How to counter the "I love science!" crowd

We've known this for a while now, but liberals and leftists seem to be getting more and more obnoxious about their "I love science!"/rick and morty shit. A good way to counter this would probably be to make a list of maybe 10-20 scientific "hate" facts about race, genes, IQ, the impact of diversity in the workplace and elsewhere, trannies, etc. to send to lefties alongside a "you're a science denier!" message.

For example, despite the "muh phrenology" argument by libshits, brain scans can actually serve as an excellent method to determine someone's genetic ancestry.

cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)00671-5

What other studies and "hate facts" can be used to counter lefty science-worshipping?

Other urls found in this thread:

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www2.itif.org/2016-demographics-of-innovation.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjDqeCA0r7WAhXBsVQKHVPoAEcQFggsMAE&usg=AFQjCNEl3cuqVOUjK4Pj8FvEEJi63wnGWw
eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ630383
psyarxiv.com/qty3n/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4002017/
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/neu.10160/abstract
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180234/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
sci-hub.io/10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0049837
scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/2-3/203.full.pdf html
eml.berkeley.edu/~ygorodni/gorrol_culture.pdf
news.stanford.edu/news/2005/february9/med-race-02-09-05.html
bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-11-16
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032687
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-009-9193-7
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22784455
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jopy.12055/abstract
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797610387439
researchgate.net/publication/269411439_The_Genetic_and_Environmental_Roots_of_Negativity_toward_Foreign_Nationals
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550613504967
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550617699250
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00461.x/abstract
arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1308/1308.5257.pdf
m.pnas.org/content/111/22/7996
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616301854
pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC3775670/
researchgate.net/publication/312166557_Genetic_evidence_of_assortative_mating_in_humans
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3775670/#!po=56.5574
takepart.com/article/2014/08/28/75-percent-white-people-have-no-nonwhite-friends
pewsocialtrends.org/2015/06/11/chapter-5-race-and-social-connections-friends-family-and-neighborhoods/#race-marriage-and-intermarriage
prri.org/research/poll-race-religion-politics-americans-social-networks/
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167211402094
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01574.x
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167217722556?journalCode=pspc
jstor.org/stable/4120863?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/genetic-influences-on-measures-of-the-environment-a-systematic-review/76ECA7D8F0F92906DBB2AAFBED720F0C
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914005248
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1914335/
cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-biosocial-science/article/spearmans-hypothesis-tested-comparing-saudi-arabian-children-and-adolescents-with-various-other-groups-of-children-and-adolescents-on-the-items-of-the-standard-progressive-matrices/7A56E8BC03414A3918E6F855C6262C0D
researchgate.net/publication/223041017_Spearman's_hypothesis_tested_with_chronometric_information-processing_tasks
researchgate.net/publication/318093048_Testing_Spearman's_hypothesis_with_alternative_intelligence_tests_A_meta-analysis
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289615000549
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.397.4354&rep=rep1&type=pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjZqb3N6qXVAhWqrVQKHVnrDYgQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNGna2jcmYzp0iEX7TgrktB3pTZJCw
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000226
researchgate.net/publication/265090206_The_correlation_between_g_loadings_and_heritability_in_Japan_A_meta-analysis
link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1016021128949?LI=true
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00045.x
philipperushton.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Genetic-and-Environmental-Contributions-to-Population-Group-Differences-on-the-Ravens-Progressive-Matrices-Estimated-from-Twins-Reared-Together-and-Apart-2007-by-John-Philippe-Rushton-Trudy-Ann-Bons-Philip-A.-Vernon-Jelena-Čv.pdf
researchgate.net/publication/256079484_No_evidence_of_racial_discrimination_in_criminal_justice_processing_Results_from_the_National_Longitudinal_Study_of_Adolescent_Health
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p2581.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi0t-6nne3UAhXowVQKHcl8DUQQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNFrorEMV2sasUPcNwymrT6ujM-xbA
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi67cyftO3UAhWkgVQKHSyWDDgQFggiMAE&usg=AFQjCNFVCKr-8_JJs1DGmS-R-A9tcdX3GQ
census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/15/crime-rises-among-second-generation-immigrants-as-they-assimilate/
nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Demographics
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12552-016-9164-y
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4097310/#!po=20.0935
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4180846/
academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article/3859745/Neighborhood-Influences-on-Violent-Reoffending
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886915000987
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20174022/pdf/20174022.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiOgKSbi-nUAhUmwFQKHbPkADoQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNFVC9GMttZoCNx6X3eitdrP7Ly-Jw
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961500135X
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000932
researchgate.net/publication/298807078_Does_the_raising_IQ-raising_g_distinction_explain_the_fadeout_effect
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606000778
psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/51/5/573/
m.pnas.org/content/early/2017/06/13/1620603114.abstract
smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-replicated-100-psychology-studies-and-fewer-half-got-same-results-180956426/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
archive.is/loE7x
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
libraryofhate.com/
heartiste.wordpress.com/diversity-proximity-war-the-reference-list/
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2003.124/full
archive.is/3fRPJ
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608016302072
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2292426/
straighttalkonevidence.org/2017/09/22/disappointing-findings-on-conditional-cash-transfers-as-a-tool-to-break-the-poverty-cycle-in-the-united-states
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022343313512853
jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
nber.org/papers/w21515#fromrss
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606001127
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.hucama.se/uploads/1/6/5/0/16501994/g-factor_intellligence_1998.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj6rIvYrvHWAhXqzFQKHZ0vBmIQFgg8MAM&usg=AOvVaw1xztWGvO_25qCj2G81eSGt
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0041783
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961500077X
m.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051112002761
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2012.02099.x/abstract
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886911002418
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The-g-factor-the-science-of-mental-ability-Arthur-R.-Jensen.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwifjtORsfHWAhUhh1QKHc_HCmAQFgh-MBQ&usg=AOvVaw1-hx8UjtKCdO3kY_7Jv8Tr
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886913001827
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/09/study-on-twins-suggests-our-political-beliefs-may-be-hard-wired/
humancond.org/analysis/nature/behavioral_genetics
www18.homepage.villanova.edu/diego.fernandezduque/Teaching/PhysiologicalPsychology/zCurrDir4200/CurrDirGeneticsTraits.pdf
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://fowler.ucsd.edu/linking_genes_and_political_orientations.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj5gayAqZ3UAhXFy1QKHd0iAxoQFggiMAE&usg=AFQjCNHFWkAFWljhmE6FGbJZjDiuS8g3Jw&sig2=C9xeEcKjC0S4-cznVsCamA
pol.gu.se/digitalAssets/1317/1317434_political-orientations-100927.pdf
emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Heritability-Assortative-Mating-and-Gender-Differences-in-Violent-Crime-Results-from-a-Total-Population-Sample-Using-Twin-Adoption-and-Sibling-Models.pdf
helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/38881/HECER_DP364.pdf
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2923822/
nature.com/ng/journal/v47/n7/abs/ng.3285.html
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3723334
ghostbin.com/paste/ozu8r
realkittenman.com/library-of-hate/
online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115040765329081636-T5DQ4jvnwqOdVvsP_XSVG_lvgik_20060628.html?mod=blogs
emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The-g-factor-the-science-of-mental-ability-Arthur-R.-Jensen.pdf
emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/J.-Philippe-Rushton-Arthur-R.-Jensen-THIRTY-YEARS-OF-RESEARCH-ON-RACE-DIFFERENCES-IN-COGNITIVE-ABILITY.pdf
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17415783
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616300629
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961630318X
psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/are-the-wealthiest-countries-the-smartest-countries.html#.WQIZG8tlDqA
nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2012/pisa2012highlights_5e_1.asp
businessinsider.com/pisa-worldwide-ranking-of-math-science-reading-skills-2016-12
jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html
nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/gaps/
nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php/id-7248606.html?ss
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23358157
biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/07/07/160291
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/empreportsupward20intergen20mobility2008530pdf.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiZ2NCipdrVAhXEwVQKHdQXB28QFggoMAA&usg=AFQjCNHrfiAmDwzTJ58PILRh61MvpyMY6g
fivethirtyeight.com/features/race-gap-narrows-in-college-enrollment-but-not-in-graduation/
people-press.org/2015/11/23/2-general-opinions-about-the-federal-government/
archive.is/i81rq
heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/h1b10min.html
isidewith.com/poll/410509290
gallup.com/poll/163895/say-essential-immigrants-learn-english.aspx
canada.isidewith.com/poll/410509290
nifty.stanford.edu/2014/mccown-schelling-model-segregation/
gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx
phys.org/news/2014-10-minority-whites-declining-diversity-psychology.html
guilfordjournals.com/doi/10.1521/soco.2016.34.6.544
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/28/cnn-poll-melting-pot-weakening-country/?fbid=_rInOlRnr2I
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi81euH2PLWAhVmsVQKHbQoCGEQFggwMAI&usg=AOvVaw3_h1IRIY8NQbkvXiG6p2Rf
time.com/67092/baby-racists-survival-strategy/
telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10770563/Babies-show-racial-bias-study-finds.html
seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/04/16/study-babies-show-racial-bias/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4592074/
atsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1164/ajrccm-conference.2016.193.1_MeetingAbstracts.A1036
phys.org/news/2016-08-bias-disgust-mixed-race-couples.html
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606000171
researchgate.net/publication/242788087_SAT_and_ACT_predict_college_GPA_after_removing_g
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028960600078X
philipperushton.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/No-Narrowing-in-Mean-Black-White-IQ-Differences-Predicted-by-Heritable-g-2012-by-John-Philippe-Rushton.pdf
philipperushton.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/The-Totality-of-Available-Evidence-Shows-the-Race-IQ-Gap-Still-Remains-2006-by-John-Philippe-Rushton-Arthur-Robert-Jensen.pdf
researchgate.net/publication/222646687_The_rise_and_fall_of_the_Flynn_Effect_as_a_reason_to_expect_a_narrowing_of_the_Black-White_IQ_gap
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00094.x/abstract
nature.com/mp/journal/v20/n1/full/mp2014105a.html
m.pnas.org/content/113/1/206.full
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0160289688900293
psyarxiv.com/yurbx
researchgate.net/publication/234022034_Demography_and_Diversity_in_Organizations_A_Review_of_40_Years_of_Research
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smj.633/abstract
link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1020815420693
nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12886.html
anepigone.blogspot.com/2015/12/among-whites-conservative-liberal.html
realclimatescience.com/
retractionwatch.com/2016/06/23/engineering-paper-pulled-for-peer-review-problems-authors-object/
archive.is/V5blr
notrickszone.com/2017/10/23/400-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/
snopes.com/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16084184/
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0045592
laraj.ca/AGwiki/uploads/Contemporary/IronmarchOriginals/Zeiger - Hammer of the Patriot.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegony_(pregnancy)
libraryofhate.wordpress.com/
archive.is/LRe05
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Oh right, another good one would probably be that Europeans were the first Native Americans, and that most of the Indians actually died of diseases from seals and sealions, and not from European settlers (although the media still tried to blame Europeans for it).

Are you looking for population genetics strictly or statistics? I'll post a bit of both.
Basic statistics:
The Demographics of Innovation in the United States (2016). See page 26 and 27 for inventors by race.
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www2.itif.org/2016-demographics-of-innovation.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjDqeCA0r7WAhXBsVQKHVPoAEcQFggsMAE&usg=AFQjCNEl3cuqVOUjK4Pj8FvEEJi63wnGWw

Nyborg and Jensen, that when g scores are controlled for in both Black and White samples, labor market gaps are too non-existent
eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ630383

Meritocracy, not racial discrimination, explains the racial income gap: An analysis of NLSY79
psyarxiv.com/qty3n/

g is .86 heritable, with unique environment accounting for .14 of the variance.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4002017/

Shared environment falls to .0 in adulthood in regards to IQ.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/neu.10160/abstract

Populations can be clustered by GCTA:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180234/

"Whites", "Blacks", "Hispanics" and "East Asians" all cluster into different groups and self identified race is accurate.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

Measuring SNPs, observed heterozygosity in humans is 0.776 to 0.558 in contrast to dogs and chimpanzees, respectively at 0.401 and 0.73 to 0.63.
sci-hub.io/10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046
Michael Woodley 2009 – Is Homo Sapiens Polytypic

Fst value of humans is 12%
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0049837

°Researchers have found that population differences in gene variants associated with increased social sensitivity, a key feature of a collectivist culture, also predict population differences in individualism:
scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/2-3/203.full.pdf html
Gordonichenko and Ronald (2012) confirmed that the more genetically distant a population is from the United Kingdom, the second most individualistic country in the world, the more collectivist they tend to be:
eml.berkeley.edu/~ygorodni/gorrol_culture.pdf

Self reported race is 99% accurate:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
news.stanford.edu/news/2005/february9/med-race-02-09-05.html

°Neurology differences: Several genes associated with brain development show higher levels of population (race) differentiation than genes associated with skin pigmentation:
bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-11-16

GWAS study on basic difference between races, i.e. skin, hair, organs, bones, immune system, etc.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032687

Explains why races will never overlap in population clustering using binomial probability.
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-009-9193-7

A bunch of studies I read about the heritablity of ingroup favoritism and racial preference. Heritability ranges from .18 to .5 with the only environmental variance being in unique environment (so no lel your racist because of your parents meme, basically).

Nature, nurture, and ethnocentrism in the Minnesota Twin Study
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22784455

Common Heritable Effects Underpin Concerns Over Norm Maintenance and In-Group Favoritism: Evidence From Genetic Analyses of Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Traditionalism
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jopy.12055/abstract

Genetic evidence for multiple biological mechanisms underlying in-group favoritism
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797610387439

The Genetic and Environmental Roots of Negativity toward Foreign Nationals
researchgate.net/publication/269411439_The_Genetic_and_Environmental_Roots_of_Negativity_toward_Foreign_Nationals

Distinct Heritable Influences Underpin In-Group Love and Out
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550613504967

The Temporal Stability of In-Group Favoritism Is Mostly Attributable to Genetic Factors
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550617699250

Not by Twins Alone: Using the Extended Family Design to Investigate Genetic Influence on Political Beliefs
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00461.x/abstract

ALSO, protip. Use Sci-Hub to get around paywalls.

By the way, I'm only posting studies I have personally read, so don't worry, everyone, they're sound works.

Bunch of studies using SNPs and GWAS to prove that humans assertivly mate.

Friends more genetically similar using SNPs
arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1308/1308.5257.pdf

Assertive mating using SNPs
m.pnas.org/content/111/22/7996

Assertive mating in education, U.K.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616301854

More assertive mating
pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC3775670/

Even more assertive mating
researchgate.net/publication/312166557_Genetic_evidence_of_assortative_mating_in_humans

Sebro, R., Hoffman, T. J., Lange, C., Rogus, J. J., & Risch, N. J. (2010). Testing for non‐random mating: evidence for ancestry‐related assortative mating in the Framingham heart study. Genetic epidemiology, 34(7), 674-679
(Small N (33), but authors say it was plenty enough for a strong correlation)
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3775670/#!po=56.5574

That wasn't very ethical or was it?

75 Percent of White People Don’t Have Any Nonwhite Friends
takepart.com/article/2014/08/28/75-percent-white-people-have-no-nonwhite-friends

“Among adults who are white with no other race in their background, fully 81% say that all or most of their close friends are white. Among single-race blacks, 70% say that all or most of their close friends are black. And among single-race Asians, 54% say all or most of their close friends are Asian.”
pewsocialtrends.org/2015/06/11/chapter-5-race-and-social-connections-friends-family-and-neighborhoods/#race-marriage-and-intermarriage

White American's social networks are 91% composed of members of their own race:
prri.org/research/poll-race-religion-politics-americans-social-networks/

Birds of a Feather Sit Together: Physical Similarity Predicts Seating Choice
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167211402094

Friends are the same age, sex and race: Applied Child Study: A Developmental Approach, p. 207
books.google.com/books?id=Qi55AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=friends are physically similar "race"&source=bl&ots=WBAGNyrEo6&sig=8afBcbruNQUYJ3eJH3WdfXcAMYo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRh9-R5qrWAhUixFQKHYhoDcQQ6AEILDAC#v=onepage&q=friends are physically similar "race"&f=false

Mate Choice and Friendship in Twins:
Evidence for Genetic Similarity
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01574.x

The Faces of Group Members Share Physical Resemblance
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167217722556?journalCode=pspc

Using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (or Add Health), a nationally representative sample of adolescents in 1994-1995, we examine if and how friendship activities differ among interracial, interethnic. and intraethnic friendships of white, black, Hispanic, and Asian youths. We find that best friends are more likely than higher-order friends to be from the same ethnic group and that best friends report more shared activities during the past week than do their higher-order friendship counterparts. Hence, we argue that shared activities is a useful indicator of friendship intimacy. In general, interracial friends report fewer shared activities than do intraracial friends, although this difference is strongest for white respondents. Moreover, we find that white, Asian, and Hispanic youths all report fewer activities with their black friends. We find little difference in friendship activities between interethnic and intraethnic friendships. Our findings suggest that. even when youths manage to break racial boundaries in friendship selection, these friendships face greater challenges than do those between individuals of the same race.
jstor.org/stable/4120863?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

By the way, what environment you grow up in is highly heritable. Environment isn't all that cracked up on what it's suppose to be.
The heritability of environment
cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/genetic-influences-on-measures-of-the-environment-a-systematic-review/76ECA7D8F0F92906DBB2AAFBED720F0C

By the way, if you guys don't know the difference between g and IQ, I suggest you read Aurther Jensen's The G-Factor. If you don't know what g is, this will sound stupid to you, BUT! we don't care about IQ, we care about g.

