@freemo @amerika @arteteco Consider the case of the 1918 influenza and Bacillus Haemophilus, an excellent example of dogma wasting careers and a decade or so of research. I'm sure that still happens, and I expect it will happen to String Theory in the fullness of time: my (unprofessional) guess is it will not be fundamental even if it is accurate at certain energies.

@TradeMinister

Not sure that is a great example.. Your not talking so much about dogma or wasted careers as you are talking about observing scientific progress where competing ideas and theories are over time refined and confirmed.

@amerika @arteteco

@freemo @amerika @arteteco You should maybe read up on it. One eminent German scientist insisted for decades that that irrelevant bacteria caused influenza, so at least one career and decades of work were wasted trying to prove that.

@TradeMinister
I am very familiar with it. Individuals have wrong theories all the time, and thats how science is suppose to work, thats how we learn we are wrong and ultimately what is correct.

@amerika @arteteco

@freemo @TradeMinister @arteteco

And every generation, we find out that settled science from the previous was nonsense.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html

@amerika @freemo @arteteco Which is a good thing and how science should work. Unfortunately the weight of Authority and control of funding mean that the scientific process is frequently impeded by old senile fucks who should have packed it in long ago but are Important so they control the funding and research: office politics wins again.

@TradeMinister

Sometimes funding can derail science and create some issues, no doubt.. A prime example of that is the whole autism vaccine nonsense where basically someone paid a bunch of money to a small minority of crooked scientists to produce a easily debunked paper. Even though the whole of the scientific community quickly rejected the paper its very existence was used as fodder by some for years to come. So yes a person with some money can certainly use psudo-science to cause some harm.

But these sorts of situations never get very far, they certainly dont pass any comprehensive peer review, and generally is not what we see from the majority of the scientific community.

@amerika @arteteco

@freemo @TradeMinister @arteteco

Lots of areas are not explored because they are politically incorrect.

Let's look at IQ research.

@amerika

There has been a great deal of research around IQ, even going so far as to investigate IQ differences among cultures we think of as different races, alot of that research is ongoing. Better IQ tests designed to be suited for tribal cultures with little contact with the outside world have been developed over the years for exactly that reason.

The issue is simply certain assertions have been made so often in the past and debunked so thuroughly, and almost always done under extreme bias, that most scientists arent going to rehash the same old nonsense unless someone actually comes up with a compelling high quality science, which is rarely the case in certain areas.

Every once in a while I come across some moron with a clearly racial bias trying to argue blacks are inherently lower IQ than whites, and every time when i give them the time and effort to review the evidence of their claim it is completely laughable the lack of evidence and the amount of bias they employed to collect it. Obviously when 99% of people arguing a particular point are always crackpots even if there is a valid point somewhere among them it isnt going to as easily get attention. Extraordinary claims take extraordinary evidence.

@TradeMinister @arteteco

@freemo @amerika @TradeMinister @arteteco so I have no interest in arguing that there are racial IQ differences between different groups, especially that black people may be less smart. That said those sorts of studies are the kind of study that you couldn’t publish if you found anything other than no difference, and where the researchers are only looking for one answer. I don’t think we can say we know whether there are IQ differences, and it might be tempting to think it’s possible since IQ is in part determined by genetics, and genetics vary between races.

@manarock

Hard to say. I mean we see studies that suggest black people have genetic deficiencies other races do not all the time. for example it is well known and established science that blacks have a much higher incidence of sickle cell anemia than non-blacks. Despite this effectively looking like they are genetically inferior in that regard, and thus would be something you might think couldn't get published, it tends to be free published and fairly well accepted science.

The reason such studies stand little chance of getting published isnt so much about the biases in the industry, its about the fact that we have tested the hypothesis for over a 100 years in great depth and never once have found anything to support that assertion. So naturally its not something you will see getting published unless there is some pretty solid and reproducible data, and there never is.

@amerika @TradeMinister @arteteco

@freemo

If I can chip my humble 50 satoshis on this, African people have way higher genetic diversity than the rest of humankind, not having experienced the bottleneck from getting out of Africa.
It's easier, therefore, to find higher diversity of problems too, and the sampling can wildly affect the results of any research. Talking about "black people" or Africans is really like putting together all the rest of humankind, papuasians, native americans, latins, australian aborigenal people etc, and say "see, they have this and that".

My main point is, we can't talk about "African people" as a group and pretend it makes sense.

This is something that until more recent genetic discovery was not well known, so a lot of studies even from a recent past have a huge bias in that sense

@manarock @amerika @TradeMinister

@arteteco @freemo @manarock @TradeMinister

You can talk about any group that has something in common. For example, we say "humans do X or Y"

@amerika

He never said you cant talk about africans as a group, in some respects you can.. but as he pointed out talking about africans as a group is such a huge biodiverse group that it would be like asians, indians, russians, and europeans as all one group and making generalizations about them. Sure you can get away with that some of the time, but with a group that diverse more often than not it will be far too general to be useful.

