you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (14 children)

How interesting that someone with the username, Rishabh Jain, would think this. The old and unscientific claim that miscegenation is in any way problematic has been claimed many times and debunked in every instance. There are no biologists or geneticists on Saidit who will have any scientific arguments against miscegenation, because these arguments are invalid. In any event, Mr Jain, I hope you will appreciate that the arguments against miscegenation are used by those who want to aparthied and/or genocide of all non-white people. I appreciate that the miscegenation argument is used around with world by racists in their regions, but there too, these people want aparthied and/or genocide of other people, and especially those of darker skins or different religions. Be careful what you ask for.

[–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

The old and unscientific claim that miscegenation is in any way problematic has been claimed many times and debunked in every instance

Once again you just lie out your ass and provide no evidence for the things you say

There are no biologists or geneticists on Saidit who will have any scientific arguments against miscegenation

Another lie. James Watson, who literally discovered DNA, disagrees:

James D. Watson, 79, co-discoverer of the DNA helix and winner of the 1962 Nobel Prize in medicine, told the Sunday Times of London that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really."

It's a stupid appeal to credentialism anyways. You don't need to be a biologist or a geneticist to understand the basics of inheritance. Humans have been selectively breeding animals (and, themselves) for thousands of years without ever knowing what a "gene" was

because these arguments are invalid

How are they "invalid?" IQ and other psychological traits are all highly heritable and are not the same between racial groups. The end

Given the treatment of Watson and other experts who have pointed these things out, is it really any wonder why hordes of geneticists and biologists don't come out to tell society that their sacred taboos and beliefs about race aren't true?

arguments against miscegenation are used by those who want to aparthied and/or genocide of all non-white people

Pathetic ad-hominem and appeal to a motive. White people being marginalized and demonized by every institution as our homelands are invaded by others, and our incomes repossessed to pay for their gibs. Yet, you have the gall to make the claim that we are the ones who want genocide.

You are wrong about race, wrong about inheritance, and wrong about what we want. Ultimately, you are an extremely uninformed and shameless apologist for a very stupid (and evil) utopian project built on the backs of white people, which is doomed to fail eventually - no matter how much you parrot unsubstantiated NPC talking points on this website

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

So your response is to post insults and links to obviously racist assholes? And anyone who thinks 'anyways' is a word is obviously way out of his depth. Moreover, IQ is only one measurement of intelligence, of which there are other measures. And regarding the scientific literature on miscegenation and consanguinity, one merely has to search for it, or check PubMed. Regarding Watson, that colonialist asshole is known by scientists to be wrong about his claims about race; which is why the fucker had to apologize:

He apologized publicly and “unreservedly,” and in later interviews he sometimes suggested that he had been playing the provocateur — his trademark role — or had not understood that his comments would be made public.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/01/science/watson-dna-genetics-race.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/science/19watson.html

Moreover, Watson refers to Africans, not necessarily mixed race people, who do tend to be smarter, more attractive, more physically capable, and more interesting, taller, and with bigger dicks than people like you. Intelligence is not the only value of a human being, and if it were, mixed race people are not dumber than others, by any standard of research. Those who argue against this tend to favor abuses of all kinds against non-white people or those who are not Jewish, or those who are not in the same village in India, or whatever. It's stupid, backward, and hateful. Look also at the centuries of poorer economic conditions of the people who are being criticized as having lower IQ. There are so many factors to consider, other than DNA. Since you're apparently unable to look, and would rather insult me, here are links, where you won't see a significant gap in intelligence in mixed-race children:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3146070/Mixed-race-relationships-making-taller-smarter-Children-born-genetically-diverse-parents-intelligent-ancestors.html

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjEtN3ag8_xAhXH_rsIHf1xDo4QFnoECAgQAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mdpi.com%2F2624-8611%2F1%2F1%2F10%2Fpdf&usg=AOvVaw2zAAsMctM881I9zjw5U71L

