Woah

I understand all of your first part, I’m questioning it’s relevance in the argument. As for them being junk genes, it is stated in the beginning that they are known to ”increase intelligence with genome-wide significance”. When I say I have too little knowledge of the specific genes I am talking about the nitty gritty and intricacies of what that would look like. The sources are stated in the bottom if you wish to confirm it for yourself

keep on shifting those goal posts all you want, intelligence, heritability and race have been pretty open and shut for a while now

>known to increase intelligence with genome-wide significance
This is a statement made by the paper that is supported by the paper itself, my argument is questioning the significance of the evidence that this paper and papers like this present for the statement.

The statement is made in the paper, yes. However, it uses the first reference to back up the claim

yes blah blah blah... ignore reality more faggot.

The pastebin containing the related information was removed, lmao
archive.is/IUDcy

Coincidence, of course

Reality Denial

Also someone else going through the data got stuff to show
pastebin.com/h6Lr1dm4
archive.is/KZoPl

So we only know the genes that correlate intelligence in euros but nine if the ones in africans? Sane with height, the genes fir it in one population nay not be the same. in others.

Why the fuck are europeans bring used as the basis?

thank you for a non-retard-tier post

Nigger detected

Jow Forumstard detected

>references
>genetics as a predictor of outcomes
>still haven't defined the genes and how they translate to IQ

Let's say society was 100% undeniably racist against blacks. The gene for dark skin would now be an extremely good predictor of bad outcomes, with a very strong correlation. The race/gene connection would be very solid, no matter what the capabilities of the people actually were.

This methodology is flawed.

Shut up, nigger

>The gene for dark skin would now be an extremely good predictor of bad outcomes
would be?

So you admit you're making conclusion about cognition based purely on genes for skin tone. Thank you for that.

It's a good predictor, machine learning would catch on that pretty easily

NOOO NO NONO
THIS IS SCIENCE
YOU CAN'T CHERRY PICK YOU SHIT EATING TRANNY'S

>begging the question = hypothesizing
that's not the scientific method m8

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929717301076
>We demonstrate that scores inferred from European GWASs are biased by genetic drift in other populations even when choosing the same causal variants and that biases in any direction are possible and unpredictable. This work cautions that summarizing findings from large-scale GWASs may have limited portability to other populations using standard approaches and highlights the need for generalized risk prediction methods and the inclusion of more diverse individuals in medical genomics.
>For example, although the height summary statistics show the expected southern/northern cline of increasing European height (FIN, CEU, and GBR populations have significantly higher polygenic risk scores than IBS and TSI, p = 1.5 × 10−75, Figure S9A), polygenic scores for height across super populations show biased predictions; the African populations sampled are genetically predicted to be considerably shorter than all Europeans and minimally taller than East Asians (Figure 4A), which contradicts empirical observations (with the exception of some indigenous pygmy/pygmoid populations).
tldr; this type of analysis isn't portable across populations. e.g., if we found the genes for intelligence in africans, europeans might come up with a lower predicted intelligence even though i'm sure you'd agree that's definitely not true.

i'm upset they moved this thread to Jow Forums considering you were just about to get BTFO by facts and logic but oh well.

Attached: nonportable.jpg (2237x2234, 498K)

HAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
NIGGERS ARE DUMBAND JEWS ARE BTFO

See if it's not too many words for you...

JF is talking about it right now. youtube.com/watch?v=PflO4oUByjw

>e.g., if we found the genes for intelligence in africans, europeans might come up with a lower predicted intelligence
this would be true if the genes taken into consideration were predicting only for a positive value, which is not the case in the paper

lmao

>i'm upset they moved this thread to Jow Forums considering you were just about to get BTFO by facts and logic but oh well.
This. Threads like this actually belong in /sci/ so that they can be BTFO by people who actually know what they're talking about, but instead it has been put back into the echo chamber with the intellectual niggers of Jow Forums (poltards) will call everyone who disagrees with it a nigger who's in denial, instead of actually having an intelligent discussion about the topic

find a single factor correlated with intelligence that meets the following criteria
1. is not genetic
2. does not capitalize on genetics.
and i'll believe the claim that intelligence is not genetic.