@TradeMinister @arteteco @manarock

@freemo @amerika @arteteco @manarock Ha! There you have completely dished yourself, quite exploded, busted. The orthodox theory of recent human evolution has Eurasians, meaning all non-Africans, descended from a mixture of what would have been relatively small and highly-selected groups making the difficult journey to the Caucasus area and breeding with the Neanderthal and Denisovan which evolved there and nowhere else AFAIK. And of course mitochondrial DNA and other genetic evidence supports this.
So in reality there are not three or four subspecies, there are two: sub-Saharan Africans and the recent descendants of Africans imported as livestock, and literally everyone else.

@TradeMinister

You clearly have no clue what the technical definition of sub-species is then, which is about what I'd expect from you to be honest.

@amerika @arteteco @manarock

@freemo @amerika @arteteco @manarock You are a windbag of politically-motivated assertions about data and terminology with little or no data offered to support anything you say. I have offered Murray, mitochondrial and other DNA, and you have done nothing but whine about cultures affecting IQ tests to avoid the blatantly obvious fact that American Blacks have grown up speaking something like English, with the same media and so forth, and still cling to the bottom of society and most metrics while dark-skinned non-English-speaking Indio-stock Latinos come here, climb right over the Blacks and their kids speak actual English, not 'Ebonics', and are on their way to the middle class.
Blacks don't just fail in comparison to Whites, where one could whine about slavery forever and I'm sure you would;
they fail in comparison to everyone, including Indios who were also enslaved and cruelly oppressed.

@TradeMinister @freemo @amerika @arteteco @manarock However I don't think that IQ is everything. Africans are less prone to bullshit. Europeans will swallow whatever bullshit the jews come up with, as long as it is "polite" and fancy. In many ways black peoples (excluding niggers/former slaves) are wiser.

@mystik @amerika @arteteco @freemo @manarock As a high (not genius) IQ person, I can say it definitely isn't everything.
There is much to be admired in my redneck logger friends and in Mexican workers, virtues and strengths they have I can't begin to touch.

@TradeMinister

hahahah, he thinks he is high IQ... how cute. This is some first rate kruger-dunning syndrome right here.

@mystik @amerika @arteteco @manarock

@freemo @mystik @amerika @arteteco @manarock Please, oh please, continue; the meme and this thread won't be complete until you call me Putin and literally H****r.
Husky_1604165364724_DKJKWQCTHF.…
Husky_1604165423739_LUJELC8S68.…

@TradeMinister

Nah, you are far too insignificant to be comparable to them in the least. Just an insignificant, grumpy, and not too bright, racist fool, little more.

@mystik @amerika @arteteco @manarock

@freemo @mystik @amerika @arteteco @manarock
Husky_1604167199917_HS36EIKVDI.…

@TradeMinister @freemo @amerika @arteteco @manarock This is your brain on ad hominem.

@mystik

Not ad honimen when its literally true.

To quote him from earlier in the conversation " I just love it when they argue all races are identical despite obvious empirical facts like smart Negroes being about as rare as stupid North Asians."

https://freespeechextremist.com/objects/03cac52d-1632-48e3-b799-afd4cef4fe7a

@arteteco @manarock @TradeMinister @amerika

@freemo @mystik @arteteco @manarock @TradeMinister

Let's see, North Asian average is somewhere around 110 and African (Negroid) average is somewhere around 80-90.

@amerika @mystik @TradeMinister @freemo @manarock

do you have a source for it? I'm not in the psychology field, so I am not very up to date with researches

@arteteco @amerika @mystik @freemo @manarock You should look at the work of Charles Murray, packed with studies. IQ correlates strongly with things like higher earnings (no surprise) but also correlates strongly negatively with things like criminality and out-of-wedlock birth (who knew?).
It does not focus on race at all, but does show studies that human breeds perform differently on.

@arteteco

Just to clarify this dude (who has been excessively racist with his comments earlier in this thread) uses words like "breed" and "subspecies" in a way that is completely ignorant of the scientific definition of those terms. Apparently he things black people are a different "subspecies" from humans and now he is calling them a different "breed"... I wouldnt really trust much of what he says considering he hasnt even come to a point where he understands the most basic terminology.

@TradeMinister @mystik @amerika @manarock

@freemo @arteteco @TradeMinister @mystik @manarock

Subspecies just means a different variant, like "cultivar."

