002) (table 1)."

>>16994902
>What is this supposed to prove? This is in response to "You can't tell everyone's race with 100% certainty by looking at them."
It want meant to prove anything I just had a hearty chuckle at the thought of someone grinding Ethnoguessr to maxx out their racial acumen

>>16994908
When the allele being measured has nothing to do with individualistic vs collectivist beliefs in any other study, yeah. It is spurious.
You could replicate this exact study by measuring limb vs trunk proportions or nasal length or genes related to ear wax properties, because all it is, is digging for some genetic characteristic that appears to be more common in China than in Europe.
Its exactly on the level of claiming that people buying ice cream leads to more deaths from vending machines. And then working backwards to justify that.

And going further, the study is reliant on a faulty and shallow categorization of societies to create its basis of collectivist vs individualistic.

>>16995067
How do you come to that conclusion? It sounds like you are butt mad desu

>>16994902
>He used the term "class of animals." He was clearly being inclusive of subspecies
The word for that is clade. Class is its own ranking

What would be the point of it? It would just be a waste of time. More so since it would still lead to a shitty "lets try to ripoff/overcharge people for basic medicine and call that 'innovation' " graft. We still can't even do specialized medicine like tropical medicine as is.

>>16991759
OP still hasn't answered the question of how he would feel about all this if Science™ had proven beyond the shadow of all doubt that he was a member of the lesser race/races

Would he affirm the findings or would he try to reason his way out of genetic determinism?

Check out bloodtypes anon.

It's too controversial and people already go to war over race and caste systems. Data does exist but if it got made public and spread it would just be weaponized and used to destabilise. Some stuff is out there like more black sprinters because they have more fast twitch muscle fibres on average. You racists see shit and assume it's because another race is less intelligent when they are usually resource poor, have been psyoped for years and had knowledge kept from them.

for example: Africans live in mud huts still.... blocks UV rays, high trust so they don't need doors, they are usually in poor places with no resources and doing the best with what they have got. There are plenty of built up african areas but they never show you those.

>>16995828
>for example: Africans live in mud huts
What the fuck is a mudhut at this point?

>>16995552
personally I’ve made my peace with the fact that Ashkenazi Jews have a higher average iq for example


acknowledging a racial hierarchy would arguably benefit even those who would find themselves at the very bottom rung of it compared to what we have now, which just sells the false idea of egalitarianism

like imagine the state simply acknowledge that Australian abos are borderline retarded iq wise, what would happen, they’d probably end up with even more welfare and social assistance instead of selling them the false idea that they too can become electrical engineers if they simple work hard enough

racial hierarchies are a win win for everyone and are a stabilizing force, for the same reason pecking orders emerge in chickens and wolves

Everyone deep down acknowledges HBD, let’s be honest get a few beers in a normie and they won’t shut up about how blacks are dumb but good at sports, Asians are good at math etc it’s a whole big song and dance about social pleasantries

Sorry /pol/ calling black people dumb is not ground breaking or revolutionary, we know

>>16991864
Do bone, genetic, and skin features not count? We categorize species of bird or insect for much less.

>>16995899
>Everyone deep down acknowledges HBD,
No one has taken HBD or the countless gay rebranding over the past 25+ years seriously. The rest of your post is weird dated assumptions.

whenever grown ass adults stop being afraid of the invisible judgemental politically correct make-believe people they think they might have heard about somewhere one time in their own imaginations, i suppose.

niggers is just a word.

>>16991864
well, uhhhh..... don't question it

>>16995914
You're 13.

>>16995855
A hut, made out of mud that rural Africans live in that racists use to show Africa hasn't advanced. Those huts are actually very useful to a certain industry that is popping right now.

>>16995901
>Do bone, genetic, and skin features not count?
The question isn’t whether or not those features are different, it’s how different do they need to be to warrant distinct categories. There is no good answer and that is why it’s completely arbitrary. You could make racial categories be as narrow as English, Irish, Welsh, etc all being separate or you could make it as broad as English being the same race as Indians depending on where you draw the lines
>We categorize species of bird or insect for much less
It only looks that way when you don’t know anything about bird or insect taxonomy. But even if that weren’t the case those are also arbitrary. As others have pointed out there isn’t even a good definition for species, let alone race

>>16994904
>you're relying on subjective judgments for said societies.

Hofstede's methodology for his individualism-collectivism measure is based on factor analysis of survey data for 116,000 IBM employees, not some guy exclaiming, "China is collectivist!"

>>16995067
>When the allele being measured has nothing to do with individualistic vs collectivist beliefs in any other study, yeah. It is spurious.

There aren't even many studies on this, but one in 2022 (Marcus & Cetin) uses ridiculous "environmental" controls (i.e. "I call this variable environmental, therefore it can't possibly be genetically confounded").

Essentially controlling for genetic selection pathways and then acting surprised that they found a null result (not for monumentalism, though).

https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/sociologists-fallacy-origins-of-the-term?utm_source=publication-search


>>16995416
>The word for that is clade. Class is its own ranking

He was obviously using the word
generally.

"(countable) A group, collection, category or set sharing characteristics or attributes. "

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/class#