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyferth_study

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjEtN3ag8_xAhXH_rsIHf1xDo4QFnoECAIQAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww2.le.ac.uk%2Fdepartments%2Fnpb%2Fpeople%2Famc%2Farticles-pdfs%2Fracediff&usg=AOvVaw0WPxvJSPP6wY1Aj1Lva6q-

https://www.brookings.edu/research/multi-racial-adolescents-show-no-test-score-gap-with-whites/

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/12/17/none-of-the-above

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/01/14/father-dna-says-he-still-believes-link-between-race-intelligence-his-lab-just-stripped-him-his-titles/

https://bostonreview.net/science-nature-race/ned-block-race-genes-and-iq

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100414092523.htm

https://www.quora.com/Are-children-of-mixed-races-more-intelligent-than-those-of-a-homogeneous-gene-pool

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjDs6Seh8_xAhVxu3EKHcVzBDE4HhAWegQICBAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fscholar.harvard.edu%2Ffiles%2Ffryer%2Ffiles%2Ftesting_for_racial_differences_in_the_mental_ability_of_young_children.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2paXzKQFT0Csuv_nXP4jxy

[–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So your response is to post insults

If you come in here firing ad hominem shots across the bow about "genocide" don't be surprised if you get hit back

and links to obviously racist assholes?

Someone says or researches something the system doesn't like -> they are branded a "racist" -> they are now wrong because they are "racist"

Does it ever occur to you how convenient that is? Just call them a "heretic" or a "witch" and burn them at the stake at this point

And anyone who thinks 'anyways' is a word

It is

Moreover, IQ is only one measurement of intelligence

IQ tests can measure a variety of things including verbal, visual-spatial, and other kinds of intelligence. "g", or the general intelligence factor, is really what we care about because it has most all of the predictive power of IQ tests (for things like income, educational attainment, etc.) Most IQ tests report the aggregate IQ score of these different batteries of tests, and for most practical purposes IQ ≈ g

of which there are other measures.

Not really. At least, not tests that are useful in predicting anything we care about. There is just one g (and still just one g)

And regarding the scientific literature on miscegenation and consanguinity, one merely has to search for it, or check PubMed.

You should present the evidence for the claims you make, as we do. Miscegenation usually just results in an average of traits for both races. (1000.5) + (850.5) = 92.5 IQ for black/white offspring. Same goes for other traits. If you have something else then find it and actually present it in context

Watson, that colonialist asshole is known by scientists to be wrong about his claims about race; which is why the fucker had to apologize:

No - he had to apologize because people didn't like what he said, not because he was "wrong."

It's mystifying how people like you will turn a blind eye to this. Every society has its taboos. Globohomo-judeo neoliberalism requires that race not exist (if your white and on the defensive, at least) and white people be exploited. If you have evidence to the contrary and speak out about it you get ostracized, demonized, and attacked. It's like criticizing communism in the Soviet Union.

Moreover, Watson refers to Africans, not necessarily mixed race people

It is obviously implied that since Watson believes Africans have a lower level of intelligence due to genes, then he would also believe that mix-raced black/white people would have lower IQs than full-white people

who do tend to be smarter, more attractive, more physically capable, and more interesting, taller, and with bigger dicks

Lol - "MUH DICK!!!" [citation needed] for every one of these outlandish claims.

Intelligence is not the only value of a human being

No one said it was. It's just a trait that matters a lot for socioeconomic outcomes

and if it were, mixed race people are not dumber than others, by any standard of research.

Wrong. How many times do we have to do this?. Of course, it depends on the races involved and what parent race you are comparing to

Those who argue against this tend to favor abuses of all kinds against non-white people

Ignoring your appeal to a motive, it is true that any differences in racial socioeconomic outcomes are already used as by leftists and other anti-whites as an excuse to exploit whites. "White supremacy" is to blame for why blacks do bad in schools, commit more crimes, and have less money - and no evidence ever has to be presented for this magical force. So now we need affirmative action, welfare, anti-white propaganda everywhere, etc.

