Nature, Nurture and what makes us, us

James

Blackwing Lair Raider
2,117
40d 16h 22m
Reactions
6,340 246 0 0
You're really saying you don't know what the world correlation is, James James ? They're being nicer about explaining that very basic concept to you, but somehow you're just don't understanding that very basic concept.

Can't tell if you're purposely obtuse or just have Woolygimp syndrome
What's more likely, I don't know what the word correlation means, or you're a fucking retard? Going with the latter, but hear me out.

Everyone says there's a correlation between having black skin and low IQ. Some people are saying that there is a biological mechanic causing this effect, rather than accepting that it very well could be an entirely cultural mechanic causing this effect. You know what we're not talking about when we use the word cause?

If one thing the past two weeks have shown, its that you have no idea what science has and has not proven.
The study you linked disproved your very point.
 

James

Blackwing Lair Raider
2,117
40d 16h 22m
Reactions
6,340 246 0 0
Not a single person has ever claimed this.
It's the entire argument. Here, from Cad:

If you'll be intellectually honest and not hide behind the fear of saying black people are on average less intelligent (because they obviously, inescapably, provably are) and start saying, what the fuck, we need to figure out why and then enhance that gene in everyone and make everyone into super fucking geniuses, you'll be a lot better off.
 

Mario Speedwagon

Shitpost Plumber
<Moderation Tools>
14,121
17d 21h 36m
Reactions
40,628 2,093 0 0
Everyone says there's a correlation between having black skin and low IQ.
Skin color and IQ are ENTIRELY unrelated. They have literally nothing to do with each other. Yet you can use skin color to predict something about IQ.

How can this be? I'll see if you can puzzle out this brain buster.
 

Razzes

Knight of the Realm
352
6d 20h 9m
Reactions
336 34 0 0
Jesus, no, that's the definition of cultural. They didn't arrive at a lower IQ through some biological process, they arrived there because a mad man killed half the population. Presumably still, even after wiping out all the smart blackies, biological processes would eventually get them back to average all else being equal.
So the debate is over? We've been arguing semantics for 10+ page. To me, the above is a biological difference because the difference in IQ is at the genes-level, even if the causes of the genes distribution is environmental. So we basically agree, except the part about biological processes leading back to average, because cultural factors may prevent positive natural selection for IQ (like it is the case for them now).
 

Ambiturner

<Donors Crew>
8,263
23d 14h 42m
Reactions
4,009 665 0 0
So the debate is over? We've been arguing semantics for 10+ page. To me, the above is a biological difference because the difference in IQ is at the genes-level, even if the causes of the genes distribution is environmental. So we basically agree, except the part about biological processes leading back to average, because cultural factors may prevent positive natural selection for IQ (like it is the case for them now).
I'm curious what he seems to think qualify as "biological processes."
 

James

Blackwing Lair Raider
2,117
40d 16h 22m
Reactions
6,340 246 0 0
So the debate is over? We've been arguing semantics for 10+ page. To me, the above is a biological difference because the difference in IQ is at the genes-level, even if the causes of the genes distribution is environmental. So we basically agree, except the part about biological processes leading back to average, because cultural factors may prevent positive natural selection for IQ (like it is the case for them now).
A biological difference does not mean a biological cause. There's no biological reason we have found that can explain why black people are dumb, they are all cultural reasons. We all have the "smart" gene (except Ambiturner, whose parents are brother and sister apparently), the study sadris linked explicitly lays this out.
 

Seananigans

<Donors Crew>
2,815
20d 12h 42m
Reactions
2,342 83 0 0
A biological difference does not mean a biological cause. There's no biological reason we have found that can explain why black people are dumb, they are all cultural reasons. We all have the "smart" gene (except Ambiturner, whose parents are brother and sister apparently), the study sadris linked explicitly lays this out.
You might have the dumb gene.
 