Attached: 1502333500017.jpg (512x512, 22K)

YAH NIGGERS ARE GENETICALLY DUMB
AS ARE ALL YOUR YEARS WASTED AT AN INDOCTRINATION FACILITY

That doesn't make the results any more accurate. Think about it. You can be missing both positive and negative effects, in either direction.
Notice that the African population has the least schizophrenia predicted, even though we know empirically that rates don't differ significantly. Thus, the genes associated with schizophrenia, which is mental in nature, are not the same between africans, asians, and europeans.
Please understand I'm not saying that races are equal or anything. Just presenting evidence that shows OP's analysis doesn't show anything even close to conclusive.

Education funding

Fucking idiot honestly why do you even ask this question when anyone even remotely up to date on modern US politics knows this? You're just posing confidently in your ignorance and your echo chamber congratulates it, and you think you aren't a retard but you are

Slit your throat

Honestly why was this moved?
What does this have to do with politics?

>resorting to name calling
>not proving him wrong with evidence
What an intellectual you are

your worthless mods are chickenshit kikes, get the fuck out

>a single factor
That's not even hard nigger. If you happened to grow up in Flint, MI, cooking cleaning and showering with leadwater every day, lead exposure is known to cause brain damage, and that's negatively correlated with intelligence.

Other random examples
Moleti Mariacarla, Trimarchi Francesco, et. al. Thyroid. February 2016, 26(2): 296-305. doi.org/10.1089/thy.2015.0336
>Overall, the prevalence of borderline or defective cognitive function was more than threefold higher in the children of mothers not using iodized salt than of those mothers using it (76.9% vs. 23.1%, odds ratio 7.667 [CI 2.365–24.856], χ2=12.65; p=0.0001).

Yousafzai, Aisha K et al. Effects of responsive stimulation and nutrition interventions on children's development and growth at age 4 years in a disadvantaged population in Pakistan: a longitudinal follow-up of a cluster-randomised factorial effectiveness trial. The Lancet Global Health , Volume 4 , Issue 8 , e548 - e558 dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30100-0
>1302 mother–child dyads were re-enrolled between Jan 1, 2013, and March 31, 2013, all of whom were followed up at 4 years of age. Children who received responsive stimulation (with or without enhanced nutrition) had significantly higher cognition, language, and motor skills at 4 years of age than children who did not receive responsive stimulation.

Pic related is an image showing the Korean-Japanese IQ and achievement gap in Japan. Are they just that genetically different, or is something else at work?

Yeah, i'm likely wasting my time here.

Attached: g-genetic.png (551x368, 157K)

Who's mods?
I'm not from /sci/ you retarded leaf

of course it has been put in the echo chamber. cant have you knowing the truth. The jews know that equality is a lie too. they don't give a single fuck that you disagree that the study proves this or that, all they care about is keeping us from moving one step further. so isolation from scientific critique is a must.

What you see as BTFO I and they see simply as grinding the blade that much sharper

Koreans and Japanese are quite genetically different, are you trying to imply otherwise?

Genetics gives us the baseline to work within. Environment tweaks it as best as it can. There is only so much that can be done for a 70-90 IQ individual. They are somewhat limited by genetics, no matter how good the environment is.

You can take a tiger out of the jungle, but you cannot take the jungle out of the tiger.

It's better this way. Internet arguments always boil down to whoever is the most autistic. The racists always win there.

It helps that you can never actually argue their points and just resort to name calling

How would you propose a better methodology? This only seems logical. Outliers in IQ are bound to have the strongest representation genetically if it is genetic at all. Otherwise there should be few to no significant correlations for genes which are involved in neural development.

Sorry I didn't realize that having sewage contaiminated with being poured on your head has nothing to do with genetic intelligence starting factors. Please explain to me why black people who shower less often are not therefore smarter?

Wow. /sci/ mods really are niggers. It is a good thread for Jow Forums.... but this would be a good thread for /sci/ too.

Attached: 1535080174653.jpg (640x640, 66K)

You mean jews. mods are jews

t. nigger

More likely just triggered leftists who would rather shove their head in the sand than discuss this topic

Quick rundown?

Niggers r dum

Europeans are smarter than niggers because genes.

youtu.be/PflO4oUByjw?t=1714
starts at: 28:34

Data:
researchgate.net/publication/326558971_Gene_discovery_and_polygenic_prediction_from_a_genome-wide_association_study_of_educational_attainment_in_11_million_individuals
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/variation/tools/1000genomes/

Attached: 684354845.png (1895x645, 304K)

Was we kangz?

