people don't cry systemic racism when students from Luxembourg who get MORE THAN $20,000 PER STUDENT do worse than Koreans and Japanese people who spend ~$8,000 per student

So yeah, that basically is my opinion on this. I have none on the science because I'm not a scientist, and doubt that anyone in here actually is

So all this arguing on whether or not race and IQ correlate is useless here

no it's not

Whether racial disparities in outcome are the cause of "white racism" or culture or innate group differences is immensely important

The entire Democrat platform is "blame whites for all your problems, you're not stupid, white people are just racist"

Since none of us have the capability to make claims that actually hold any worht

That is up to the scientists

I just provided you a study

feel free to provide any study which directly addresses the same subject

about GWAS and IQ and race

And well, untill they reach a consensus, it should be left out of politics as much as possible

The consensus is going to be a result of Chinese, not Western research, most likely

in China 100% of biological anthropologists believe race is a valid scientific concept

compared to like

40% in Eastern Europe

and lower in the West

They're not afraid to do research into the genetic structure of IQ

inb4 chinese scientists conclude the yerrow man is best man

Well they're not wrong in some aspects

they'd be very wrong

Don't have to be a scientist to know how to read peer reviewed research studies.

Sure

But probably best to find a direct source rather than a secondary source

You can read them

race is irrelecvant

But the moment you start drawing your own conclusions, and the moment you try and explain these things. then yes you would have to be a scientist or at least have some scientific education @Crasseus

You don't

You do

You shouldn't draw your own conclusions when the study literally tells you the conclusions or results of the study

Well

Sometimes scientists misrepresent their research in the abstract

Many times they SPECULATE in the abstract

They do that a lot

and you're free to disagree with their speculations

pretty much most research that the left uses does that

yeah

and natsocs

I'd say "far right" if it actually had meaning but I see the term as a meme

Then if I were to read that study, I'd disregard it and aknowledge the need for further more accurate studies. Because if they're misrepresenting in the abstract, hard to say if they did anything else accurately.

Founding Fathers were far right