Are adoption gains in g?
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914005248

Spearman's hypothesis using Raven's Progressive Matrices showing that even without subtest, group differences are on g, by Rushton
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1914335/

Spearman's hypothesis using Standard Progressive Matrices showing that even without subtest, group differences are on g, by JAN TE NIJENHUIS et al.
cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-biosocial-science/article/spearmans-hypothesis-tested-comparing-saudi-arabian-children-and-adolescents-with-various-other-groups-of-children-and-adolescents-on-the-items-of-the-standard-progressive-matrices/7A56E8BC03414A3918E6F855C6262C0D

Spearman's hypothesis using reaction time corralated to g on the Raven's Progressive Matrices test by Aurther Jensen
researchgate.net/publication/223041017_Spearman's_hypothesis_tested_with_chronometric_information-processing_tasks

Spearman's hypothesis states that differences between groups on subtests of an IQ battery are a function of the g loadings of these subtests. We examined Spearman's hypothesis in alternative tests of intelligence. We compared various groups. We carried out a meta-analysis based on 20 data points and a total of 8,322 Whites and 2,507 minority group members. Spearman's hypothesis was strongly confirmed with a mean r of .62. We conclude that group differences are to the same degree a function of g when they are measured with traditional test batteries as when they are measured using alternative test batteries.
researchgate.net/publication/318093048_Testing_Spearman's_hypothesis_with_alternative_intelligence_tests_A_meta-analysis

That first link is an interesting study, user. It goes to show you that immigration from outside of Europe (or whites from the rest the world) really isn't necessary.

Yeah it is. Make sure to read my little notes because I'm kinda half ass explaing stuff as I go.

By the way, Flynn Effect is not important and it's not g-loaded.

Abstract
Spearman's hypothesis (SH) is a phrase coined by Arthur Jensen, which posits that the size of Black–White mean differences across a group of diverse mental tests is a positive function of each test's loading onto the general intelligence (g) factor. Initially, a correlated vector (CV) approach was used to examine SH, where the results typically confirmed that the magnitude of g loadings were positively correlated with the size of mean group differences in the observed test scores. The CV approach has been heavily criticized by scholars who have argued that a more precise method for examining SH can be better investigated using a multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MG-CFA). Studies of SH using MG-CFA have been much more equivocal, with results not clearly confirming nor disconfirming SH.
In the current study, we argue that a better method for extracting g in both the CV and MG-CFA approaches is to use a bi-factor model. Because non-g factors extracted from a bi-factor approach are independent of g, the bi-factor model allows for a robust examination of the influence of g and non-gfactors on group differences on mental test scores. Using co-normed standardization data from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition and the Wechsler Memory Scale-Fourth Edition, we examined SH using both CV and MG-CFA procedures. We found support for the weak form (.60) of SH in both methods, which suggests that both g and non-g factors were involved in the observed mean score differences between Black and White adults.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289615000549


Flynn admits that the Black/White IQ gap is g-loaded and the Flynn Effect is a separate issue: "The results appear to me correct: the magnitude of white/black IQ differences on Wechsler subtests at any given time is correlated with the g loadings of the subtests; the magnitude of IQ gains over time on subtests is not usually so correlated; the causes of the two phenomena are not the same. I have acknowledged this many times (Flynn, 2008, p. 79; 2012, p.136)."
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.397.4354&rep=rep1&type=pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjZqb3N6qXVAhWqrVQKHVnrDYgQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNGna2jcmYzp0iEX7TgrktB3pTZJCw


Black/White differences in mean IQ have been clearly shown to strongly correlate with gloadings, so large group differences on subtests of high cognitive complexity and small group differences on subtests of low cognitive complexity. IQ scores have been increasing over the last half century, a phenomenon known as the Flynn effect. Flynn effect gains are predominantly driven by environmental factors. Might these factors also be responsible for group differences in intelligence? The empirical studies on whether the pattern of Flynn effect gains is the same as the pattern of group differences yield conflicting findings. A psychometric meta-analysis on all studies with seven or more subtests reporting correlations between g loadings and standardized score gains was carried out, based on 5 papers, yielding 11 data points (total N = 16,663). It yielded a true correlation of − .38, and none of the variance between the studies could be attributed to moderators. It appears that the Flynn effect and group differences have different causes. Suggestions for future research are discussed.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000226

(For g-loading being more heritable, also cite:
~30 years of Research on race
~The rise and fall of the Flynn Effect as a reason to expect a narrowing of the
Black–White IQ gap
~Race Differences in g and the Jensen Effect
~Secular gains in IQ not related to the g factor and inbreeding depression — unlike Black–White differences: A reply to Flynn
~The G-Factor 1998, chapter 7)

We focused on the question of the extent to which there is a link between the g factor and heritability coefficients in the Japanese population. Current findings of modest to strong correlations between heritability and the g factor are based only on five studies, all from Western countries. We carried out a meta-analysis of Japanese studies reporting heritabilities of all subtests of IQ batteries to examine whether they would give the same outcomes as Western studies. g loadings of subtests were taken from various sources. Correlations between heritabilities and g loadings were computed for all data points. The meta-analysis was based on four studies yielding six data points and showed a meta-analytical correlation of .38 (total N = 1808). We conclude that there is a clear link between the g factor and heritability coefficients in Japan, but that it contrasts with the quite strong correlations found in Western studies. Moderator analyses suggest that the shorter number of subtests and the smaller samples of twins used in Japanese studies partially explain the lower mean Japanese correlation. We discuss limitations of our study.
researchgate.net/publication/265090206_The_correlation_between_g_loadings_and_heritability_in_Japan_A_meta-analysis

Hierarchical models of intelligence are highly informative and widely accepted. Application of these models to twin data, however, is sparse. This paper addresses the question of how a genetic hierarchical model fits the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) subtests and the Raven Standard Progressive test score, collected in 194 18-year-old Dutch twin pairs. We investigated whether first-order group factors possess genetic and environmental variance independent of the higher-order general factor and whether the hierarchical structure is significant for all sources of variance. A hierarchical model with the 3 Cohen group-factors (verbal comprehension, perceptual organisation and freedom-from-distractibility) and a higher-order gfactor showed the best fit to the phenotypic data and to additive genetic influences (A), whereas the unique environmental source of variance (E) could be modeled by a single general factor and specifics. There was no evidence for common environmental influences. The covariation among the WAIS group factors and the covariation between the group factors and the Raven is predominantly influenced by a second-order genetic factor and strongly support the notion of a biological basis of g.
link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1016021128949?LI=true

Little is known about the importance of genetic effects on individual differences in cognitive abilities late in life. We present the first report from the Swedish Adoption/Twin Study of Aging (SATSA) for cognitive data, including general cognitive ability and 13 tests of specific cognitive abilities. The adoption/twin design consists of identical twins separated at an early age and reared apart (46 pairs), identical twins reared together (67 pairs), fraternal twins reared apart (100 pairs), and fraternal twins reared together (89 pairs); average age was 65 years. Heritability of general cognitive ability in these twins was much higher (about 80%) than estimates typically found earlier in life (about 50%). Consistent with the literature, heritabilities of specific cognitive abilities were lower than the heritability of general cognitive ability but nonetheless substantial. Average heritabilities for verbal, spatial, perceptual speed, and memory tests were, respectively, 58%, 46%, 58%, and 38%.
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00045.x

In a re-analysis of the Raven Matrices data by Rushton, Bons, et al.
(2007), we correlated the 36 item heritabilities on the Colored Matrices (e.g., from twins reared together) and the 58 on the Standard Matrices (e.g., from the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart), with the item g loadings (e.g., frombthe item-total scores) and found a mean r of 0.47 (Pb0.01). Correcting the correlations raised the value from 0.55 to 1.00 (depending on whether using the test's alpha coefficient or the item's test–retest correlation). Arranging the items into parcels also raised the original value (The item-level data are available on-line at the journal; Rushton, Bons, et al., 2007).
philipperushton.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Genetic-and-Environmental-Contributions-to-Population-Group-Differences-on-the-Ravens-Progressive-Matrices-Estimated-from-Twins-Reared-Together-and-Apart-2007-by-John-Philippe-Rushton-Trudy-Ann-Bons-Philip-A.-Vernon-Jelena-Čv.pdf

Hierarchical factor analyses involving Schmid-Leiman transformations (Schmid & Lei-man, 1957) were conducted on specific cognitive abilities data collected in a sample of 148 identical (MZ) and 135 same-sex fraternal (DZ) twin pairs. Two main questions were addressed: First, are genetic influences on specific cognitive abilities simply a reflection of their g loading, or are different sets of genes affecting separate abilities’? L Second, to the extent that specific cognitive abilities are affected by common genetic variance, how similar is the common genetic factor to a phenotypic factor reflecting R’? Model fitting
results suggest that genetic influences on specific abilities are a reflection of both general intelligence and genetic influences specific to separate abilities and that loadings on the common genetic factor are more highly correlated with phenotypic loadings than are common environmental factor loadings.
(Luo, D., Petrill, S. A., & Thompson, L. A. (1994). An exploration of genetic g: Hierarchical factor analysis of cognitive data from the Western Reserve Twin Project. Intelligence, 18(3), 335-347.)

Alright, I'm out of important studies, aka, these are ones I find most revelent. I'll leave with some small scale studies.

No evidence of racial discrimination in criminal justice processing: Results from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health
researchgate.net/publication/256079484_No_evidence_of_racial_discrimination_in_criminal_justice_processing_Results_from_the_National_Longitudinal_Study_of_Adolescent_Health

Prisoners 1925-81 - Bureau of Justice …
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p2581.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi0t-6nne3UAhXowVQKHcl8DUQQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNFrorEMV2sasUPcNwymrT6ujM-xbA

Homocide rates 1980 to 2008
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi67cyftO3UAhWkgVQKHSyWDDgQFggiMAE&usg=AFQjCNFVCKr-8_JJs1DGmS-R-A9tcdX3GQ

Black crime 1926
census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf

Immigrant crime raises on the second and third generation:
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/15/crime-rises-among-second-generation-immigrants-as-they-assimilate/

Gang rate by race, as of 2011:
White: 11.5
Black: 35.3
Hispanic: 46.2
nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Demographics

"A study, published in the March 2016 edition of the Race and Social Problems journal, found that poor black males were nearly four times more likely to commit crime than poor white males, and that poor Hispanics were not far behind. The results showed, said the paper, that the “chances of incarceration in America are always higher for blacks than for whites or Hispanics, regardless of their level of wealth.”
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12552-016-9164-y

"Key findings are as follows. First, there are notable differences in levels of homicide and violent index crime across race/ethnic groups. The first three columns of Table 1 indicate that Blacks have the highest homicide and violent index crime rates (rates per 100,000 of 15.81 and 1311.48, respectively), followed by Hispanics (6.39 and 505.63) and then Whites (2.85 and 331.52). Hispanic crime rates tend to fall between the relatively low levels of Whites and the higher rates of blacks, though they are closer to the White than the Black rates."
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4097310/#!po=20.0935

Family SES is not causal of crime:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4180846/

Bad neighborhoods due not cause crime:
academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article/3859745/Neighborhood-Influences-on-Violent-Reoffending

School motivation is not caused by school, but rather genetics:
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886915000987

Executive Summary
The District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) was created by Congress to
provide tuition vouchers to low-income parents who want their child to attend a private school. The
Scholarships for Opportunity and Results (SOAR) Act of 2011 also mandated an evaluation of the OSP
program. This report examines impacts one year after eligible families applied to the program on
outcomes such as student achievement, satisfaction with schools, perceptions of school safety, and parent
involvement.
The program selected students to receive scholarships using a lottery process in 2012, 2013, and
2014, which allows for an experimental design that compared outcomes for a treatment group (995
students selected through the lottery to receive offers of scholarships) and a control group (776 students
not selected to receive offers of scholarships). Approximately 30 percent of students offered scholarships did not use them, so the evaluation examines both the impacts of being offered and the impacts of using scholarships. Key findings include:

• After one year, the OSP had a statistically significant negative impact on the mathematics achievement of students offered or using a scholarship. Mathematics scores were lower for these students a year after they applied to the OSP (by 5.4 percentile points for students offered a scholarship and 7.3 percentile points for students who used their scholarship), compared with students who applied but were not selected for the scholarship. Reading scores were lower (by 3.6 and 4.9 percentile points, respectively) but the differences were not statistically significant (figure E-1). There were no significant achievement impacts, positive or negative, for students applying from low-performing schools (those designated as “in need of improvement” or SINI), to whom the SOAR Act gave priority for scholarships. Negative impacts for both mathematics and reading scores were statistically significant for students who were not attending SINI schools when the students applied
for the scholarship and also for students in grades K-5.

• The program did not have a statistically significant impact on parents’ or students’ general
satisfaction with the school the child attended in that first year. Parents of students who were offered or used the OSP scholarships were more likely to give their child’s school a grade of A or B, compared with the parents of students not selected for the scholarship offer but differences were not statistically significant. Similarly, students who were offered or used the OSP scholarships were more likely to give their school a grade of A or B, but differences were again not statistically significant
(figure E-2).
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20174022/pdf/20174022.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiOgKSbi-nUAhUmwFQKHbPkADoQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNFVC9GMttZoCNx6X3eitdrP7Ly-Jw

Simple:
These "I love Science" people are fucking idiots and naive as fuck. They will eat up anything any (((expert))) tells them.
So how to get them?
Simple, call them out. Ask them, what is science. Tell them that they are not intellectuals.
Fuck them hard.

oh, lordy, lordy
I almost forgot, intervention programs putting kids in better SESs DO NOT lead to higher IQ or g due to fadeout effect (this happens because of gene amplification).

Major interventions that attempt to give disadvantaged children better environments produce IQ gains while these interventions are ongoing, but these IQ advantages completely goes away by adulthood (Protzko 2015).
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961500135X

Head Start program leads to higher IQ, but not higher g, which entails it is hallow gains:
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000932
Aka, Head Start leads to 'better' IQ, but these 'improved' scores mean jackshit because it wasn't in the area of g (general intelligence), so it's basically gains that 'look nice' but in reality they're hallow (not generalisable to other test).

Previous investigations into raising IQ show that after an intervention ends, the effects fade away. This paper is an attempt to understand one possible reason for this fadeout; the idea that the effects fade because they were not to the underlying construct g. A large (N = 985) randomized controlled trial is re-analyzed to investigate whether the intervention, which began at birth and lasted for the first three years of the children's life, raised the underlying cognitive factor of IQ tests. This was done under strict measurement invariance. The intervention indeed raised the g factor at age three. No effects were seen at follow-up assessments at ages five and eight after the intervention ended. Therefore, the raising IQ/raising g distinction is insufficient as an explanation for the fadeout effect, as changes to the environment can improve g and still fade. researchgate.net/publication/298807078_Does_the_raising_IQ-raising_g_distinction_explain_the_fadeout_effect

Abstract
IQ scores provide the best general predictor of success in education, job training, and work. However, there are many ways in which IQ scores can be increased, for instance by means of retesting or participation in learning potential training programs. What is the nature of these score gains? Jensen [Jensen, A.R. (1998a). The g factor: The science of mental ability. London: Praeger] argued that the effects of cognitive interventions on abilities can be explained in terms of Carroll's three-stratum hierarchical factor model. We tested his hypothesis using test–retest data from various Dutch, British, and American IQ test batteries combined into a meta-analysis and learning potential data from South Africa using Raven's Progressive Matrices. The meta-analysis of 64 test–retest studies using IQ batteries (total N = 26,990) yielded a correlation between g loadings and score gains of − 1.00, meaning there is no gsaturation in score gains. The learning potential study showed that: (1) the correlation between score gains and the gloadedness of item scores is − .39, (2) the gloadedness of item scores decreases after a mediated intervention training, and (3) low-gparticipants increased their scores more than high-g participants. So, our results support Jensen's hypothesis. The generalizability of test scores resides predominantly in the gcomponent, while the test-specific ability component and the narrow ability component are virtually non-generalizable. As the score gains are not related to g, the generalizable gcomponent decreases and, as it is not unlikely that the training itself is not g-loaded, it is easy to understand why the score gains did not generalize to scores on other cognitive tests and to g-loaded external criteria.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606000778

Last post unless people have questions.

