Do you even understand what that is saying....

If it were correct. they would have to study ALL not just european

for a contrast

It's saying race is real

there is no contrast

Racial differences

but their study doesn't do work on other races for intelligence; says so right there

hello?

It's saying it's can't differentiate within a race as well as among the different races

Because races groups are so similar

Lol

You're trolling me

Read the whole thing

Every month that passes they map more genes

European!

Still, the issue is accuracy—or lack of it. Right now, the polygenic scores capture only a fraction of the genetic determinants of intelligence and none of the environmental ones. That means the predictions remain fuzzy.

"none of the environmental ones. "

Because why

ANd there it is

Nature AND Nurture

It's not measuring environmental ones

That's not what IQ measures

If you ONLY examine NATURE, you conclusions are OF COURSE going to be based ONLY on nature

Until they examine both, 'willl be fuzzy'

It's only a measure of general intelligence

It's fuzzy why?

It says why

No, it's fuzzy because all the genome isn't mapped yet..... So it's margin of error is an issue

It's so close though it can give a range

23 and me won't do it, not because it's inaccurate.... Because the reaction

It's not measuring success in the workplace.... I'm not sure your understand what's being measured.

<:OOF:459550070942203924>

The WAIS-IV yields scores on four domains: verbal, perceptual, working memory, and processing speed. The reliability of the test is high (more than 0.95), and it shows substantial construct validity. The WAIS-IV is correlated highly with other IQ tests such as the Stanford-Binet, as well as with criteria of academic and life success, including college grades, measures of work performance, and occupational level. It also shows significant correlations with measures of everyday functioning among the mentally retarded.

http://open.lib.umn.edu/intropsyc/chapter/9-1-defining-and-measuring-intelligence/

More than .95 reliability....that's almost perfect...an unheard of reliability Stat....it's just true.

.95 !

This is near perfection.

The test works.

Hh

reposting this because I never got a response

@Deleted User race is still a sub-optimal grouping mechanism if you're trying to select for highly polygenetic traits such as intelligence or emotional temperament, and there's no particular reason if you're trying to exclude and/or include people based upon traits such as intelligence to do so along racial lines. The genetics of different population groups fall along normal distributions and are not uniform across any single group- genetics is something that acts out mechanistically on an individual/pair level first and only by circumstance as part of a larger subpopulation. The unifying factor of who is decided to be 'black' and 'white' is largely done based upon aesthetic appearances- not actually intelligence or emotional temperament- and appearances that are derived from relatively few genetic mutations compared to things like intelligence.

That might depend on the definition of "race".

White and Black aren’t Races in the first place @skreee

it doesn’t matter you can apply the criticism to whatever traditional racial/ethnic subgroups you want to draw lines around @L0GAN

What's the question, race is real.

d u h

@L0GAN dosent seem to think that

Race is biological, genetic population clusters by region
Carrying that forward the relative groups have group ranges of height, build, color and skin type, and yes IQ and temperament because yes, the brain is a part of the body.
It's an identity - based on History heritage traditions and even civilization
It's a political group....do I need to define that ? People define themselves as a part of a tribe. In fact the tribal self identity is nearly perfectly correct. If someone in the USA checks the "white" box they are 99.1% european.....

Eg there is no "I don't know what race I am" problem, not in reality.

Hope that helps.

@skreee

Distibutions do differ they are not always perfect bells, also

All of what I stated is uncontroversial....I haven't even begun to talk about controversial ideas

The controversy comes when we discuss the practical applicationsof this reality

Also!!!

there is controversy over whether race is biological

While they didn't have the science to back them they way they had now.....many post darwinian philosophers predicted this and they were right!!!

So all these ideas go back at least 100 years ...plus some!!!

The political ramifications I mean

@Deleted User I’m not arguing that the distributions are the same however if your goal is to cluster people based on traits then doing so based on race is still sub-optimal. Identification with a tribal identity is primarily done based upon visual differences that are based on relatively few mutations- and is also a dumb way to organize society if your goal is to maximize certain genetic traits.

Literally all the same arguments

You guys should read Madison Grant or Lothrop Stoddard

Yes because you seemed to imply that because the bell curves are different that it somehow changes the calculus

It's not my goal to cluster them...

They are clustered.

It is done already by evolution

You, actually, are trying to ignore it.

okay if your goal is not to select for better traits along the lines of intelligence and temperament then what is it?

Why? Probably conditioning... saw too many star trek movies. Who knows

that doesn't answer my question

I asked if your goal *isn't* to select for better traits along the lines of intelligence and temperament then what is your goal?

Ask me my goal

Ok

The goal is to protect my group, Europeans.

And what we have and what we are

And to make them thrive grow and get better smarter and stronger

why do you want to protect Europeans?

Think of it this way: my race is my nation...it's a simplistic way to say it but should make sense to you

I'm european

What are you?

germanic european

in america

Ok good

So you understand.

I care more about the members of my country than my race

Yes, that's a shame.

however I don't understand why you would protect an umbrella of 'European' when this group contains significant numbers of people with the same genetic standard in terms of intelligence/temperament as that of Africans

Because they are european.

that seems like rather circular logic

No, it's an axiom.

Like the other guy "I care about my country most" that's an axiom

My assertion is that race is more meaningful.

because of genetics, no?

Than legal territory

Unless they are one and the same

Because of everything I said race is earlier

I don't like dumb people in my race, just like the other guy doesn't like dumb people in his country..... But I hold race higher than country

why is race higher than country?

w/e I don't think we're going to agree anyways since we're operating from different principles

Already covered that

I don't seek agreement

yes I understand that

Race is the first most pre rational group you intrinsically belong to...

I would argue ethnicity has a far stronger basis