So whatever you fallaciously accuse us of presenting this evidence for, the current system is already using no evidence at all to justify exploiting us right now in the present

It's stupid, backward, and hateful.

Emotional reasoning. The system obviously hates white people, so why don't you go to the media and tell them to stop all their hateful bigotry? Maybe we'd be more interested in not talking about race and IQ if we weren't already demonized by every institution in this society

Look also at the centuries of poorer economic conditions

Why are places like Africa almost universally shitty, but nations like China or South Korea (who were just as poor or poorer at the start of the 20th century) doing so well? What about Haiti? Why are the correlations between racial economic outcomes and racial IQs so consistent across countries and time? Maybe you have causality reversed?

of the people who are being criticized as having lower IQ.

Your choice of the word "criticized" belies your foundation of emotional reasoning. It is just a statement of fact that certain groups are more or less intelligent than others, and this has important implications in a multiracial society (esp. one where we share public resources and institutions).

There are so many factors to consider, other than DNA.

These have been considered. For decades. That's why heritability (genetic portion) is estimated at 80% in western countries (yes, for all races)

you won't see a significant gap in intelligence in mixed-race children:

Racial gaps are smaller in childhood and heritability is lower. This is the Wilson effect, which has been known for 50 years

It's extremely low-effort to conduct a google search and rage post a bunch of shitty left-leaning links that you've never read and give no context to. Foxy already took a shot at some of these and some are duplicates so I'll only respond to a few (or you can actually put these in context)

Eyferth_study

Ahh a classic study and one of my favorite egalitarian copes. Lots of problems with it

First, the US Army (and almost certainly the french army, don't know for sure) employed IQ tests in WWI. 90 was the minimum for the US, so already with blacks at mean 85 we are getting an "elite" sample of blacks as fathers. So, offspring IQ will be higher than what we would typically assume. Second, the mean age of the children in this study is 10, and we already discussed the Wilson effect, so this is inappropriate to extrapolate onto the adult population. Third, the most strikingly anomalous thing about this study is the inexplicably low IQ of the white girls in the study (93?) which of course, is the singular category where mixed-race children did better. Also, the mixed race children all score below 100, so the eyferth results don't even deviate significantly from the hereditarian hypothesis.

Actually, I think I'm done here. Google searches? Qoura? DailyMail? Come on.

You strike me as a "true believer" - someone who literally takes anything the system has presented to them - whether its a "fact" or a moral foundation - as "true", and everything else is like heresy, or a sin. Therefore, it must be wrong.

It's obvious you don't know a lot about intelligence testing, and we have seen copes on this topic hundreds of times. Here's a post I made that you can check out to start

If you really want to discuss these links, then actually read them and present them in a post in context (notice how I do that with all of my links)

[–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Did you read any of the links you posted? Because I doubt it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3146070/Mixed-race-relationships-making-taller-smarter-Children-born-genetically-diverse-parents-intelligent-ancestors.html

https://www.quora.com/Are-children-of-mixed-races-more-intelligent-than-those-of-a-homogeneous-gene-pool

These refer to the same study posted by OP. He even posted the same Dailymail article as you did.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjEtN3ag8_xAhXH_rsIHf1xDo4QFnoECAgQAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mdpi.com%2F2624-8611%2F1%2F1%2F10%2Fpdf&usg=AOvVaw2zAAsMctM881I9zjw5U71L

The sample size for the black-Japanese group was 6. Yes, N=6.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyferth_study

The section on hereditarian interpretation is a good summary of why this paper is essentially useless. However I would add this article by AltHype. In short, Eyferth study supports hereditarian explanation more than the environmentalist one.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/multi-racial-adolescents-show-no-test-score-gap-with-whites/

Problem with this is that they don't specify what kind of multiracial we are talking about. Because hapas score higher than mulattoes. And slightly higher than whites so this wouldn't be surprising. And considering that most black-white people identify as black rather than multiracial I would say we are looking at the test scores of hapas.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100414092523.htm

This study consists of a psychology professor having his class of 20 (twenty) white psychology students rate faces of people he pulled form Facebook. To his great satisfaction he found that mixed race people are rated as the most attractive. Unfortunately, data from dating websites with N= 500,000 reveal that whites prefer rate own race to be most attractive indicating strongly non-representative sample of his raters. This guy is quite funny though. He made similar study one year later this time with 40 students again finding to his satisfaction that mixed race people are most attractive! What a great news.