Previous research has indicated that education influences cognitive development, but it is unclear what, precisely, is being improved. Here, we tested whether education is associated with cognitive test score improvements via domain-general effects on general cognitive ability (g), or via domain-specific effects on particular cognitive skills. We conducted structural equation modeling on data from a large (n = 1,091), longitudinal sample, with a measure of intelligence at age 11 years and 10 tests covering a diverse range of cognitive abilities taken at age 70. Results indicated that the association of education with improved cognitive test scores is not mediated by g, but consists of direct effects on specific cognitive skills. These results suggest a decoupling of educational gains from increases in general intellectual capacity.
psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/51/5/573/

Abstract
In this report we analyzed genetically informative data to investigate within-person change and between-person differences in late-life cognitive abilities as a function of childhood social class. We used data from nine testing occasions spanning 28 y in the Swedish Adoption/Twin Study of Aging and parental social class based on the Swedish socioeconomic index. Cognitive ability included a general factor and the four domains of verbal, fluid, memory, and perceptual speed. Latent growth curve models of the longitudinal data tested whether level and change in cognitive performance differed as a function of childhood social class. Between–within twin-pair analyses were performed on twins reared apart to assess familial confounding. Childhood social class was significantly associated with mean-level cognitive performance at age 65 y, but not with rate of cognitive change. The association decreased in magnitude but remained significant after adjustments for level of education and the degree to which the rearing family was supportive toward education. A between-pair effect of childhood social class was significant in all cognitive domains, whereas within-pair estimates were attenuated, indicating genetic confounding. Thus, childhood social class is important for cognitive performance in adulthood on a population level, but the association is largely attributable to genetic influences.
Significance
There is a previously well-established relationship between socioeconomic status and cognitive ability. By having access to repeated measures of cognitive data across the second part of the life span, we were able not only to study the influence of childhood social class on mean-level cognitive performance, but also on change over time. Using reared-apart monozygotic and dizygotic twins and a control sample of twins reared together, we studied the effects of childhood socioeconomic environment on cognition in later life. We found an association between childhood social class and mean levels of cognitive performance, but not longitudinal trajectories of change. When controlling for genetic influences, there was no association of childhood social class and cognitive performance late in life.
m.pnas.org/content/early/2017/06/13/1620603114.abstract

I've found peer reviewed papers work well. They are literally science, and by showing work that contradicts the sourceless claims of the "I love science" crowd you beat them at their own game. The vast majority of them are unable to read scientific literature.

The ones who don't just ignore you and walk away will throw up research papers they hastily googled. Tear apart their methodologies. Post critiques of the work.

Learn to read research papers. Arguments will become much, much easier for you.

They love science? Show them science can tell them things they didn't want to hear.

Of course peer review works well on normies because they don't know anything about actual research. Read these two studies on why peer review is shit and fails:

Peer review is flawed:
smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-replicated-100-psychology-studies-and-fewer-half-got-same-results-180956426/

"So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

Truth, but it's what they'll ask for. Our "golden standard" of evidence is flawed. So be it, we have to work within the system that exists.

trans-gender is a myth #ILoveScience
archive.is/loE7x

Usually I just tell them that it's an appeal to authority and to fuck off with the fallacy, lel.

Just describe the Dunning Kruger effect to them and point out they're at the very bottom of the knowledge scale

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

there's your problem my dude.

as long as academia as a whole is compromised by lefties who discredit scientists who make politically incorrect discoveries, those people aren't going to believe the truth unless they want to believe it
actually they probably wouldn't believe it if they didn't want to believe it and politically incorrect discoveries WEREN'T discredited by scientists

what you should do instead is make them want to believe that the races are different, THEN show them facts

(((science)))

Show them how science is run by occultists who don't believe in materialism or nihilism lol
I fucking hate sciencefags so much.

actually heres an idea to make some people want to believe that races are different, or at least research it on their own:
lefties are like children, right? some kids like video games, and so do some lefties in a very shallow manner; the below manner might be shallow enough for them, but push it towards the

Depending on what section of psychology you're doing, say psychometrics for example (study of IQ), then studies are reliable. Most other psychology like social sciences and therapy and all that B.S.? Nope. You're fucked. But, there's also other studies showing the problems of peer review in fields such as engineering. I just can't be fuckall bothered to find it right now.

also don't overdo the stat modifiers stuff or else it won't work

Liberals don't love science, they love things called "science" that re-affirm their beliefs. It's why they hate any form of science that contradicts their political beliefs. Show them genetic evidence that races are different, or obesity isn't genetic, and they flip out out the scientists who did that research.

South Park already did that, but in the opposite manner. The "hard" mode in the new game is when you pick the black character.

Library of hatefacts guaranteed to trigger libshits: libraryofhate.com/

Hatefacts about diversity from shitlord central: heartiste.wordpress.com/diversity-proximity-war-the-reference-list/

Enjoy.

We will be able to understand better the mortal danger of positive science, also called "exact," with
which our contemporaries stultify themselves and with which the Jews will achieve
a real Holocaust for what remains of Aryan humanity on this earth: the physicist
Einstein. They have made of him something like the messiah of our time and of all
time. Before his time, nothing, and after him, even less. Science was born with
him and ends with him. Typically Jew. Undoubtedly with Einstein everything
could end because he is responsible for the atomic bomb, that is to say, for the
direction taken towards the atomization of the world. We could also have arrived
at the division of the atom in other ways and by other concepts, but the direction
and uses would be otherwise. The sense would be different. Because it was not
Einstein who realised the experiment that proved the constancy of the propagation
of light in the ether, on which he built his theory of relativity. That was Michelson
and Morley. Yet Einstein gave it its typical meaning, its archetype as we say, from
his Collective Unconscious. Because, as we have seen, beyond every scientific
theory, every discovery, there is a will, an intention. The absurd is to believe in the
myth today spread by those same self-interested Jews that an objective science
exists, on the edge of the subjective, of the "memory of the blood," of the soul, of
the race, or of the "anti-race," that actually itself produces science as a symbol.
The Aryan is not, for example, interested in dividing (the atom) but in uniting. He
aspires to the unus mundus, to totality.

Relativity, atomic and quantic physics have made reality more occult,
making atoms, electrons, protons, particles, reduced into pure algebraic
mathematical formulas, emptying them of all sense and spirit. For Aryans atoms
have never been numeric abstract empty formulas. They are gnomes, magic
Runes, the atomic Gods. For the Jew only that which can be known "positively" is
real, without blood, without flesh, without earthly "incarnation," without form,
without spiritual Sun. For the Jew there is no more immortality than "persistence,"
"constant," or "constance," as in the Einsteinian "parameter."

For the difference between this abstract mathematics, purely Kabbalistic, of
the Jewish Numeral Kabbalah, adulterated by the Jews, and the Aryan concept of
Maya, the Illusion of Hinduism, the Vedanta philosophy, is fundamental. In the
"catharsis" of Jewish physics, as Julius Evola called it, "demonic catharsis," a
superation of the individual is not reached, nor a Buddhist nirvana, much less the
Tantric Kaivalya. There is no attainment of a level of Superior Reality, beyond
Maya, spiritual and transcendent, which the vîras reach by initiation in the mystic-
religious initiations of the Greek, Egyptian and Persian Mysteries. Only a
numerical, Kabbalistic sphere is reached, of pure mathematical rationalist external
thought. There is neither superation nor transmutation of the human condition.
The scientist is a pedestrian man, even a sub-human.

It is certain that the mathematization of physics did not begin with the Jews,
because they are never the creators, but only the Jews could arrive at these
extremes. In Judaism there has always existed a tendency to abstract mathematical
speculation, without life, denying the spiritual cosmos as a living unity, a tendency
towards chaos and nothing.

Algebra and mathematics arrived in the European West through the Semites.
For Pythagoras mathematics and numbers meant something else. They were living
symbols of a spiritual mystery. Magic, Alchemy of Transmutation. For the polar
Nordics they were the sacred Runes. The numbers that make algebraic operations
possible are Arabic, Semite. The Romans did not know them and had other means
of calculation even for the construction of their wonderful works of engineering,
their bridges and stadiums. Their numbers, the Roman numerals, are not good for
even the implementation of simple arithmetic problems. The Jews, the Semites in
45general, have always had a tendency to speculations of abstract mathematics,
applying them to the divine world, even with Spinoza. Thus the Jews took
transformation from the Orphic Cabala. Aryan numbers are rather more sounds,
notes, like in Orphic music, those of mantras, the Hiranyagarbha-Cabda.

"Jewish science" aims at destruction, at the final annihilation of the Aryan world,
by an irresistible interior vocation. They will do it with the Einsteinian atomic
bomb, unless it were possible to impose a new Aryan direction on science. And
this is almost impossible given the domination of the actual world by the Jew. The
integration of the sensible natural world, with its Maya as symbol, in another
supreme reality, supersensible and super-rational, would be the way. Never before
has science prevailed over the understanding of the world, to which it has found
itself subordinated. Never have specializations and specialists imposed themselves
on the unus mundus, maintaining an essential relationship with the multi-verse of
properties. Ideals impregnated philosophia naturalis, as well as Natural Law.
Today philosophy is finished and the unitary concept of the world does not resist
the specialist, the computer, the mathematical calculator, pure quantitative
abstraction. The rationalist current of modern times begins with the Masonic
lodges, with Illuminism, yet one more proof that Masonry was dominated by
Judaism. The positive sciences began their phantasmic career towards "indefinite
irreversible human progress."

With Hitler and Hitlerist Germany a fundamental change was realized, even
in the domain of science. In a few years the Aryan Subconscious asserted its
representations, its Hyperborean archetypal different concepts. He did not accept
the Einsteinian theory of relativity. Because of this Hitler, able to achieve, and
having achieved, the atomic bomb and atomic fission by his own means, could not
use that annihilating disintegrating bomb. It did not correspond to his integrating,
non-atomizing, Archetype in his Aryan Collective Unconscious. And so it
happened that he did not use it. In "The Golden Band: Esoteric Hitlerism" I have
told how Skorzeny wrote in this respect: Hitler had confessed to him he would not
use the atomic bomb to win the war. It is very possible the bomb the American
used against Japan was the one the Germans did not use against them. By doing so
Hitler would not have won the war, he would have lost it, since he would have
Judaized his own world, using an extreme Jew method. He would have used the
weapon of the enemy. He would have lost by winning. Instead he won by losing.

The direction of Aryan science leads to completely different worlds, to
integrated universes, able to transfigure nature. Hitler would attempt to return to
the Golden Age of Hyperborea, erecting the Axis of the Earth. He could have
achieved it. But all this is not destructive, but integrative science. It is the Science
of Peace, of Pax Aria. It leads directly to the reencounter with the Gral, that is to
say, with Another Science, with another direction, with another Sense. A science
able to reencounter the passage between the worlds, sky and earth, the exit, the
entrance to the Enchanted Cities, to the Kingdom of the Gnomes of King Laurin, to
Agartha, Avallon, Valhalla, to Ultimate Thule, the "astral body," to the spiritual
double of the Earth. This the Fuhrer had almost reached by the end of the war.
From there the flying saucers, the UFOs. The reencounter with the vimanas, with
the "astras" ("stars") of the War of the Mahabarata. The Hindus and Homer have
spoken to us of them.

The discovery of this legendary anti-gravitational science of the Spirit will never
be available for the Jew, because it does not belong to the archetypes of his
Collective Unconscious. It can only be attained in "synchronistic" unity, from
within and without, of the earth and men, by means of a magical initiation that
transforms and transmutes the individual. It can only begin from a vimana who is
able "to fly," "to project his body." Only he who knows how to make himself
invisible (with the Tarnkappe of Siegfried) will be able to pass through the
invisible worlds. And neither Einstein nor physicists using quantum mathematics
could achieve it. This science remains beyond their reach. It is the wisdom of the
Aryans.

It is nevertheless not a matter of denying all achievements of modern
science, Evola assures us, but of giving science another direction with an Aryan
meaning. To inspire the new generations with the ancient spirit so they can face
experimentation and investigation, being able to reflect the other cosmic breath of
the luminous spirit of the children of light. This was accomplished at almost the
end of the Great War when the Hitlerists rediscovered the Hyberborean Wisdom in
the lands of the Cathars and deciphered it. From thence the UFOs. The Aryan
Fuhrer, the Twice Born, the Reborn travelled in them.

It is unnecessary to repeat because we have already said that in stating the
Jewish problem there can be no blind obstinacy. We shudder before this malignant
and obscure mystery. With Hitler we must repeat, "the Jew is what is least similar
to the animal on this earth." If there is contempt in us it cannot be for the Jew, but
for the non-Jews who betray their essence by their abysmal cowardice, by their
materialism and pusillanimity. They are really animals, worse than any animals,
animal-men.

Most real scientists I’ve interacted with acknowledged phrenology is real but they usually regurgitate the common “but it has no application” or “but brain size and skull shape don’t always correlate to intelligence” as an explanation for why it’s “pseudoscience.” This completely ignores our application of explaining basic racial differences to dispel the myth of oppression and somewhat easier argue in favor of ethnic nationalism. It also kills the race equals skin color narrative everyone stupidly believes because they heard it from MSM.

my guy… there is evidence that obesity is heritable, especially among races…
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2003.124/full

Yeah, they'll say "BUT IT DOESN'T CORRELATE IN THIS POPULATION!".
Just shoot back: "Within certain populations cranial capacity does correlate with IQ. Now, this doesn't mean that just because a population has bigger heads that they're going to have higher IQs. But there is a general correlation across all humanity. So in general, but not for all populations, cranial capacity does correlate to IQ."

Meta-Analysis of Associations Between Human Brain Volume And Intelligence Differences: How Strong Are They and What Do They Mean?
archive.is/3fRPJ

Small to medium magnitude Jensen effects on brain volume: A meta-analytic test of the processing volume theory of general intelligence
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608016302072

Science is merely a weapon. That is all.

You expect me to read all that shit?

Of course not. Everyone knows black people don't read.

Fuck off. Leave. Reported.


Thanks for posting all that user. Saved. Everyone should save these for future use.

Epic bro, sick burn. You even got the doobies xD

No problem. I suggest reading all those studies too because you'll need to be able to defend them. Also, you'll learn a lot about genetics, IQ and behavioral genetics by reading them all.

drown rick & morty fans in soy sauce

And the best part is that it doesn't change anything about the gameplay, just a few dialogues.

I always thought one of the biggest ones to push for against trans/gay people was the evolution angle of if they are trans/gay it is natures way of saying that they should not breed, to eliminate themselves from the genepool completely.

So since this is the case they should not be allowed to adopt because they have been biologically selected to never have kids

Any way to counter cries of "pseudoscience"?

It's "monkeys" not "monkies".

Adults autistically screeching at a mcdonalds over a sauce seen is a cartoon. Scientifically minded adults who worship a cartoon and go apeshit over a sauce which is from a literal cartoon. How can you take it any more seriously than that?

OP, there's some real good stuff in this thread, but it won't work for the 'I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE' crowd, for the simple reason that they don't actually know the least bit about science. They don't care about science. Science is the new slave morality religion - people don't see the incremental progress made by hard working scientists behind the stage curtain, they just see the advances that come out of it. They see the things that make their lives easier, they see WiFi, they see the fifty billionth 'cure for cancer' and it's exactly the same reaction some poor tribal fuck had when it rained after they sacrificed a goat.

Nietzsche saw this coming, that's what the whole 'death of God' shit was about. It's the transition of a society founded on slave morality from one irrational God that demands tribute and obedience to another. If anything, science is worse - at least Christianity, or certain sects of it, gave people reasons to defend their homelands, or favour their own race. Science, as led by (((pop scientists))) like Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson, actively works against it - built into the progressive dogma is the belief that the new Heaven, the utopia that awaits all the faithful, will arrive when people put aside their racial differences and racemix until there's nothing left of our original cultures, because then we'll have nothing to fight about.

Even if this belief that a population of doves is maximally beneficial to its inhabitants wasn't invalidated by basic game theory - all it takes is one hawk to ruin it, and we're fucking importing them - it's doomed to fail by our racist instincts and by the fact that new factions will inevitably arise. They call it an inevitability - vid related, was actually aired on CBC - because if it's not an inevitability, if their new Rapture can be avoided, then their God is not omnipotent, it is a false god, and they would be driven mad. It is our job as sensible people to make it so.


You're thinking in the wrong direction. People have already taken issue with races having stat modifiers in video games. I recall seeing an article by some kike journalist that Skyrim was racist because the Redguards (the Tamriel equivalent of black people) have a racial disposition against magic and in favour of physical strength, ad magic is the game world's equivalent of science. Won't look for it, but I'm sure you can imagine the hand-wringing.


There might indeed be a link between obesity and genetics, but it's not infallible. You can be born with the genes to become a musclebound, 6'11" Aryan genius, but you won't get anywhere if you're fed on a diet of three soy beans a day. Same way, you might have a genetic tendency to be obese, but if you simply do not have the calories to store, you won't get fat. That's not to say it's a good idea to starve yourself - most genuine strongmen have a fairly stocky build - but you want to try to limit your caloric intake to no much more than you're using a day.

