Studies that show that race mixing is a bad thing?

submitted by [deleted] from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
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 -  (12 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 -  (11 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 -  (10 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

[–]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'