Attached: 1529870773309.jpg (960x800, 40K)

>Woah

Comparing Europeans to Africans is like comparing Europeans to dogs or wildebeest.

What is the point of comparing humans to animals?

It's indirectly related. The idea is that with """"scientific proof"""" that shitskins are subhuman, we can justify exclusion and subjugation.

The other interesting point about the Korean-Japanese IQ/achievement gap is that studies of Asian IQ conducted here in America didn't show any such gap. I guess their significant genetic IQ differences instantly disappear when you take them both and put them in the US?
At any rate, I'm glad to see you don't have any issues with the other three examples.

You didn't understand his post. The lack of those alleles in Africans means very little if anything at all. See >There is only so much that can be done for a 70-90 IQ individual
True, but it's impossible to predict based on race who has such an IQ.
Jelte M. Wicherts, Conor V. Dolan, Han L.J. van der Maas, The dangers of unsystematic selection methods and the representativeness of 46 samples of African test-takers, Intelligence, Volume 38, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 30-37, ISSN 0160-2896, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.11.003
>In light of all the available IQ data of over 37,000 African test-takers, only the use of unsystematic methods to exclude the vast majority of data could result in a mean IQ close to 70.
Pic related shows the strongest predictor of whether Richard Lynn would accept a study as representative of African IQ for his seminal work in the field. Lynn often contradicted his own methodology and used a lot of suspect data, e.g. IQ samples from a malaria hospital (malaria is known to cause brain damage in ~50% of victims), psychology exams given as proxies for IQ tests, etc. The most important factor: whether or not the IQ data point would support his agenda.

Attached: lynn.jpg (587x293, 39K)

Never mind, i understand, thank you for your time. Its true if there were any environmental factors that hurt gene expression, then the gene would be massively underrepresented if we use the 'expression data'.

Seems like the only way to do this test would be to take as many variables we know to affect neural development favorably. Ensure a group is totally and completely similar on these levels to the best of our ability. Then contrast the genes and check for significance with scores.

This is a problem though. You have to ensure the tests were administered correctly and the development is mostly the same. I think this kind of test may only be possible in the scandanavian countries where nation wide IQ tests have been done and you can probably set up criterion to exclude persons.

>True, but it's impossible to predict based on race who has such an IQ
You don't have to look at race. Look at the parents. If "intelligence" is related to genetics, one can only think that short of a mutation, you will only be as capable as your progenitors.

>Italians and Brits
This has to be real, I remember hearing the two compared in some data in another thread

>implying the /sci/ mods wouldn't ban anyone agreeing with OP's study and move the thread here anyways

Attached: retarded.jpg (360x240, 21K)

bump

The “genes for dark skin” are not the same as the lack of the “genes for intelligence”

if populations from an isolated continent (subsaharn africa) have one and don’t have the other, it’s just a helpful classifier.

Doesn’t mean it’s right, but could lead to tests with gene therapy they introduce the “intelligence” (not the skin color) genes to the African population and study the effects on a generation of participants. Maybe the genes make no difference in the face of “rouge ice effects”. why are you against science?

>The lack of those alleles in Africans means very little if anything at all.
you're saying genetic drift is so significant that it can account for the majority of the 40% difference discovered between these genes for brits and africans in OP's post?

Not being facetious i study this field but as a hobby and while aware of the contradictions i do not know it all in the necessary detail.

That part is not bad, but can be easily refuted.
The genes in question were footnoted in the 2015 study underlining genes which are most prominent in the most performant brain areas.
And once you factor in that grey matter's functionality is proportional to density and is actually just surface area mishmashed exponentially, then invariably the most present genes in particular parts of a brain account for more of it's functionality.
In the real world 1% may have 99% but in the cerebral world 1% is 1%

>education funding
oh you mean something that affects genetics by capitalizing on a persons genes through neural development?

>Yes, but what is "intelligence"? Such reification of human capabilities into a statistic such as "g" is merely an artificial limitation on human beings and an attempt to reinforce tired old structures of hierarchy and oppression!

Fuck off Steven Jay Gould

funny how correlating intelligence and race is bad but correlating a lack of intelligence and political opponents is good. its almost as if these idiots pretend to have more integrity for the benefits it brings.