Let's fuck things up. Anybody remember the talmudtubbies? There was a paki tubby and it was racist AF but thank goodness the sunbaby showed us tolerance. How does (((science))) break down the tubby world? That's a shit example, look at the big bang theory… Look at that pile of shit and laugh. How dare they use Palestinian murderers and Christ killers to dominate the scientific arena and claim they know it all.

You know, I don't even get what your problem is with evolution. It says that we share a common ancestor with monkeys, not that we come from them first off. Second off, how does that fact degrade the human experience at all? I'm honestly curious because it just seems like sentimental whining on your part. Is there an actual reason to be against something with mountains of evidence behind it?

Regardless the majority of modern scientists are atheists, so I don't see how that's going to sway any of them.

Have to love how many liberals, leftists and atheists claim their love of science or at least claim to be rational and above religion. Yet any science that contradicts their BELIEFS is met with ignorance, ignoring, anger, tears. They are very anti-science.

They hide behind science because they have been told to. They need to try and justify their nihilism and degeneracy. Some use science to be hedonists, others rally against religion (usually only Christianity because other religions are non-white or something so are off limits) as an excuse.

Ask them how it's pseudo science and you have to counter it from depending on what they say. Typically they will assert "it's been debunked!". so ask to present the arguments made that debunked the subject' (don't let just gish gollop you with them just posting links. Tell them to present and explain the argument to you because 9 times out of 10 they're just Googling random shit). Once they do present their shitty argument you show them why they're wrong.

I agree with you all around.

What is a good/interesting science to learn more about?

By the guys, hating fags has a genetic origin to it: Genetic influence on homophobia
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2292426/

Cash programs don't work on breaking poverty:
straighttalkonevidence.org/2017/09/22/disappointing-findings-on-conditional-cash-transfers-as-a-tool-to-break-the-poverty-cycle-in-the-united-states

Ethnic diversity and civil conflict
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022343313512853

The Evolutionary Dominance of Ethnocentric Cooperation
jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Spending more money on schools (i.g. better facility, books, new class rooms, etc) doesn't change anything: Investing in Schools: Capital Spending, Facility Conditions, and Student Achievement
nber.org/papers/w21515#fromrss

IQ predicts your income, occupation and education: Strenze, t. (2007). intelligence and socioeconomic success: a meta-analytic
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606001127

READ THIS TO LEARN ABOUT g vs IQ! g is more important!
Quick introduction into the g-factor by Linda Gottfredson: google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.hucama.se/uploads/1/6/5/0/16501994/g-factor_intellligence_1998.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj6rIvYrvHWAhXqzFQKHZ0vBmIQFgg8MAM&usg=AOvVaw1xztWGvO_25qCj2G81eSGt

IQ predicts crime:
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0041783
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961500077X

Behavioral genetics and psychometrics (aka, studying genetic behavior in humans and studying IQ/intelligence).

Thanks. I'll look around for books on those subjects in a moment, however before I do that, do you have any good book/article recommendations?

meant for

Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism:
A little long to post, so I will post the first portion of the abstract.
Human ethnocentrism—the tendency to view one's group as centrally important and superior to other groups—creates intergroup bias that fuels prejudice, xenophobia, and intergroup violence. Grounded in the idea that ethnocentrism also facilitates within-group trust, cooperation, and coordination, we conjecture that ethnocentrism may be modulated by brain oxytocin, a peptide shown to promote cooperation among in-group members.
Source: m.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

►A fronto-central P2 was enlarged to pain than neutral expressions. ► The P2 effect was stronger for racial in-group than out-group faces. ► Oxytocin increased the racial in-group bias in the P2 effect. ► Oxytocin interacts with intergroup relation to shape empathic neural responses.
Source: sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051112002761

This paper examines the distribution of national personality dimensions in geographical space. The relationship between geographical location and aggregate personality in a wide range of nations is quantified using spatial autocorrelation, and it is found that the personalities of nations that are geographical neighbours are more similar than those that are far apart. The five factors of both the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and the Big Five Inventory (BFI), all show a significant degree of spatial organization. The personality factors most strongly associated with geographical location are NEO-PI-R extraversion and BFI conscientiousness; both vary with position around the globe about as much as the physical climate. These findings support previous research suggesting associations between aggregate personality and geography, and imply that the sources of variation in national personality are themselves geographically organized.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2012.02099.x/abstract

Besides establishing national IQ levels, Richard Lynn also started and inspired studies attempting to find out regularities behind the national differences in personality. Recent large-scale collaborative projects involving hundreds of psychologists from about 50 countries allowed for determination of the aggregate national scores of personality for the most popular personality models, including the Big Five. These studies have already revealed several universal and geographically regular patterns in the global personality trait distributions. The area of the study of national differences in personality has arguably matured to a level where it can start to help solving fundamental problems such as the relationship between genes, culture, and personality.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886911002418

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't g (general intelligence, I beleive) essentially unmeasurable, so the hope is that it will correlates with things we can measure, such as IQ.

For IQ, read Aurther Jensen's The G factor. For books? I never read any books about the subjects outside the The G-Factor. I learned everything by reading the studies themselves, which I recommend. Here's a link to Jensen's book. It will teach you all about IQ test, what they predict (validity), and how they work: google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The-g-factor-the-science-of-mental-ability-Arthur-R.-Jensen.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwifjtORsfHWAhUhh1QKHc_HCmAQFgh-MBQ&usg=AOvVaw1-hx8UjtKCdO3kY_7Jv8Tr

Here's some basic behavioral genetics studies:
Authoritarianism is inherited:
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886913001827

Political views heritable:
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/09/study-on-twins-suggests-our-political-beliefs-may-be-hard-wired/

For the vast majority of behavioral traits for which there is a reliable test, substantial heritability has been found.
humancond.org/analysis/nature/behavioral_genetics

Personality is .5-.64 heritable and this says how much for each trait:
www18.homepage.villanova.edu/diego.fernandezduque/Teaching/PhysiologicalPsychology/zCurrDir4200/CurrDirGeneticsTraits.pdf

Political orientation using MZ and DZ twins, average is .31:
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://fowler.ucsd.edu/linking_genes_and_political_orientations.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj5gayAqZ3UAhXFy1QKHd0iAxoQFggiMAE&usg=AFQjCNHFWkAFWljhmE6FGbJZjDiuS8g3Jw&sig2=C9xeEcKjC0S4-cznVsCamA

For example, a Swedish twin study, using MZ and DZ twins, found that the fellowing political views are influenced by genetics. Here's each view and how much it is inherited (page 34):
°Immigration Opinions: .604
°Behavioral Inhibition: .458
°Foreign Policy Opinions: .417
°Opinion on Feminism: .414
°Environmentalism: .377
°Economic Policy: .328
°Locus of Control: .281
°Vote Choice: .251
°Left vs. Right Self-Placement: .154
pol.gu.se/digitalAssets/1317/1317434_political-orientations-100927.pdf

Violent Crime .55 inherited:
emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Heritability-Assortative-Mating-and-Gender-Differences-in-Violent-Crime-Results-from-a-Total-Population-Sample-Using-Twin-Adoption-and-Sibling-Models.pdf

Income .42 inherited:
helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/38881/HECER_DP364.pdf

Divorce .32 inherited:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2923822/

Despite a century of research on complex traits in humans, the relative importance and specific nature of the influences of genes and environment on human traits remain controversial. We report a meta-analysis of twin correlations and reported variance components for 17,804 traits from 2,748 publications including 14,558,903 partly dependent twin pairs, virtually all published twin studies of complex traits. Estimates of heritability cluster strongly within functional domains, and across all traits the reported heritability is 49%. For a majority (69%) of traits, the observed twin correlations are consistent with a simple and parsimonious model where twin resemblance is solely due to additive genetic variation. The data are inconsistent with substantial influences from shared environment or non-additive genetic variation. This study provides the most comprehensive analysis of the causes of individual differences in human traits thus far and will guide future gene-mapping efforts. All the results can be visualized using the MaTCH webtool.
nature.com/ng/journal/v47/n7/abs/ng.3285.html


Altruism is .5 heritable with the other .5 being unique environment.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3723334

I'll have a look at all of your links and progress from there. Many thanks, user.

g is general intelligences, correct (also called the g-factor).
Yes, it is DIRECTIONALLY immeasurable but we've created proxies for measuring it (IQ test and other g-loaded test). Think of it like this: I need to know your height but there's no way for me to measure you. How can I do it? Well, your shadow on the ground can give me an indirect measure of your height so I'll use that. That's what IQ test do, they indirectly give a rough estimate of general intelligence.

I took the liberty of putting your first 12 posts or so into a bin so anons can share it around easier , good stuff m8.
ghostbin.com/paste/ozu8r

libraryofhate.com/
realkittenman.com/library-of-hate/

...

truth

Anyone that supports political correctness by definition cannot love science. Here's an example of what I mean


online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115040765329081636-T5DQ4jvnwqOdVvsP_XSVG_lvgik_20060628.html?mod=blogs

There's countless examples of this, like when loony leftists dumped water over E.O. Wilson because science didn't agree with them and proved them wrong again.

...

user you know as well as i do that any kind of scientific proof or research that contradicts leftardism will be immediatly dismised as fake by leftards
feels>facts is the very core of leftard programming, how else do you think they can be femitards faggot supporters and Religion of Cuck™ apologist at the same time?
i'm just stating the facts, the only way to cure leftardism is with a 9mm aspirine

Did you just assume my Y Chromosome?!

Bump

I always like the people that complain about how their genetics is was makes them morbidly obese, while eating a bucket of fried chicken and two tubs of mashed potatoes. Recently saw one of those "Adam ruins everything" propaganda pieces which roughly translates into "you will never lose weight". Basically because your body will adjust and you will have to continuously exercise you should just accept that you are fat.

Fine by me, my guy.

To an extent, you do have a genetic predisposition to eat certain amounts of X, Y and Z foods. That being said, you should understand your own biology and use it to not be a fat fuck. But holy shit, that Adam guy's video on IQ is not only cringy but full of lies. Any 5 minute search on Jewoogle would disprove him wrong.

Controlling for SES only decreases the B-W IQ gap by 3-4 points (Sources: The G-Factor, p. 358 and Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability). [SES stands for Socioeconomic status, by the way. This means that when you factor for income, occupation and education Blacks still score 12 to 11 IQ points below Whites]
emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The-g-factor-the-science-of-mental-ability-Arthur-R.-Jensen.pdf
emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/J.-Philippe-Rushton-Arthur-R.-Jensen-THIRTY-YEARS-OF-RESEARCH-ON-RACE-DIFFERENCES-IN-COGNITIVE-ABILITY.pdf

A review of 14 twin studies in which brain size was measured via MRI found that total brain volume was 82% heritable (Pepper et al 2007). In other words, the vast majority of why some people’s brains are bigger than others is explained by genetic differences between people.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17415783

When does socioeconomic status (SES) moderate the heritability of IQ? No evidence for g × SES interaction for IQ in a representative sample of 1176 Australian adolescent twin pairs
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616300629

"A one-point increase in IQ is associated with a 4% increase in welfare growth for the average country. Our results support the view that national IQ is an important determinant of cross-country differences in economic activity and welfare."
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028961630318X

"They found that intelligence made a difference in gross domestic product. For each one-point increase in a country’s average IQ, the per capita GDP was $229 higher. It made an even bigger difference if the smartest 5 percent of the population got smarter; for every additional IQ point in that group, a country’s per capita GDP was $468 higher."
psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/are-the-wealthiest-countries-the-smartest-countries.html#.WQIZG8tlDqA

Without minorities, America would be toping the world PISA scores:
PISA scores by race:
White Americans:
519 in Reading
528 in Science
506 in Math
Black Americans:
443 in Reading
449 in Science
421 in Math
Hispanic Americans:
478 in Reading
462 in Science
455 in Math
Racial ranking in PISA as compared to the world:
White Americans at:
Reading: 6th in the world, on par with Estonia
Science: 7th in the world, on par with Canada
Math: 15th in world, on par with Germany.
Black Americans at:
Reading: 47th in the world, on par with Cyprus
Science: 47th in the world, in between Chile and Greece.
Math: 53rd in the world, in between Chile and Turkey.
Hispanic Americans at:
Reading: 39th in the world, on par with Israel
Science: 44th in the world, in between Slovak Republic and Malta
Math: 45th in the world, on par with Greece
nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2012/pisa2012highlights_5e_1.asp
businessinsider.com/pisa-worldwide-ranking-of-math-science-reading-skills-2016-12

+Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.
+Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.
+Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.
jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.
jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

According to National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) the gap between Hispanics and Whites are the following:
White Hispanic: (WH)
Non-ELL Hispanic: (ELL)
White Non-ELL Hispanic: (W)
MATHEMATICS:
4th Grade: 21(WH), 19 (ELL) and 14 (W)
8th Grade: 26 (WH), 34 (ELL) and 19 (W)
READING:
4th Grade: 25 (WH), 29 (ELL) and 19 (W)
8th Grade: 26 (WH), 39 (ELL) and 15 (W)
nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/gaps/

"[N]on-Western immigrants are more than 300 percent more likely to fail the Danish army’s intelligence test than native Danes: “19.3% of non-Western immigrants are not able to pass the Danish army’s intelligence test. In comparison, only 4.7% of applicants with Danish background do not pass.”
nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php/id-7248606.html?ss

Two genetic findings from twin research have far-reaching implications for understanding individual differences in the development of brain function as indexed by general cognitive ability (g, aka intelligence): (1) The same genes affect g throughout development, even though (2) heritability increases. It is now possible to test these hypotheses using DNA alone. From 1.7 million DNA markers and g scores at ages 7 and 12 on 2875 children, the DNA genetic correlation from age 7 to 12 was 0.73, highly similar to the genetic correlation of 0.75 estimated from 6702 pairs of twins from the same sample. DNA-estimated heritabilities increased from 0.26 at age 7 to 0.45 at age 12; twin-estimated heritabilities also increased from 0.35 to 0.48. These DNA results confirm the results of twin studies indicating strong genetic stability but increasing heritability for g, despite mean changes in brain structure and function from childhood to adolescence.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23358157

Intelligence, or general cognitive function, is phenotypically and genetically correlated with many traits, including many physical and mental health variables. Both education and household income are strongly genetically correlated with intelligence, at rg = 0.73 and rg = 0.70 respectively. This allowed us to utilize a novel approach, Multi-Trait Analysis of Genome-wide association studies (MTAG; Turley et al. 2017), to combine two large genome-wide association studies (GWASs) of education and household income to increase power in the largest GWAS on intelligence so far (Sniekers et al. 2017). This study had four goals: firstly, to facilitate the discovery of new genetic loci associated with intelligence; secondly, to add to our understanding of the biology of intelligence differences; thirdly, to examine whether combining genetically correlated traits in this way produces results consistent with the primary phenotype of intelligence; and, finally, to test how well this new meta-analytic data sample on intelligence predict phenotypic intelligence variance in an independent sample. We apply MTAG to three large GWAS: Sniekers et al (2017) on intelligence, Okbay et al. (2016) on Educational attainment, and Hill et al. (2016) on household income. By combining these three samples our functional sample size increased from 78 308 participants to 147 194. We found 107 independent loci associated with intelligence, implicating 233 genes, using both SNP-based and gene-based GWAS. We find evidence that neurogenesis may explain some of the biological differences in intelligence as well as genes expressed in the synapse and those involved in the regulation of the nervous system. We show that the results of our combined analysis demonstrate the same pattern of genetic correlations as a single measure/the simple measure of intelligence, providing support for the meta-analysis of these genetically-related phenotypes. We find that our MTAG meta-analysis of intelligence shows similar genetic correlations to 26 other phenotypes when compared with a GWAS consisting solely of cognitive tests. Finally, using an independent sample of 6 844 individuals we were able to predict 7% of intelligence using SNP data alone… [w]e find 107 independent associations for intelligence in our GWAS, and highlight the role of 338 genes being involved in intelligence a substantial advance on the 18 loci previously reported. Of the 107 lead SNPs from these associations, 104 show significant signs of acting to produce expression differences in the brain and over 100 of these were over expressed in cortical tissue compared to other tissue types.
biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/07/07/160291

"Individuals with higher test scores in adolescence are more likely to move out of the bottom quintile, and test scores can explain virtually the entire black-white mobility gap. Figure 13 plots the transition rates against percentiles of the AFQT test score distribution. The upward-sloping lines indicate that, as might be expected, individuals with higher test scores are much more likely to leave the bottom income quintile. For example, for whites, moving from the first percentile of the AFQT distribution to the median roughly doubles the likelihood from 42 percent to 81 percent. The comparable increase for blacks is even more dramatic, rising from 33 percent to 78 percent. Perhaps the most stunning finding is that once one accounts for the AFQT score, the entire racial gap in mobility is eliminated for a broad portion of the distribution. At the very bottom and in the top half of the distribution a small gap remains, but it is not statistically significant. The differences in the top half of the AFQT distribution are particularly misleading because there are very few blacks in the NLSY with AFQT scores this high."
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/empreportsupward20intergen20mobility2008530pdf.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiZ2NCipdrVAhXEwVQKHdQXB28QFggoMAA&usg=AFQjCNHrfiAmDwzTJ58PILRh61MvpyMY6g

Race Gap Narrows in College Enrollment, But Not in Graduation (because minorities drop out more)
fivethirtyeight.com/features/race-gap-narrows-in-college-enrollment-but-not-in-graduation/

By more than two-to-one (62% to 27%), whites prefer a smaller government that provides fewer services. A majority of blacks (59%) – and an even larger share of Hispanics (71%) – favor a larger government with more services.
people-press.org/2015/11/23/2-general-opinions-about-the-federal-government/

All about merit immigrants and 1-HB
archive.is/i81rq
heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/h1b10min.html

66% of Americans believe that immigrants should required to learn English.
isidewith.com/poll/410509290

77% say it is essential:
gallup.com/poll/163895/say-essential-immigrants-learn-english.aspx

Even higher for Canadians at 78%.
canada.isidewith.com/poll/410509290

Racial segregation:
nifty.stanford.edu/2014/mccown-schelling-model-segregation/

Not once in the last 51 years have the majority agreed we should increase the percentage of immigration. The consensus is Majority wishes for either Present Level or Decreased Immigration. With Non-Hispanics Whites wanting Decreased immigrants at 42% and Present Level at 36% as of Jun-July, 2016.
gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx

Whites, upon learning that they would be a minority by 2050, become increasingly against multiculturalism, a bases for Integrated Threat Theory?
phys.org/news/2014-10-minority-whites-declining-diversity-psychology.html

The “Obama Effect”? Priming Contemporary Racial Milestones Increases Implicit Racial Bias among Whites
guilfordjournals.com/doi/10.1521/soco.2016.34.6.544

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, “Two-thirds of whites say that immigrants should give up some important aspects of their culture to blend in; only about four in ten Hispanics, and an equal number of blacks, agree with that view."
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/28/cnn-poll-melting-pot-weakening-country/?fbid=_rInOlRnr2I

Last one for now.