@amerika @freemo @arteteco @manarock @mystik
I haven't even bothered to look it up, since clearly a supergenius 'Data Scientist' (whatever that is) must be right:
https://jeffreyfreeman.me/

But for communication such as it may be among us mere all-too-humans, I'm using it in exactly the same sense as 'breeds' when referring to other animals, and am henceforth mending my sinful ways by deprecating 'subspecies' and 'races' (which WTF does that even mean unless it decends from say the latin root for Spanish 'raiz', "root"[recursion warning!]) as "breeds" of humans, precisely like breeds of other animals.

@TradeMinister @arteteco @freemo @manarock @mystik

"Breeds" works well too. Subdivisions of species = sub-species, no matter what we call it.

@amerika
Mate, taxonomy is complex already as it is, why go against the established names just for the sake of it?
please refer to the ICZN code, article 45 (regarding specific and subspecific nomenclature)

https://code.iczn.org/species-group-nominal-taxa-and-their-names/article-45-the-species-group/

breed is only used for domestic animals that went through selective breeding - doesn't have any taxonomic value

@mystik @TradeMinister @freemo @manarock

@arteteco

FSCK! This thing is like the X.25 spec and can only have been produced by a committee of predominantly French and Germans. As with all such works, there is an unreadable tangle of verbiage conveying precious little meaning. Thank god there's a glossary:

"subspecies (sing. and pl.), n.(1) The species-group rank below species; the lowest rank at which names are regulated by the Code. (2) A taxon at the rank of subspecies."

Oh wait, that's mostly recursive verbiage also.

But it appears that subspecies (or 'infraspecies' after 1960 or some BS) means what I thought it meant.

There is also "tribe" in the glossary, which is tempting but really doesn't mean anything like it normally does.

"tribe, n.(1) A family-group rank below subfamily. (2) A taxon at the rank of tribe. Names of tribes have the suffix -INI.trinomen (pl. trinomina), n., or trinominal name"

They don't refer to Breeds at all, but I'm sure you are right. Nevertheless, I reserve the right to somewhat misuse a term if my usage would in general convey my meaning to non-specialists.
While breeds of humans were purpose-bred only by Mother Nature (and the Great Mother is among many other things a bitch), the 'races' are otherwise breeds in that they are distinct and breed true if not crossbred.

So, should we refer to eg Whites as Homo Sapiens var. Caucadiensis or...?

@amerika @mystik @manarock

@TradeMinister

tribe is above the genus, many genera can be part of the same tribe, but below subfamilies.

You can use words as you prefer, just don't put your foot down on them.

In the humans afaik we don't have enough genetic diversity to talk about subspecies. Human is actually considered a subspecies by many, like Homo sapiens sapiens.

There is I think a lot of political difficulty in the field though (I study other stuff so I'm not really into it)

The most common words I've heard for the different groups are "**populations**", which in ecology means a group of individuals living int he same area, which can bring to evolve different phenotypic traits without being a different group

Consider that the Fst, that is, the genetic difference between populations, is usually higher inside than outside, ie there is more difference inside the european people, for example, than between europeans and africans.

To make it clear, I don't care how you call the groups as long as I understand and you don't sell it for scientific consensus. Race is usually used for zootechnic reasons as I said, so I'd avoid the term, just this.

You are tackling a complex scientific problem that is not resolved for any organisms, even ones where we have no political interest like many plants.

I don't have any ultimate answer

@mystik @amerika @manarock

@arteteco @mystik @amerika @manarock

I have made no study of taxonomy and don't intend to delve into it. I have watched the term 'quantum' being so abused that I don't mind if I do borrow a taxonomic term with minor imprecision.

What is the genetic variation between breeds of dog?

Anyways it is somewhat irrelevant: we all know the phenotypes and other characteristics that correspond to the root races, breeds or whatever of humans and dogs: if genetics and epigentics can't yet differentiate Asian from Caucasian or Chihuahua from Alsatian, that is neither here nor there, as we can rest assured that before long they will.

I will predict further that there will be autosomally dominant groups of genes that produce the brutality and other undesirable behavioral traits of Negroes, which I assert are not merely a matter of low intelligence; but that is a separate question.

@TradeMinister @mystik @amerika @arteteco @manarock

people who spent their entire lives studying biology: ok this is really complicated, we can't make any definitive conclusions, outside of some very narrow contexts.

laymen with agenda: hahaha, these stupid scientist don't know anything, but I figured it out, I'm gonna tell the race of every person on the planet, line em up:
nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger, jew, nigger, jew, jew, nigger-jew, jew-nigger...

@namark @TradeMinister @mystik @arteteco @manarock

Scientists participated in the suppression of race and IQ studies, so no one trusts most of them.

In the meantime, looking at history, it's obvious what is afoot.

I don't worship scientists, journalists, or anyone else by category; I respect competence in individuals.