James

Blackwing Lair Raider
2,117
40d 16h 22m
Reactions
6,340 246 0 0
And no where in there does he say anything about "black skin".
Ohhh is this where you break out the latest and greatest phrenological studies?! HOW BOUT THEM SKULL SIZES? This is such a worthless distinction, ok, go ahead and biologically define black people to be something not heavily reliant on skin color, even though we spent several pages showing you it's impossible. Here's the definitive end to the argument last time we did this exercise:

Sure, but you're defining a group with macro characteristics and then discarding those characteristics in the analysis.

So you're saying "Lets take everyone of this race, and we will define race with this method and do some analysis" You are forming arbitrary groups and seeing what you see. Good, that is the beating heart of scientific investigation. The result is varied enough to conclude the notion of your initial groupings is inexact. Even though, through your initial conditions, you thought it was very exact indeed.

I mean yes, you've got to start somewhere. And there's nothing wrong with starting at ">40% of this particular sort of DNA". But when you do that you find a divergence of macro characteristics. The one that you're searching for (intelligence) being one of those macro characteristics. So it's difficult to draw any conclusion at all that way. It's difficult because you can draw the contradicting conclusion as well and it would seem to be equally valid.

So you have to start looking individually. One race human race. This is very shorthand, but I hope you see the idea.
 

James

Blackwing Lair Raider
2,117
40d 16h 22m
Reactions
6,340 246 0 0
I'm curious what he seems to think qualify as "biological processes."
Biological process - Wikipedia I've linked it here in case you are too stupid to spell the words without spell checker and need a direct link. Why do you keep trying with this Brando-esque faggot bullshit? Take a position, show your retardation in full colors, don't be afraid.
 

James

Blackwing Lair Raider
2,117
40d 16h 22m
Reactions
6,340 246 0 0
So square that with the chart Cad keeps linking.
 

wormie

<Donors Crew>
5,839
45d 12h 53m
Reactions
6,788 716 0 0
The probability mass of X can easily be computed from the normal laws given. If X1: IQ of random black, X2: IQ of random Yellow

Probability that X=0 = Probability that X2-X1 is greater than 0.

X2-X1 is a normal law of mean 15 and std:sqrt(15^2+15^2).
Pr(X2-X1>0)=0.75 (roughly)

Thus X has mass of 0.75 on 0 and 0.25 on 1.
Maybe its your notation so I am confused. But arent you still working with normal random variables here? You think you can just take a probability of a continuous interval and apply it to a discrete event? I hope you dont do anything that requires statistical modeling for a living.
 

Ambiturner

<Donors Crew>
8,263
23d 14h 42m
Reactions
4,009 665 0 0
Biological process - Wikipedia I've linked it here in case you are too stupid to spell the words without spell checker and need a direct link. Why do you keep trying with this Brando-esque faggot bullshit? Take a position, show your retardation in full colors, don't be afraid.
Hahaha linking to wikipedia. Why not just say you don't know.

Please explain how "biological processes" are different whether a population is selected for by genocide vs any other selection process.
 

James

Blackwing Lair Raider
2,117
40d 16h 22m
Reactions
6,340 246 0 0
Please explain how "biological processes" are different whether a population is selected for by genocide vs any other selection process.
In the first fucking sentence:

Wikipedia said:
Biological processes are the processes vital for a living organism to live. Biological processes are made up of many chemical reactions or other events that are involved in the persistence and transformation of life forms.[1] Metabolism and homeostasis are examples.

Regulation of biological processes occurs when any process is modulated in its frequency, rate or extent. Biological processes are regulated by many means; examples include the control of gene expression, protein modification or interaction with a protein or substrate molecule.
Does murdering you in the face with a knife sound like we're talking about protein modification...or would you say closer to a controllable, physical process?
 

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Donor All-Stars>
17,842
18d 5h 40m
Reactions
13,650 701 0 0
Hahaha linking to wikipedia. Why not just say you don't know.

Please explain how "biological processes" are different whether a population is selected for by genocide vs any other selection process.
He's just going to keep denying terms and definitions.