People lie to appear non-racist. Romain Walker and Lee Jussim of Rutgers University carried out a study on SDR (Social Desirable Response) and racism using an experimental scale they deemed the "PC Scale" and found that when participants were put into three conditions, one to pressure participants into appearing non-racist, one that pressures them to tell the truth and one used as a control group, that people who scored higher on the PC scale were generally more likely to lie to create a positive impression. To quote one of their lines of results they found that "[people who score] on the Modern Racism Scale correlated negatively with PC scores(r(93)= -.57 p

There is no way that Africa, Burma and Syria have so little guns. Aren't most of those regions in a civil war?

Good stuff in this thread. I've loaded up my quiver with some killshots for the "diversity is our greatest strength" crowds.

This is fantastic material. Saved.

Anyone want the whole racism is natural/inherent/science dumps? Last time I dumped it on a lefty forum they whole fucking forum shut down for like a day so they can clean up and SHUT IT DOWN kek. They really hate science, don't believe otherwise. The only thing that has ever held back the right was that fundamentalist right portion but now they're dying, they have nothing.

"There's only one life brah, just be a massive hedonistic shitbag, sleep with whoever you want and treat everyone like cum receptacles, because that's what they are, also having kids is retarded, why be tied down? and don't judge anybody who is white!"


I foresee a bright future for the h'white race at this point, keep fighting the good fight.

We can have all those things without the insanity and literal belief in desert cultist fairy tales made by schizo kikes talking to burning flora and voices in their head.

Birthrates trending below replacement levels for the ethnic majority in the most secular "homogeneous" nations suggest otherwise.

Did you know that pagan/völkisch communities are so traditionalist that even (((( christians ))) hate them and call them nazis?

Ask them about the science of racial genetic differences or sexual dimorphism, and then see how much they "love science".

Presumably those guns aren't owned by private citizens, which is what's going to stop murders in the first place.


Holy strawman, nigger. All he said was that fundamentalists were the perfect punching bags for the left, because they can't rationally explain the actually sensible things they're doing like having large families, standards of behaviour and healthy spirituality. It feeds perfectly into the kike lies that 'there are no biological consequences for degeneracy, they're all outdated rules just made up by old white men'.

There are perfectly good reasons to do all these things, and pretending that religion is the only reason is actively working against the white race by playing into the kikes' hands. Hedonism and sexual promiscuity lead to broken families and the inability to make genuine life pair-bonds, even putting aside the more immediate consequences that clubbing and fucking around have on your body. Having kids is what we're meant to do - it's what all animals are meant to do - so of course it's good for us, both emotionally and physically. Holding prejudice against people based on their race is a perfectly reasonable survival strategy. The huge list of papers posted in this thread prove it - race is a good indicator of behaviour, and we know it innately.

Science - actual science, not kike propaganda - allows us to fight for the white race on intellectual terms as well as spiritual. Some people respond better to that than being smacked over the head with the KJV.


Birthrates dropping below replacement levels in more socially advanced countries is a perfectly natural consequence of large chunks of the population living in cities, where having large families is both impractical and expensive (unless you're a shitskin imported and paid for by the government). People simply aren't meant to live in such dense populations, we can barely handle it.

If it wasn't for globalist kikes importing third world labourers, the population growth would drop below replacement rate until it reached a sustainable level, and it wouldn't be a problem because there would be no threat. There's no reason to raise fifteen kids in a tiny city apartment like a nigger if you're not fighting against the ongoing genocide of your people. The kikes have created this idea that the population needs to keep growing to sustain the (((economy))), which is how they sell mass immigration to self-interested whites (i.e., most politicians) that would be against it if they didn't think they could make a quick buck and white flight away the moment the niggers get uppity.

I wouldn't be surprised given the onset of Marxism in universities, but I've heard the exact opposite as well. Do you have any citation for that one?

You can have your cake and eat it too with this one; say that God doesn't care about political correctness and created the world such that the laws of reality and natural selection regularly throw lefties against the wall. You could probably bring many of the fundies around by painting it in these terms, that natural selection is the failsafe God built into reality that exterminates those who stray too far from His commands. I know this line of reasoning really aggravates the kikes, who have made it their mission in life to defy reality.

God is dead. You cannot be an ubermensch until you accept this.

Strike at the roots, show that they are bullshitting for the sake of popularity. Dumping random links won't work, since all that does is make you look like a sperg. Obviously you should back shit up but "make a list of maybe 10-20 scientific "hate" facts" is exactly the most effective move to take.

is not exactly the most effective move to take*

Humans in Europe and Africa were separated for what 50000 years. Apparently long enough for the European to develop different skin/eyes/hair (obvious undeniable things) which makes complete sense if evolution is true. To say that other than skin color Europeans and Africans followed the same development is absurd and highly unlikely. I would say these people are evolution deniers. They just like science when it's convenient for their ideology.

I have heard leftists say things "worse" than intelligent design. I heard a girl say once that evolution is only true for animals and not for humans.

Can we get this thread archived?

>journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0049837

Holy fuck that is amazing. I've only read the abstract and the introduction so far but these earlier fellas were clearly up their arse. I can't tell you the amount of times I've heard morons say "the greatest difference between humans is within race rather than between!!!" as though that would lower the value of the racial distinctions anyway.. but now it turns out it's mostly rubbish? I have a hard time understanding the language they're using in this report but it's very interesting nonetheless.

Are there any popular appeal type videos that explain these types of modern revelations about earlier genetics studies/ comparisons? I'm stupid and need visual presentations to understand things. There's some really informative stuff in this thread. Do you guys just bookmark this stuff and read it later or is there some way to download heaps of this shit? It would be good if there were compilations of pdfs in a download link or something.

Many people either only understand the science on a basic level or a "Big Bang Theory / Rick and Morty" level. Anyone really digging into all this cannot be satisfied with the race is only skin deep argument. They love evolution until they have to deal with the deeper consequences of evolution.

"the greatest difference between humans is within race rather than between!!!"
They're correct, but they're really fucking stupid for thinking that makes a difference. Yes, there is more variation within races than between races but their making what's called "Lewontin's fallacy". And by their logic subspecies do not exist; colors do not exist; cars and trucks do not; not even humans populations exist since there is more variation within them than between. For a really good counter and explanation of why it's wrong, read the paper I'm going to link you right now. Refer to page 148 and the section 'Genetic differences". Race: a social destruction of a biological concept: google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi81euH2PLWAhVmsVQKHbQoCGEQFggwMAI&usg=AOvVaw3_h1IRIY8NQbkvXiG6p2Rf
Yeah, it's rubbish to shit and they just repeat it because they don't realize how false and retarded it is. As for the language, don't beat yourself up about it. I didn't understand it at first too and no one does. Just keep reading them; don't get upset if you don't understand it at first because there's been times when I didn't understand papers but went back to them a month later and would understand them down to the T easy. In short, you'll learn to read them by just reading them. Any terms you don't understand look them up and get a good understanding of them. Take your time too as it does take time to learn all of the jargon.
I don't know of any as I prefer just to read the papers but Phillipe Rushton is a good (he did a lot of the studies I've posted here) so look him as he's got videos online.
I have PDFs saved and all the links and titles saved in varies text files.

Post it.

This guy here: ghostbin'd the first couple of post. You can achieve it yourself using varies sites, but I don't know any nonepozzed. Just do what I do and keep text files and notes.

Humans are born racist. Babies are fucking racist assholes. Multiple scientific studies have proven babies are racist. Race is real, and human babies being born racist is a huge piece of evidence that multiculturalism and miscegenation are wrong.

time.com/67092/baby-racists-survival-strategy/
telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10770563/Babies-show-racial-bias-study-finds.html
seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/04/16/study-babies-show-racial-bias/

Pictures of star fields aren't "science." Neither is Star Trek: the Next Generation. Try asking one of these fags to explain the theory of evolution. Yeah, it's middle school stuff, but you'd be shocked how many can't do it. I've had the following conversation more than once:
>Yes, fine, no god. What makes things change and adapt?

Of course, what I'm looking for is an explanation of how natural selection operates on random mutation, and whatever succeeds becomes more common, but to the average normalfag, evolution is semi-mystical force that replaces god and will eventually turn us into beings of pure energy.

to me science fandom is basically a fashion trend. it is creating the next generation of sycophants, who will agree with whatever their technocratic elite tell them to believe, especially if it has been peer reviewed. If something has been peer reviewed and published then it is basically the truth to them. For pseudo scientific fields, like climate change theory, this is unfortunate, because the entire field is corrupted by politics and money. We need to study how Lysenkoism died in the USSR. Did the technocratic communist leadership just finally disown it, and then the sycophantic followers obeyed?

See my post here for actual estimates on the heritability of ingroup preference

Are you actually looking for an explanation? Either way here we go: the mutations occur and there is a phenotypic expression. This expression will either:

Just read this study. Short summary:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4592074/

And just read this too - the title of the paper sums up: "Genetic Ancestry and Genome-Wide Associations Related to Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia in Preterm Infants Treated with Inhaled Nitric Oxide (iNO)".
atsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1164/ajrccm-conference.2016.193.1_MeetingAbstracts.A1036

"[N]ew research from the University of Washington suggests that reported acceptance of interracial marriage masks deeper feelings of discomfort—even disgust—that some feel about mixed-race couples.
phys.org/news/2016-08-bias-disgust-mixed-race-couples.html

The correlation between a latent intelligence trait (Spearman's g from CAT2E) and a latent trait of educational achievement (GCSE scores) was 0.81. 
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606000171

SAT and ACT correlate with g:
researchgate.net/publication/242788087_SAT_and_ACT_predict_college_GPA_after_removing_g

Murray, 2007, Woodcock IQ test and Black-White IQ gap.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028960600078X

No narrowing in mean Black–White IQ differences—Predicted by heritable g (Rushton, 2012)
philipperushton.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/No-Narrowing-in-Mean-Black-White-IQ-Differences-Predicted-by-Heritable-g-2012-by-John-Philippe-Rushton.pdf

Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2006). The totality of available evidence shows race-IQ gap still remains. Psychological Science, 17, 921-922.
philipperushton.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/The-Totality-of-Available-Evidence-Shows-the-Race-IQ-Gap-Still-Remains-2006-by-John-Philippe-Rushton-Arthur-Robert-Jensen.pdf

The rise and fall of the Flynn Effect as a reason to expect a narrowing of the Black–White IQ gap, by Rushton (psst, here's a secrete: the Flynn Effect, yeah that thing normies like to spout about? It doesn't have anything to do with the Black-White IQ gap.)
researchgate.net/publication/222646687_The_rise_and_fall_of_the_Flynn_Effect_as_a_reason_to_expect_a_narrowing_of_the_Black-White_IQ_gap

ETHNIC GROUP DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS: A META-ANALYSIS: (Uses 6,000,000 participants)
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00094.x/abstract

Intelligence is 20% inherited in infancy. 80% in adulthood:
nature.com/mp/journal/v20/n1/full/mp2014105a.html

Genes are expressed later in life: (this is important because heritability raises with age across all traits, making your environment play less and less of a role in who you are overtime)
m.pnas.org/content/113/1/206.full

Different Black and White intelligence means were found in preschoolers even when controlled for parental education: "The present study explored the nature of differences in performance on the 3rd revision of the Stanford-Binet for groups and white preschoolers matched for parental education in two independent experiments. Large mean differences, favoring the white children, were found in both experiments. In addition, significant race × items interactions at level III, in both experiments, and level III-6, in Experiment 2, indicated that the differences in performance between blacks and whites were much larger on some items relative to others. Results were further examined by contrasting items on which black and white performance was not significantly different with items which showed large significant differences in performance." (Kek, even at preschool the IQ gap is g-loaded)
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0160289688900293

"[A] review of 39 studies by the Clemson psychologist Philip Roth and colleagues that reports that Hispanic-American IQs average 89.2 points."
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00094.x/abstract

Race, discrimination, cognitive ability and income: analysis of the Add Health dataset
psyarxiv.com/yurbx

Greetings Lord of the Shit. I appreciate your hard work in gathering all this material. I was wondering if you have any articles on how workplace ethnic/sexual diversity influences productivity?

You'll find that they dislike the scientific method altogether. The idea of a null hypothesis is beyond them. It unsettles them to think in terms of, "under what circumstances would everything I believe in be false?" They, ironically enough, treat their convictions like faith instead.

Of gender? No, I usually don't talk about gender as the topic never comes up for me. Race? Yeah. This study by Roth showed there's an IQ gap between Blacks and Whites applying for the same job. So, if that minority did get hired, you can expect less productivity due to an IQ gap at the same position.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00094.x/abstract

Demography and Diversity in Organizations: A Review of 40 Years of Research
researchgate.net/publication/234022034_Demography_and_Diversity_in_Organizations_A_Review_of_40_Years_of_Research

This study found that diversity at first was good, but after the honeymoon effect faded away diversity decreased production overall.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smj.633/abstract

Hell, you can also argue that you don't need immigrants now for productivity in your country. Internet can fix the problem of distance. And if they say you need them here, you have two (2) options: a) point out by their logic Japan shouldn't have cars and cell phones due to their homogeneity and low immigration or b) point out you can make an immigration zone in your country so minorities that you "need" for productivity can stay away from the rest of homogenous population while reeping the benefits.

pic related is great source for examples
and a great introductory redpill since it was written to try and convince the intellectual liberal crowd of consequences of biology. The one glaring flaw is that (((Steven Pinker))) hedges his arguments on race differences saying they could be real but probably aren't, because of (((reasons))), but I strongly suspect he is a closeted race realist and cuck fetishist

And yes, I'm aware Pinker is a canadian jew whose Harvard professorship endowed by a family close to the Clintons. I'm aware that he has showered praises for the Clintons in his books and tweets over the years. Still, it's funny that he is one of the few Jews sided against the tribe on the biological debate. If nothing else the book is great documentation on how Jews argue, form academic and political cliques, and harass their colleagues until they are blacklisted.

This book merely as an introduction to the path that ends with with J Phillipe Rushton and Richard Lynn.

thanks user, will pick up

What if you're kidnapped by mechanics and they drive in third gear just to confound the smarty pants physics major?

can tell speed from doppler shifting. not a problem

Show them your dick and say hell yeah

Although this will work on that sort of individual, in a crowd this is doomed because such crowds often contain at least one or two actual scientists.

Success with such groups is usually hopeless, as the sort of brainless reddit-tier memespouting idiot who jumps into this shit is already too far gone to even speak to. Even so, a more productive method would be the following:

1) Ask them to explain some basic well known phenomenon that conflicts with their worldview ("Why are black neighborhoods filled with crime?")

2) When they give an answer ("It's because black people are statistically poorer, probably due to slavery.") ask them to back it up. Offer to help them back it up, and give a counterpoint along with your help. ("Hey, you're right about black people being statistically poorer, but according to this analysis that corrects for that, black people commit more crime.")

3) Treat the whole thing like an exploratory process. This is what science fundamentally is. Don't act like you're guiding him to an answer, don't act like you're pushing him away from an answer.

The huge gigantic list of papers presented by the psych user may be of value or may not.

Niggers are Retarded

"…the mean IQ of sub-Saharan black Africans is about 70 - at the borderline of mental retardation."