The rest has nothing to do with anything. I tried to find some pattern there but you're all over the place. There is one butthurt reply to Bell Curve from 1995, one study about intelligence of infants, article on James Watson, a paper about Hans Eysenck which argues for hereditarianism btw and one paywalled New Yorker article.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

This is a lot of work to cherry pick examples from those sources that nonetheless do not help locate significant gaps in differences between so-called one-race people and multi-race people (which are more common than white supremacists seem to understand, among their numerous misunderstandings).

See also my original note:

you won't see a significant gap in intelligence in mixed-race children

[–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Ahh okay, but that's false. Mixed race people have IQ that is intermediate between IQs of their parents.

https://files.catbox.moe/ip9dax.png

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

So you're going to quote one of the most famous supporters of eugenics?

Perhaps you know this already about Richard Lynn, and perhaps agree with him, but what he and others in the journal Mankind Quarterly have done is re-establish a following for the kind of scientific racism last seen in the 19th century and early 20th century. Not only do they give you false information like - "Mixed race people have IQ that is intermediate between IQs of their parents" (which is not how genetic traits are passed on) - they also cherry-pick aspects of their studies that will support narrow interpretations of their white supremacist arguments. Consider why ~99% of academics - and much of the public - do not agree with these assholes, or with eugenics. Consider also all of the other factors that one would use to assess intelligence, attractiveness, health, height, competitiveness, the nature/nurture argument, &c. I suppose it's good that Richard Lynn had the academic freedom to conduct eugenics research, but he should also be required to retract claims that were not the result of the usual scientific scrutiny, and that have been proven innaccurate, misleading, and wrong.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Socks what is the point of having the discussion about this if you simply dismiss scientists who come to racial realist and hereditarian conclusions as racist out of hand? You have to be honest and say that no matter the truth of these claims people who make them are going to be called names because egalitarianism is the dominant ideology. It's like dismissing anyone who is critical of Jews and their arguments because other people have called them an 'anti-semite'. Well of course people have called them that anyone who says things critical of Jews will be called that just as any scientist who advances racial realism will be called a 'racist' or a 'eugenicist'or something.

Also at least 'foxy' took the time to explain the tests and didn't just merely dismiss them all as the work of egalitarian ideologues.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Points well-taken, though I do try to offer serious responses that appreciate the potential value of the other resources. I noted in one of my responses, for example, that:

"I suppose it's good that Richard Lynn had the academic freedom to conduct eugenics research..."

One reason I note this is that Lynn did not find substantial variances in IQ, which helps with arguments on both sides. He pushed nontheless an old-fashioned racist narrative wherein he tried to claim that "hybrid" people are dumber than those who aren't hybrid. His evidence for this is not significant or well-founded. I am afraid I don't have much nice to say about this kind misleading approach. But I'll keep in mind this balancing of arguments that you mention. I should mention perhaps that most responses to me tend to be polarized and unbalanced, though that's no excuse.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Shut up and stop race mixing lmao

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Says the racist who white supremacists refer to you as sub-human and should go back to your own country, and back home, you're a dalit ban chod

[–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh goodie. We have poisoning the well, appeal to authority, appeal to popularity all in single comment. All this due to a screenshot of studies from Lynn's book. Studies that weren't even made by Lynn. Amazin'

[–]Yin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You dismiss James Watson of all people with the term "racist asshole", like an emotional redditor, and then reply with subversive NYT opinion anti-scientific propaganda as if that's going to impress anyone who's sane, as if that invalidates Watson's factual statements. Humorous.