African IQ and Mental Retardation, South African Journal of Psychology, Vol 36, Issue 1, 2006 journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/008124630603600101

Read it. He literally complains about Lynn, Rushton and Jenson using studies that have participants who have sicknesses or not been to school. You should really read Lynn's rebuttal to Wichertz. Lynn says that such things as lack of schooling and parasites are indeed relevant to Africa because those are relevant environmental effects affecting Africans, which is true.
Also, the studies he cites for African IQ gains on second testing with "better methodology", such as
and
what would be required"…
can be ascribed to teaching to the test. Also, those "gains" need to be checked for a Jenson Effect. Also, copper minors? Really? Totally a representative sample of the population, my man!

Can we trick Bill Nye to shill for putting solar panels in roads? It's one of my favorite retarded ideas that the "I love science" crowd has championed in the past. I'm convinced that they will crowdfund something like this if it's marketed to them effectively, just because it sounds sci-fi and futuristic, with muh global warming thrown in there to boot.


A lot of fedoras that I've spoken to about evolution think that organisms consciously make the decision to evolve. These are the same people that laugh about sky daddy spaghetti monster and think that Sweden is paradise on Earth because of some happiness survey that was carried out years ago.

Well, (((people))) tricked society into thinking cutting your dick off is liberating, so getting Shill Nye the Science Goy to shill solar roadways may work.

Another good introductory redpill is the Naked Ape (and its sequels) by Desmond Morris - it's basically a look at humans from as close to a purely zoologist perspective as you can get, which naturally goes against the tabula rasa crowd - and was probably one of the first popular books to really piss off the feminists in the 60's, so you know it's legit. It's one of those books that just makes so much sense when you look back on it, you wonder how you ever thought differently. It's definitely what sent me down the long road here, though I imagine a lot of the people here already know a lot of the conclusions he presents. One of the sequels, The Human Zoo, goes into a lot of the evolutionary psychology surrounding how in God's name we manage to survive in cities, which is a point of particular interest to me, and should be to people who want to know how cities screw with your head.

Also, if you can stand Steven Pinker, I cautiously suggest you look for some of Robert Winston's work, like Human Instinct. He is perhaps the mega-Jew (just fucking look at him), but his science is sound, especially when it comes to evolutionary psychology. The fact that he even dares look at evolutionary psychology is probably grounds to excommunicate him from the modern scientific community, him being Jewish is probably how he gets away with it.

Leftism in whites is being selected against. WOOOOOO!

I fucking hate that hard science has been replaced by "le science XD" in the minds of the masses.
I tried watching two documentaries from the UK recently, and both were full of historical revisionism and apologetic overtures towards women.

I mean it is. If Liberal Whites are at a birthrate of 1.4 and Conservative Whites are at 1.41, then for Whites Conservatism is being selected for. But in general, Whites are being selected against (at least those Whites with traits that are causation of a below replacement rate) since it's not at least a 2.0 birthrate. But yeah, Conservatism is outbreeding Liberals in Whites which is good.

Bull fucking shit.

First off, there's a BIG difference between Science and (((Ethics)))

Secondly, Christianity has VERY LITTLE to do with propegating ethic self identification, if anything the "we are all equal under god" had caused more ethnic mixing than any pro mixing study ever created.

No, what you're mad at isn't science, science gave rise to eugenics, not living in caves and propels us closer to survival past our puny sun's life cycle, or in case a meteor hits us, or a local pulsar zaps us all, or a plague wipes us out, or we don't develop farming and starve…

No what you hate is several interconnected things, one is the capitalistic search for more workers, they don't give a fuck about dysgenics, they want more workers before they die, they don't mind bringing the poor out of poverty as long as they work as debt slaves, who cares about the white poor anyway, they're already stupid and poor who cares if we replace them. The second is anyone with remotely eugenic opinions is called hitler, and the highly memetic meme of "racist" came into use, the term with little scientific basis was introduced. Scientists during the hippy era of "peace and lurv were all the SAME MAAAN (christians)" were indoctrified and the detractors labelled hitler, these new uni students became the 80's scientist or uni lecturer, which slowly moved left as they purity spiralled the fuck put of each other. Society always being slightly behind the rich and important thus adopts a generation later the ideas of the last generations successful, which were all educated at (((university))). Thus what was once high intellect propaganda is now low intellect propeganda.
There are hundreds of reasons, from countries political pressures to groups of people, ideas that propegate, celebrities, media, scientific bias, capitalistic greed, the dehumanisation of individuals, the recognition and social pariahship of minorities however small, the defence of the WEAK AND USELESS. ETHICS.

You can't label "societies problems" on ideological backgrounds like religion or "atheism" without showing your own ideological bias.

Statements like "atheism or science is the problem" only seeks to dumb down the argument.

YOU ARE RETARDED

STOP POSTING REDUCTIONIST TRIPE ON MY Holla Forums FAGGOT

I'll occasionally check in on the science bloggers who appear to recognize no separation of science and liberal orthodoxy. It's uncanny, as though if the Democratic Party came out with a new position, then suddenly all relevant scientific findings would shift to support it.

One "new atheist" biologist blogger P.Z. Myers has been coming at evolutionary psychology hard. He's one of these boomer liberals where

no matter your counte-arguments, 99% will still spout the same childish boas-ian, jewish, illogical propaganda
etc.
Don't try too hard. I was literally taught creationism in school and these reddit-tier sciencers are no more sophisticated. Simplify everything

apparently I was not taught spelling

Most are men, most are atheists, so pointing to two superstitious women isn't going to convince anyone.

Ah, yes. This is something I see far too often. It is now to the point they literally peer-review themselves in their pseudoscientific virtue signaling narcissism, all truly peer-viewed journals thrown out the window so long as it supports that vile illogical liberal world view. But as long as scientific funding is tied to anti-science PC it'll continue to be thus. Science can never be the truly dispassionate and a liberal is a true subhuman luddite. Without Political Correctness, science can progress unhindered. I guess that's why the Nazis were the most technology and scientifically advanced nation during their entire existence. It's a shame as early 20th century America was exceptionally pro-eugenics and made massive strides in it. We could have progressed so much by now and to think what could have been is truly depressing. As a child I remember when everybody thought the 21st century would be something like the Jetsons even the most intelligent scientists I looked up to because of the extreme progress we made, the sheer pace. After all, we went to the moon and everything, in the 60s! But then it's like everything started falling apart somewhere, where did we go wrong? I say the cultural wars of the 60s and 70s and maybe even the 40s with the defeat of the Nazis. It destroyed not only the social fabric of society but any real chance of progress. I want to do something but what can I do? I'm just a lowly biochemist.

This
All the good science and research in this thread won't matter when arguing with a sub 100 iq that thinks theirs is 6 gorillian. The key is creating cognitive dissonance.
The simplest one for race I've found that I silenced a bbq with was, "if race is only skin deep, why is there an organ donor waiting list?" Or "Tesla wasn't an atheist; are you smarter than him?"
Unless the person you're arguing with is a scientist who actually does experiments; remind them that their arguments are 100% faith based on the honesty of people trying to get published. People who of their own admission in QM state that objective observation is impossible; because retards that think they're smart love to throw around the double slit experiment without understanding its implications.

As an Odinist, I can generally agree with this post. I am well aware of their hypocrisy (probably shitting up the Issac Arthur JewTube is most notable of late).

It really shows how dumb they are, though–all of it. Most Christians are not White anymore. They do perceive it as being "White" and think that justifies their bullshit. I tend to trigger them by pointing out that they will never colonize the galaxy by being snowflakes who can't handle opinions. I had a bunch of them oy vey pretty hard over that.

Anyone who understands science at all is not going to be able to read a biology textbook without chuckling, considering it's basically the Third Reich complete with war banners and goose-stepping SS in print form (kek). Anyone who doesn't see that just doesn't get the meaning at all of anything scientific.

Honestly, I wish these retarded communists would fuck off and stop ruining everything already, but they never will. They really need their asses beaten. There is no way to convince them of anything.


No. Their entire ideology revolves around denying reality. There just isn't a way to fix these morons. However, triggering them with hate facts is good, but it's like a digital slap in the mouth and nothing more.


It's really fucked up that we live in an era where we even have to argue in favor of shit like this. I am surprised they haven't straight-up claimed "gravityism" as the new sin or something.


I hope you realize that that is a metaphor, Mr. Ubermensch. Every diety that's not part of a fake religion is most certainly not dead.


Indeed. I am glad someone else has made this exact same observation. Thanks, user.

Why did it take millions in research to demonstrate what basically any high school student can see?

Cntrl-F for "hetrozogozity" and "Fst" for two papers showing large human biodiversity.

Because scientist are faggots.

Neither group is even 100% Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Europeans had a large amount of Neanderthal DNA (Neanderthals were actually very intelligent) and Africans have large amounts of Homo Erectus.

This
Bill Nye isn't even qualified to be a scientist in the first place. He has Mechanical Engineering degree, and hasn't actually invented or discovered anything. He is literally just a personality and a puppet used to spread leftist ideology to the masses in the guise of "science".

I think it is still worth it to argue with science facts against lefties. It won't redpill them, but it will make them look retarded to the normies, pushing them towards our way of thinking. Lefties are pretty much incapable of being forced redpills, their ideology revolves around a denial of facts. I should know, I used to be a communist myself. The trick is to make them question their beliefs naturally, not to prove to them that they are wrong. Our focus should be to redpill already conservative-leaning normies (Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Neo-cons, Alt-light) and to make the left side look retarded, preventing anymore from joining them.

This. He's literally a clown.

OP while I like the general idea behind this post Science in general is no good way to convince people. Like Hitler explains in Mein Kampf, that overly complicated shit and trying to reason with the masses only has the opposite effect. If you want to win the the masses you have to keep it simply and make big claims. You have than to repeat this claim/lie over and over again, similar to how the liberals are doing it with the Russia meddling stuff right now. Even so this Russia stuff is sounding totally stupid, it is still believed by at least 30% of the people in the west simply because they repeat it over and over again. Hitler wrote about this phenomena and explains that this has to do with the German/Aryan psyche. He really goes into it, and explains that while there is much strength and advantage there is also a huge weakness in our strong emotional compassion for our fellow humans, which is the strongest among all races and helped us advance so far. The problem is that we generally do not lie often, and if we do we instantly feel a little guilty even if we just speak small lies. This is both strength and weakness, because on one hand our civilizations are superior to everyone else, but on the other hand, we have problems believing that our fellow humans would ever lie to us in a big manner. To that comes that if a big lie is repeated also by others we have an even harder time in believing that more than one person would speak the same lie to us.

So in short, the bigger the lie the easier we believe it and if others also repeat that lie it becomes nearly impossible for the masses to see through it. Because the masses just don't have the time or will to work though this stuff and in general believe what the majority tells them.

This is why meme are so strong. It is better to just stay with the "diversity" memes that show violence against whites. Go with Religion of Cuck™ist bomb making science, or Black against White violence. But stay the hell away from statistics, maps and instead use pictures.

This has than to be used for at least a few years.before it takes effect but after that it will stick forever.

what happened?
(polite sage)

Wouldn't they have been immune to seal diseases?

Meanwhile, the kikes love (((Crowley))) nigger magic and absolutely detest Blavatsky theology and metaphysics, which recognizes that even science (which is the knowledge of all that is, God) is part of God and thus, divine.

Literally just spend a second near them whether it's irl or online. They make the Amish look like Von Braun. They're more useful idiots, Marxists that get programmed to "love science" while having absolutely no basis or background to even do so. It's more pseudo-intellectual signaling to normalfags on how smart and how much they love "science" another vague and meaningless term, not to mention it's generally in their fucking group names to begin with. It's more indoctrination, fill retards heads up with meaningless and nonsensical garbage with no substance, that way they have the zealotry of their brethren while also being able to continental more doublespeak/newspeak without having to abide by "science"

Organisms change randomly. The changes that let the organism survive to have more children will become more common from generation to generation.

I have a few questions for knowledgeable genetics-anons.

What is the most useful measure of genetic similarity/difference?

FST gives the difference between populations, but doesn't indicate how much variation is within those populations. Some ethnic groups are more varied while others are more similar.

If I have a child with a member of my own race vs another, what is the difference in their genetic similarity to me? Presumably the difference is proportional to the FST distance or something, but also has lots of variation.

There are white strangers who look like they could be my brother, and are probably more similar to me than whites who look less like me. Do these strangers carry more than 50% of my (human-variant) genes, making them more my kin than my mixed-race child would be?

How much of my DNA is homozygous, if I'm not inbred? It must be higher than for a mixed-race individual. Is the goal of racial preservation to keep the gene-pool as small as possible, but well mixed enough to prevent inbreeding problems? Or is it about keeping phenotypes within a small range?

It's very easy to tell a person's race. Perhaps there are certain genes - those which manifest as observable phenotypic differences, which are much more important, racially. Perhaps if you analyzed FST using only these genes, the differences between races would be much more pronounced.

A random fellow white looks more like you, and is more like you in many ways, than your mixed-race child would be. A metric that showed this would be a great redpill.

Your ignorance is showing. Look up "Lucis Trust." You might also want to look up the word "occult" in a dictionary.

Hello~ (sorry for any typos in advance)
If you're trying to measure ancestry relation then use haplotypes. If you're trying to measure genetic similarly (whole genome [which is far superior for telling similarities]) then use Genome-Wide Association studies, Genetic Cluster Analysis (GCA), or Principal Component Analysis (PCA).

Keep in mind Haplotypes/mtDNA ancestory does not equate to genetic similarity. Haplogroups are just ancestral groups. They're not meant to measure your genomic similarity, or your hetrozogzity, or your best fit genetic cluster. They're just genetic ancestory mapped out. Hence why Haplogroups, are NOT appropriate to use when talking about genetic clusters or genetic similarity. But, groups that do have the same haplotype tend to be more similar. Overall, haplotype doesn't tell similarity but you can infer it, however it's pretty inappropriate because you can use better, more accurate measures.
No. Whatever hetrozogozity is not between groups is within groups using Fixation distance. So it tells both.
(Wew, this would be long explanation but I'll try to keep it short as possible. I'll link you the paper by Henry Harpending below who was the first one to purpose this idea of anti-kinship.)
Okay, you're basically talking about kinship coefficient. Kinship coefficient simply put is 'how much someone is related to you and what level of kin can you consider them?'
What the kinship coefficient is going to be depends on what you are comparing. Usually, when you hear "Timmy is 0% related to you and your mom, dad, brother and sister are 50% related to you" they are talking about with group kinship. They are taking the level of genetic similarity of your race/ethnicity and setting a random individual from your population to the baseline of 0%.
Now, what if we added, say, an African or Asian into the mix? How related would they be to you? Well, a random individual in your race/ethnicity is 0% related to you. But Africans are more genetically distance from you than any random person from your own race/ethnicity. So if that within group-individual has a kinship coefficient of 0%, well, then that African or Asian has anti-kinship coefficient because of how genetically dissimilar they are.

Genetic similarity if we set the baseline to 0% for race/ethnicity:
Dad: 50%
Mom: 50%
Sibling: 50%
Half-sibling: 25%
Grandparent: 25%
Cousin: 12.5%
Second cousin: 6.25%
Random individual in your race/ethnicity: 0%
East Asian: -0.194
African: -0.332

So as you can see, people outside of your race/ethnicity have an anti-kinship coefficient with you. Let's say you mated with an African. How related to would you be to your child? Well, if we're comparing just you and your kid, then 50%. But, let's compare you to if you had a child with any random White person (assuming you're white). Then you're mixed race kid is actually only 33.4% related to you compared to, say, your dad or your would be pure race kid who is 50% related to you. Why is this? Well, compared to someone within population your 0% related to them. Out of population? Those genes become more and more less related to you due to genetic changes of those two populations and it's even less related to you in general. And if you put Africans as the baseline for kinship, someone from your own race is going to be almost related to you like how your half-brother is now or grandparent.

Henry's paper: link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1020815420693
Protip: use sci-hub to download it.

Yup. There's kinship coefficients even within races/ethnicities/populations. But people like people who are more phenotypically like themselves so you're more phenotypically like your friends and spouse which in return makes you more genetically related. People's spouse and friends are like 3rd cousins. See here for studies on assertive mating:
Depends on what you're comparing to as I stated above. But 50%? No. Way too high and you'd have inbreeding problems at that point of relatedness.
This is literally random since genes are passed down on random and I would have to sequence your whole genome to know. But, you're likely really homozygous because people tend to assertively mate. But if inbred? Far more of a chance of it.
It is (if using the two parental populations as a baseline).
Yes. Genes want to replicate themselves. So from the biological standpoint, you should always marry who is genetically most similar to you because that's what you want: max replication as possible. (Just don't make it similar to the point of inbreeding though). Plus, why wouldn't you want a bunch of mini you's running around hanging negros? Great American pass time, my guy.
You can't have a phenotype without the genes so the genes must be preserved. But both.
If you only analysised Fst using those genes you would have a Fst distance of 1.00 (100%) every single time making the study a) bias; and b) useless because no matter what it will be 100% Fst distance even if I measured one (1) gene between races that is only 0.0001% different. So get how that wouldn't work? You gotta measure the whole genome or at least a good proportion of it.
A random White IS MORE genetically similar to you than any African or Asian or Amerindian. So breeding out is a) betraying your genepool and b) betraying yourself because you basically opted to have a child less similar to you genetically.

Thanks, very helpful. A few follow ups:

By assertive mating do you mean assortative mating?

How do you use the anti-kinship numbers? I'm not sure how you got 0.334 for a half-african from 0.5 for a child and -0.332 for africans.

With the FST sampling thing I wasn't suggesting cherry-picking things to maximize apparent distance between 2 particular populations, but rather restricting the genes to ones that were actually expressed, if such a thing is possible. In any case, you wouldn't get 100% FST distance to every other group, as there are groups who are closer to europeans than africans are, in terms of shape, color and brain.

Yeah, sorry. Autocorrect changes assortative to "assertive" for me and I don't care to fix it.
It's in the paper (read for better explanation, obviously) but basically Fst distance x 2.
(not gonna look up the actual numbers so don't take this as a the real number for for example.)
Fst distance between Europeans and Mexicans is .15
.15 x 2 = .3
Since it's anti-kinship it's set to -.3
Therefore Mexicans have a -.30 kinship with you showing an anti-kinship.
Ah, now I get what you're saying. Yeah, we can do that but it what would it require? No clue. We'd probably have to measure every single genotype within the sample and check which genes are being expressed or not.
Ah. Yeah, if we use a baseline, sure. If we do just a 1:1 comparison it would always be 1.0.

but what would it require?
And I mean gene by gene instead of just a huge sweep like a we do now.

Great, thanks.

So with the -0.33 kinship for africans, your half-african child would have a kinship of 1/2 * (1 (self) - 0.33) = 0.34, vs 0.5 for a white child?

This makes me think that the FST/anti-kinship score is underestimated in practical terms, as a mulatto child looks less similar to you than a lower kinship white like a grandchild.

Great, thanks.
No problem.
Correct. Got it right.
Well, mixed race kid has a kinship of .34 with you while your grandchild has .25 so not far off, really. Plus, add in assortative mating coefficients and your grandchild is more like .31ish related to you. So not too far of a distance off. Also, you're mixing phenotypes. So while your grandchild will have less of a genotype with you than your mixed race child, your White grandchild's genes are still pulled from the phenotype pool you're from. Get what I'm saying? You basically mixed your White paint with your Black paint. Someone else's White paint will look more closely to your White paint because a) they're from the same source of orgin and b) well, they just look the same because they're not mixed. Not too much a deep answer into it.

Killing the red man was both of ethical and moral imperative.

Most of those guns are being used in some kind of conflict, though most of the locals have some kind of machete or something for self-defense. Most of the Rwanda genocide was committed with machetes

The Solutrean hypothesis is still controversial and mostly unproven. It's true and will be proven so eventually, but for this it's better to stick to stuff that's established scientific consensus that most scientists just don't like to talk about, like race being identifiable from skeletal remains, IQ correlating with race and skull size, etc.
The IQ/brain size/race link is a particularly good one to hammer because most people you talk to do not know they've been lied to there. They've probably heard about (((Stephen Jay Gould))) "proving" that Samuel Morton falsified skull measurements but haven't seen the remeasurements showing exactly the opposite–Morton got it right, (((Gould))) fudged it.

Gould is a piece of shit. Glad he's dead. Now I'm just waiting on Flynn, Turkheimer and Nisbett. Fuck 'em.

Top fucking kek, most science students can shortcircuit them in a second. Those cannot think rationally cant do science.

Great thread.
Will give you a bump with the consensus about human evolution (read "consensus", not necessarily the true human evolution, also note that interbreeding, and the necessity to include africans in "modern human" group)

nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12886.html

bump

Anyone able to source some non-pozzed climate change articles? I'm going to need it in the near future to take on some people, the kind who think they can use the UN to enforce emissions policies (trampling sovereign national interests) and that (((green energy))) will save the world.

tried this. They just quote anthropologists going on about race as a construct and think that anthropology is equivalent to genetic science because they actually know fuck all about science.

What's up with that
the real climate depot.

I say this in every genetics thread, some of which I make;
Your brain is genetic, your behaviours are genetic, your culture is genetic.
There is a reason why Germany full of 99% of non Germans won’t be Germany anymore even if in some hypothetical scenario the migrants were willing and it was possible to teach them he German way fully, with childhood experiences etc.
Your personality is genetic. Your preferences are genetic. Your ideals and all your desires are genetic.
Were you illliterate and an orphan raised in China, your British character would still show and you would reach for your particular British interests in any way possible.
‘’TLDR; Your brain is genetic, your mind in all its entirety is genetically predisposed in every way that it is as such.’’

Not at the computer with all my data but either an user or a internet search will help,you find this,
Undergrads are lower on religiousity than average population
Post grads have higher religiousity with significance and even higher religiousity and/or spirituality that is not atheism when consider PHD or higher education. This trend has held with the younger population, so it isn’t just old generations being compared.
It’s quite fascinating I’ll try to get you the data when I find this thread later

Agree with the gist of your post, but this -
- cannot be for the simple reason that there are no "British" genes. Let's talk about haplogroups instead, R1a etc. Much more precise.

Don't question the foundational axioms of materialism to much now big brain, just except the philosophic cancer at the heart of modernity like a true traditionalist Aryan.

Sure there are British genes. Maybe not specific genes, but their composition.

...

Luckily, you just have to remind them of Lewontin's fallacy and they'll be forced to shut the fuck up.

old/pol/ made me actually think for one of the first times about this because they were able to substantively prove that race isn't a construct first before moving to other points.

There's a statistical cluster of alleles that we could and do call "British genes" (despite not being a gene).
For ancestoral lineage when talking about behavioral genetics?

Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

I can live with that.

Ultimately - yes, always keeping in mind, of course, that there are no pure lines. In that sense the above-mentioned clustering is the only realistic way.

Pure lines? What does that have to do anything right? What point are you trying to make in general with the use of haplotypes? What is your point in general? Lay it out.

every month, new papers are published in scientific american and nature supporting 'race as a construct'. these people are incapable of understanding the points, so 'fallacies' fly over their head. they just wave 'this was published yesterday therefore it trumps something published last year" with no further thought.
the only reason to debate with one of these people is: because it is public, and silent observers may be introduced to new facts,
To do it with the hope of reaching them is pointless

Usually I just say to them that it doesn't matter what they want to call biological groups of people because whether it's called race, clade, cline, haplogroup, cluster, population or subpopulation, it all yields the same results and the rest is just semantics.

rightards do the same thing. Christcucks are possibly more annoying than leftards. I don't know. It's a close matchup.

Science is glorious. It's the lit torch leading the way out of darkness. Of course people love it.

Yeah, nah, it's the lit torch that blinds people, who are convinced to look just what it CAN shine light on, but will conveniently dismiss anything else that can't be (yet) proven.

Also fuck off to your containment board.

...

i c wut u did thar

This behavior is why I came to the realization that religion is a necessary thing despite being a fedorafag myself, without it most people just make a new religion out of something else. Key is to controlling the religion your society follows so that its constructive rather than destructive to your people.

Conservatives have a birth rate above replacement, in fact if you only look at conservative whites they have a higher birthrate than hispanics or blacks. As politics continues to break down more and more along racial lines we'd actually maintain our demographic majority if we could just halt non-white immigration, the real problem is that many self-described conservatives are still obsessed with not being viewed as "racist" and are self-sabotaging.

Got a link to the source? And are you sure we'd maintain racial majority? Because as far as I'm aware of even with conservative birthrates + raw numbers of liberals that we're set to be a minority. Or is that false?

It's the difference between a cistron and a gene. A cistron is a specific gene sequence that has a particular protein chain associated with it. To be read properly by the ribosome, a specific cistron needs to be
i.e., the start and end are clearly defined. Your genetic code is one long list of cistrons of varying lengths that code for different protein chains. A gene is any length of genetic code that matters in terms of a creature's survival. This might get pretty technical, so feel free to ignore me.

Where it gets interesting is the process of meiosis, where the sperm and eggs (each with 23 chromosomes) get created from the parents' 46 each. See first image - remember that the 'paternal' and 'maternal' here aren't referring to a sperm and an egg, for example, but to the chromosomes from the mother and father of whoever is making this particular sperm, or this particular egg.

You'd naïvely expect the crossing-over process to shift whole cistrons, like it takes the whole bit that goes [START PROTEIN CODE A END] on the first chromosome and swaps it with the equivalent bit (that makes protein A) that goes [START PROTEIN CODE A END] on the second before doing the same with protein B, then C, and so on. What's weird is that it doesn't do that. Not in the general case, anyway. The splitting point doesn't have to be between cistrons, it can be anywhere on the chain. So the bit you swap might, for example, be any of

So actual cistrons aren't very helpful when we're talking about which bits of your genetic material you pass down, because they're likely to be broken up by this crossing over process. The word 'gene' usually refers to an arbitrary length of genetic code that survives long enough to change the chances of the organism's survival. Obviously the shorter the gene is, the more likely it is to survive, because it's more likely to go untouched by this crossing over process.

There's more to it than that, because biology is the science of figuring out how ~4 billion years of natural selection produced all the types of living things on the planet, and it's complex. Sometimes genes change because of translation errors, sometimes because a whole gene can actually get flipped upside down and inserted into the new code backwards. It's a fascinating topic.

And are you sure we'd maintain racial majority?
This breaks it down with links supplied.
anepigone.blogspot.com/2015/12/among-whites-conservative-liberal.html

Probably true but would be self-correcting once basically all whites were conservative.

Tony Heller
The Deplorable Climate Science Blog
realclimatescience.com/
You will find tons of stuff on his blog

I agree, being religious doesn't make you stupid. The arguments show that college graduates are less religious, not that smart people are less religious. Admittedly, believing everything in the Bible is 100% truth is stupid, but it takes a really smart man to know that science can't explain everything, and that there are plenty of ways God can exist. Our universe could have been created hours ago, and we are just implanted with our memories, and there is no way we can tell. Science still can't explain how the Big Bang happened and why our laws of physics are the way they are. Saying God created the laws of physics and the universe is a good an explanation as any.


Lefties use science as a puppet for their political views. They have a physiological need to appear more intelligent than everyone around them, and saying their points are "scientifically proven" is the way they show their superiority.


This. Their ideology has a denial of facts as a core principle. They so readily dismiss any scientific data because the author was "racist". Literally any facts you give them are deemed incorrect just because they don't agree with their viewpoint.

There's not a single evidence that you're born gay. It's made up bullshit that has created these WHITE (very important factor here) eunucks, who will not breed and is just another wedge in between normal people living normal lives and this sick and twisted society that is brought upon us. There's no gay-gene and if i would speculate and guess, i would say it's completely up to affirmations, especially sexual ones that is over and over ingrained into your brain until you think that you're attracted to the wrong sex.

Counter? We love science.

...

I believe he was a scientist. Don't let the kikes steal that from him.

gun ownership is mandatory in Eritrea

Any body got a link for rare pdfs or information about pre-jewish science?

The gene that causes the mutation of light skin in humans is currently identified as SLC24A5. It is present in African and Asian populations as well as in Caucasians. This gene became expressed in our people because skin with less pigmentation carries an evolutionary advantage in the colder, darker northern climates to which our ancestors migrated from Africa about 50,000 years ago. In another hundred generations or so the descendants of today’s “white and blacks” in the northern climes will be all but indistinguishable.

Also, DNA stands for DeoxyriboNucleic Acid and ribo stands for Rockefeller Institute of Biochemistry (now Rockefeller University) where the chemical composition of DNA was first discovered in the 1920s. The Rockefeller Foundation had become interested in DNA because its trustees feared a Bolshevik-style revolution. They hoped to find the ultimate biological key to human behaviour which would allow the resentful and envious mobs to be effectively managed.

Only if it's being selected for. Which is doubtful due to modern nutrition and diet. Then you're also equating race to be just skincolor…

Also, another thing to add is what makes you think that Blacks and Whites are going to be under the same selections despite the same environment? Are U.S. Blacks and Whites under the same selections? No. No because there's the affect of coevolution and we have no reason to believe that these two separate groups will just so happen parallel each other exactly. Especially when there's different social group selections. I mean, really, did Europeans all evolve into one group? No? No reason to believe Whites and Blacks will then.

Is that the only gene that makes white people white? 😡

you are technically correct, though we agree so its all good

Indeed. There are many like you both on this side and on the far side from the redpill.
What you decide to do with this frightening knowledge will prove if you are human or just a coward that will deny reality. I reckon many are not cowards and will snap out of it. If it will be too late for their own lives is another matter.


welcome fellow bio bro

i lold

You couldn't be more obvious if your kippah was on fire.

That document would go a long way user

Just use this retractionwatch.com/2016/06/23/engineering-paper-pulled-for-peer-review-problems-authors-object/ and make the case that engineering peer review is shotty too. Probably worse since less people check their validity.

You're not wrong, but they were more interested in eugenics in general. The degenerate elites were already using birth control in the "Roaring Twenties" and feared the recent waves of Catholic immigrants with high birth rates would oust them from power, by democratic means or revolution. Lefties bring this up today as if it is a killing point against opposing mass immigration, but they forget that the immigrants back then they were already part of Western Civilization and assimilated well into the American model. Not to mention they went through a screening process and could be sent back if they did not meet the standards which, at various times, included excluding illiterates and homosexuals.

And, to be sure, Germans, Italians, and Irish did have an impact on the policies of the US government. These peoples have a slightly different way of looking at government than the British/Dutch who were obsessed with checks and balances. e.g. Italians are skeptical of government in general and will write off politicians: “bah, they're all evil,” while the Scandinavian pathology of altruistic socialism wants to help anyone “in need” as if they are part of their own tribe.


The SS also based their eugenic programs on the The US and Swedish model. There is nothing wrong with eugenics, but the problem was they targeted whites while ignoring the rising tide of color, for the sole purpose of continuing their degenerate lifestyles. The Rockefellars along with those like Cecil Rhodes and other early CFR members were Anglophiles who wanted to rejoin and expand the British Empire. All other Europeans were viewed as potentially hostile to these aims. At least that's what they said publicly. The Rothschilds were involved from the beginning, and they were only kind to the British because that's were their central bank was based. So it's unclear if they first few generations for Rockefellers were dedicated to white genocide from the start in order to rule over mulatto mud races or if they were just useful goyim. Ironic, that 100 years later they are directly responsible for not only destroying nearly all traces of the largest Empire in history, but ruining all of Europe.

sorry for slightly off topic post, but your The Rockefeller Foundation comment really activated my almonds

don't forget there are stories among the injuns talking about the peoples with red hair whom the injuns genocided to live on the continent unopposed

You prove that Christianity is the inventor of science as we know it. Oh, and that disabling problem-assessing and solving skills makes you atheistic.

Does anyone have that Holla Forums stamped cap of a writer debunking the Hollywood meme "lol Christianity's fault for the Dark Age and it was a spiritually dark age". It implied the Golden Age of Science was thanks to Christendom.

We can prouldy and truthfully claim that religion IS science (it literally means research in Latin) and that Christianity has been science's greatest benefactor. It is Political Correctness that is bringing forth a spiritually dark age.

I think this is the article your talking about.
Also, the author doesn't mention this, but after the Western Roman Empire fell, the Visigoths in Spain began picking up the pieces and were well on their to creating a new kingdom. That is until Muslim armies invaded Spain through Andalusia. Around the same time Muslim armies conquered Persia and began their assaults on Constantinople.

So, Muslims invade the West disrupting trade and the transfer of knowledge from East Roman Empire for nearly 1000 years creating the "dark ages," and when they are finally pushed out decisively the Renaissance happens. Oh, and all that talk about Muslim Spanish Andalusia being some multicultural scientific paradise is complete BS. Like all multicultural societies it was wracked by ethnic, religious, and political conflicts that eventually contributed to its demise.

Also, the Ancient Greek texts were never “lost” and “rediscovered” by Andalusian Muslims. They were preserved and translated by Byzantine monks. St. Thomas Aquinas got his copies of Aristotle's work through Byzantine libraries. Not to mention nearly every innovative "Muslim" scientist was an apostate, and what liberals view as the height of "tolerant" Andalusia, Muslims view as the nadir of a degenerate society.

Watch Uncertainty has settled

...

Wasn't that also the time when southwest coastal areas were under constant threat of slave raiders?

Yep, due to Muzzies. Jews were often slave traders as well. The vast slave trade they created around the Mediterranean further delayed the rebirth of of the West.

European women were especially targeted to become jariya (or djariya)–sex slaves. The rulers would preferentially take white women as wives, and under Religion of Cuck™ic law children of slaves could be legitimate heirs to the throne. Their preference was so skewed toward white women that by the end of the Umayyad Dynasty in Spain, the Sultans were 99.99% European.

pic related is a great book on the topic. I'd also recommend The Third Choice - Religion of Cuck™, Dhimmitude and Freedom by Mark Durie and Eurabia by Bat Ye'or. they're all in the pol muh books mega link Remember, Religion of Cuck™, not Christianity, is primarily responsible for the hindering of science in Europe.

Proof that you have to be brain dead to be a liberal.


Seriously, can somebody get the mods to disable that fucking text replacer. We want to have serious discussions, not be interrupted by the word is lam being replaced by Religion of Cuck™ every god damn time we need to talk about Muslims.

Perhaps it's just me, but a specific category of shills seems to have disappeared since that wordfilter was added. Lemme test.
Religion of Cuck™ is the real threat to the west.
Is/am on Europe's soil means the death of Western Civilisation.
sage for offtopic

New archive: archive.is/V5blr

I've found the naked ape through Terence McKenna and have now added Robert Winston to my reading list.

Got any other good stuff?
Just finished reading: The anatomy of human destructiveness by Erich Fromm.

read blank slate by pinker

Look up Lysenkoism.

It will explain everything about what ruined science and why leftists and not even the religious creationist types are truly the worst.

Sup, Holla Forums. This seems to be where I'm most likely to get an answer/help. I'm mid debate with a rather bright, but misguided/cucked fellow on global warming/climate change. Yes, I fucked up when I allowed him to expand the scope to climate change

Most recently I hit him with : notrickszone.com/2017/10/23/400-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/

To which he responded with: snopes.com/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/

I'm unable to laugh away snopes as a source, because I'd accused him of having his head in the sand and publicly scolded him for it when I lazily used kikebart as a source and he attempted to hand wave what the article said.

What is my best point of attack to pursue from here? Is there any solid ammunition I can hit him with that he won't be able to dogmatically deny? Everyone knows snopes sucks, but how can I disprove their assertions in that article? Should I take the "Scientists are now disagreeing with what their own papers say when they realize it might jeopardize their grant apps" Approach?

Thanks, I have a .pdf about advocating White Nationalism and eviscerating liberals and marxists. Where to post? Apparently Holla Forums stopped taking .pdf's?

Microchimerism show it's possible that every male that ejaculates in a woman ends up in her brain. That it's not even uncommon for women that haven't been pregnant to have male DNA in their brain.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16084184/
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0045592

If you're not arguing and debating with someone in a public space where you can change viewer's minds, you're wasting your time outside of the debate just being practice.

There is no surefire way to counter someone putting their head in the sands. It's a case by case basis and it depends on the things they value on whether they could change their mind.

Why? It's true. muhomo'd the pedo goatfucker was a literal cuck.

What, are you kikes against science now too?

...

Nobody here is against science.

No clue about climate change since I don't argue about it. You can point out to him even if climate change is true, there's a cap to how much the world can heat up due to its tilt on its axial until it tilts the other way again creating an ice age; aka, the Earth is on a permanent iceage-desert spectrum so either way global warming is gonna happen then it will tilt back to an iceage.

What I can help you with is race realism if you need it, though.

fucking yid logic

Physics bro. I dabble.


The problem isn't the concept of science as it was intended to be. The problem is people treating science like some kind of religion, which is what the 'I fucking love science' crowd do. People for whom science actually matters are comparably easy to convince of race realism and related topics, because they're open to new ideas, but people like that are few and far between. Far more common are people that treat some vaguely defined 'SCIENCE' like some kind of panacea for all the world's ills.

People like that are easily duped into believing anything that gets sold to them under a thin veneer of 'science'. They've got no understanding of the fundamentals of the topics they're talking about - see - and they treat education (which they incorrectly conflate with intelligence) like some kind of universal solution. Muslims stoning women who got raped, throwing faggots off rooftops even a stopped clock is right twice a day and blowing up concerts? Just educate them otherwise. Africans consistently failing to improve crop yields even when white NGOs hand them millions of dollars worth of fertiliser, farm equipment and expertise? Just educate them. White families having too many kids, not lowering themselves to cuckoldry, and exhibiting preferences for their own race? Educate them.

After a few rounds of this, you can almost hear the brackets around (((education))). It's not just providing people with the tools and knowledge to make sense of the natural world and the people around them - it's imparting a specific cultural mindset on them that (((happens))) to be communist, feminist, and filled with the worst kinds of lies. The million-dollar question is, how can we break the conditioning on those kinds of people? A nine millimetre aspirin would do it.


>implying this fucking hard
Hell, even the word 'club' makes it sound like it's some kids' treehouse arrangement, as opposed to the result of a century's worth of Jewish interests and laws being pushed on people that had absolutely no say in the matter, ended up no better in the long run, and are being threatened with destitution for daring to leave the 'club'.
The funny thing is, I reckon, a drop in scientific funding would actually help Britain. When the chips are down, the (((social sciences))) are on the block first - not because I think the government has any real appreciation for anything harder than sociology, but because they know the money's in STEM. If there's one good thing you can say about Jews - they're predictable. They'd follow a ten pound note off a cliff.

Even better, a drop in scientific funding means that the only people that will be able to be supported in science are people that actually pull their own fucking weight. That means less 'get black lesbian transgender quadriplegic paedophile girls into STEM' programs, and people actually having to earn their qualifications. It means more people working on a shoestring budget, which sucks for the people doing it, but adversity breeds excellence. Africans lived in the garden of Eden for millennia, and successfully managed to build mud huts and drink out of cholera-infested waterholes fifty gorillion miles from where they live. Europeans had to actually work for a living, and look what they did.

Don't even bother. As moronic as science worshippers are they can at least get the terminology right.

Our group meets every few days, conversations typically carry over. /r/ the quote on arguing with kikes and how they forget they lost the next day quote


Understood.

I'm not sure I follow, could you provide me with an introduction/explanation to the concept pertaining to axial tilt and such? I'll always take compelling arguments for race realism as well. Thanks, user.

laraj.ca/AGwiki/uploads/Contemporary/IronmarchOriginals/Zeiger - Hammer of the Patriot.pdf

Worth a read if you find yourself arguing with marxists, ever.

This got explained to me by my geologist pal and I don't know the ins and outs of it as much as I should. Hence why I don't debate it. Nor even care for the subject. Basically Earth is on a giant axial (refer to picture). When it tilts towards the sun the Earth warms up. When it tilts away we get colder. So either way, we would expect Earth to warm up, manmade or not, because it will eventually tilt towards the sun and then away from it, cooling us down. This is what creates ice ages and desertification But!, since we can only tilt so far, global warming can only go so far being manmade. The only question is how much and what will it do? Can't be that bad since humans have survived the sun-tilt before. Either way: tell the fag that global warming is inenviable with or without humans and he's just circle jerking over nothing he or we can do.

That's all I know.

Also, to add in Europe use to look like Africa's deserts. Do with that as you will.

I think he was referring to Milankovitch cycles.

Glacial periods

Thanks. And yup, exactly what she was referring to.

Being a neo-luddite solves nothing. Allow the tards to pretend they are smart. Dotr soon.

Most didn't even speak English and almost all of them spawned organized crime syndicates as well as urban labor movements which gradually expanded the scope of government authority in the Americas. A Fenian is a Fenian is a Fenian.

very nice links, user. i knew it was rumored to be possible through telegony
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegony_(pregnancy)
but this really reinforces it
also reinforces the importance of finding a woman with as few previous sexual partners as possible

When the Earth heats up every climate zone moves towards the north. This means the Southern Sahara will become more tropical, but the desert will start encroaching on South Europe. I don't know about you, but I would like to keep Europe wet.

Just want to add my 2¢ in and say one should consider also that to immigrate to the United States back then still required IQ tests among other things that made it very much different than today.

Anyone else seeing the jew star and the all seeing eye at the center of that atom?

You're not the first one, and no, it's no coincidence.

>formerly hosted at libraryofhate.wordpress.com/
>preserved at archive.is/LRe05
>currently at libraryofhate.com/
feels good, man

...

Initially I thought you were referencing the technocracy movement.
But then I didn't know

How do fucked up leftists consider theories like "Thunderbolts Project"?

kek
yes please continue sucking (((einstein's))) cock, goy

learn to read

I know this might sound douchy, but i've been thinking lately about science and all the theories they have had over the years and usually most of the theories are based on previous theories. So what if the first theories were completely wrong and scientists just continued to build on theories about how the world works, but on theories that were completely off base.

Basically what science boils down to is just the same stuff as religion. It's a tale of how the world works and why we are here. However, i trust old-school christianity way more than science at it current state, considering how they are trying to convince us that us driving cars and heating our houses (to survive) is somehow affecting the earth and we have to stop or armageddon will come and we stop this by giving more money away, and other stupid jewish tricks like that.

But it's a binary thing between science and religion, throughout history most of the inventors and scientists (along with artists, painters etc) were employed by the church so that they could make a living doing science or art.

shit, i did read that wrong. thanks for slapping me in the balls, user.

my apologies, user. i misread your post

They would had gotten it right if by choosing a black character you keep getting randomly attacked by other blacks.

This thread reads like a bunch of idiots who don't know anything about science got together to discuss how bad scientists have it because another group of idiots are being faggots.

The "i hear science XD rofl" people aren't a problem. At all. Source: my ass.
I got 5 friends working with research grants and I've done it in the past before moving to private sector (industrial).
Here's how this shit works and why they're not worth bothering with:

For starters, 90% of them are dumb as bricks. No, not just incapable of advanced calculus or understanding modern chemistry, I mean actual fucking dumb. Their math skills stopped developing when they were 14 years old and biology is whatever scroll past their facebook feed that week.
At most you'll see them discussing classic mechanics (the most boring part of physics) and chemistry. And by chemistry I mean "look you can mix these two things I can't pronounce the name off and cool shit happens! Why? I don't know! It's SCIENCE LOL!"

These people do not spend time with scientists. They're not even close to academic institutions and at most follow a bunch of hacks that turned cheap scientific displays into parlor tricks. Most of the guys emulating Bill Nye simply picked up a book, failed college and turned the little they know into a show for normalfags.
It's like when an antifa fag buys a BB gun and feels like a guerrila warrior.

Second: no. They do not infiltrate or even enter academic circles. Yes, you've all seen the "studies" about gender and society floating around. Allow me to explain.
When it comes to engineering, you have three big circles. Electrical, Civil and Mechanical.
Then you get 30 other diferent kinds of engineering that are either too niche or flat-out useless (lmao, Ambient engineer).
All 3 Big Engineering Circles privately laugh at the others because more than half don't require advanced math/physics or have no practical use.

When it comes to the Science comunity, it's even worse for the snowflakes because unlike the Engineers, the Science comunity works on a peer-review system. And someone with a Biology study would feel downright insulted when asked to review some social-studies bullshit.
To put it simply, none of the "big" sciences (biology, physics, chemistry) interacts with these pseudo-scholars. Even psycologists are seen as a fringe pseudo-science on the same line as phrenology.
So they resort to incestuous peer-reviewing among themselves. Problem with this? It affords them no actual credibility in the science comunity.
The normalfags eat it up, of course. But they also forget about it 2 months later because who gives shit, I can mix these two compounds and make metalic bubbles! WOOO!

Finnaly, for those of you old enough to remember it, the "I heart science" crowd is a direct parallel to the "cyberpunks" that claimed to love hacking computers in 80's.
The actual hackers who knew their shit didn't bother with the "cyberpunks". Why would they? They were 18-19 kids who just wanted raves, drugs and pretending they were cool with computers. They didn't bother anyone.
Rarely, one of them would actuall pick up a PASCAL book and start a path of discovery, but for the most part, they were just harmless idiots.

tl,dr: they only thing to do is laugh at them. Anything else is downright wrong, stupid and unnecessary.

DO YOU EVEN FUCKING LISTEN TO YOURSELF?
You can't even make a point using your own brain, you gotta point at someone and say "look, that guy is smart and he said stuff! Go read it!" and then he replies with the same shit.

Fucking hell, that's not debating. And the fact that you allowed him to get away with it in the first place? Despicable.

LINKING ARTICLES ISN'T DEBATING.
IT'S MENTAL MASTURBATION.

Kikes do, though, and are notorious for poisoning the well with as you put it "incestuous peer-reviewing"

I guess you could make the argument that some of those are just mixtures of the three "big circles" but even then, chemical engineering does not belong to any of those circles and is hardly niche. Even "niche" engineering degrees are hardly useless depending on what it is.


Phrenology does perfectly well for what it was designed for, identifying kikes and other sub-humans.

>>>/reddit/

but user, aren't you admitting here that there's a large tendency to circle-jerk, which in and of itself undermines the credibility of the peer review process that you're touting

The color of the bark and the color of the leafs are more diverse in their area, than when you compare 1:1 leaf and bark.

Not really, I just worked there long enough to come to this conclusions. I wasn't even the best there.

Money does. And kikes go with money like sauce goes with food.

True. Engineering, the practical aplication of sciences has evolved a lot in the recent years. I'd make an argument that maybe, MAYBE depending on the country and economy, some "niche" fields of engineering actually see good use. Still, you can easily find "Safety and Hygiene Engineers" everywhere and 90% are unemployed.

Wait, I got that one wrong. I didn't actually mean Phrenology, I meant Oneirology, the study of dreams. It was considered an actual science once.
Phrenology… I dunno. I haven't seen enough to confirm it's findings, but the little I've seen was spot on. I'd give it a few more years for it to mature. AI's and modern technology can give it a big push towards discrediting or outright proving it. We'll see.

PASCAL was a great language to teach basic programming tools to kids and middle-schoolers. You could have them program simple routines, understand the flow of a program without them worrying about how a byte physically works inside the computer.
I actually conviced a kid to take up programming with a PASCAL book and a small compiler. He moved on to C# a couple years ago but he's 16 so he still has time to learn.


Well, it's been said before in this thread:
And I agree with it. Heck, most people agree with it. We use (I used at any rate) peer reviews because it's the best we got, not because it's perfect.
It's kinda like democracy: it's a shitty system that doesn't work well but works better than any other system so here we are.
That's also why I moved from theoretical to proper engineering: I doubt I'm smart enough to invent the "next big thing what solves our problems" but I'm pretty good at making due with what I get.

Oh and:
It's twofold, actually. It slightly undermines the credibility of the peer review system, but hugely undermines the credibility of their social sciences.
I'd google for it but I'm nearly asleep as it is, but some anons here might have saved the pics from the thread we had some months ago:

Basically, for social/gender studies in america you had the same 10 women peer-reviewing each other's works and praising everything they did. One day, an american women studying gender politics wrote up her own study and sdubmited it to this incestuous cabal. For some reason, the 10 crones didn't like her (personally, not their work, they didn't like her AS A PERSON) and reviewed it poorly.
The woman complained and raised a stink. And suddendly, every scientific comunity worldwide had a collective laugh at the "gender studies" field when someone pointed out the same 10 women peer-review hundreds of "studies" written by themselves over the course of 20 years or something like this.

I remember that there were more hilarious details about it, but honestly I just laughed, took it as a dumb joke (as did anyone with good sense) and promptly forgot about most of it. That kind of "science" is simply too dumb to even care about.

I was mostly just giving you shit about how you were writing, I'm sure PASCAL is fine.

I only consider someone an engineer if they've graduated from an ABET accredited program (which I doubt any hygiene or ambient "engineers" have).

Phrenology is the study of the shape of the skull and what that means about that person's brain. It turns out to be a fairly decent way to determine race. See pic #2 of the OP, essentially phrenology but without being called that because that would trigger peer-reviewers. Kikes like to kvetch about it a lot because Hitler supposedly used it to determine who got the gas.

I guess craniometry is a more apt term than phrenology*

wonder how many of them were kikes

Oh sure, determining race is a no brainer since race actually expresses itself on the body.
I'm actually suprised on how many people don't believe it. They'll readily agree that Asians have slanted eyes because of their race, but niggers can't possibly have a diferently shaped skull than caucasians, no sir no!
I meant the other parts of phrenology where people claim shit like "cranium size correlates to intelligence". I've seen data that corroborates it and data that disproves it.
In my opinion? That just means there's some other factor being left out and not being controlled in testing. For a bunch of years the "bad upbringing impacts a persons sucess in life" was the big argument for why niggers are dumb. Then some study came out recently that showed how little upbringing actually affects people.
Like I said, it's an incomplete science in my opinion and it's still growing and developing.
I wish to see it expand because the practical uses and applications are potentially great.
They already have some solid bases to start off but there's a lot of work ahead for them.


Yet. It's just not as catchy I guess. And "craniology" would sound dumb.
But the size itself isn't everything. The composition is important too.
Cave men used to eat berries all day. When they started eating meat, their craniums didn't get bigger but they suddendly got smart.
Arguably, the one's with the bigger cranium would be even smarter, reproduce more and the average cranium size would "grow" throught multiple generations, but the deciding factor in this example was nutrition for instance.
That's why I'm hoping Phrenology crosses with other scientific studies in the future.

Can't tell you for sure without googling it, but I remember it being 8 or so. Only remember a foto of one of them, nose large enough to be a snout.

It does correlate, but it's not a 1-1 correlation so there's room for another causation of cranial capacity (if we're taking capacity as a causation of g). What's your data that disproves it?