@TradeMinister

One scientist was wrong, happens all the time and it's not a bug: it's a feature of the scientific method.

The replication crises regards a series of studies, you can read more about it on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
@amerika @freemo

@arteteco @TradeMinister @freemo

I would never use Wikipedia as a source for anything.

@amerika

Then you clearly have an unscientific bias going in. While wikipedia is NOT authoritative or a scientific source, nor does it claim to be, it does cite ample sources for any assertion it makes. The expectation in science is that you do not blindly follow ANY publication. The value comes from following the sources, reviewing those, and then making a case or forming your own opinion on the validity of a statement based on the quality of its sources.

To discount any source that thoroughly cites its sources out of hand shows up front either an inability or an unwillingness to actually evaluate the topic in an impartial and thorough manner.

@TradeMinister @arteteco

@freemo @TradeMinister @arteteco

Nonsense. I've watched Wikipedia censor and manipulate over the years.

@amerika

So? That doesnt make anything I just said nonsense. You still have the ability to follow the sources and verify if due diligence has been done yourself. Thats the beauty of citations, it gives you everything you need to argue against a topic even if its content happened to be bias or censored.

@TradeMinister @arteteco

@amerika @freemo @arteteco I was just recently reading about how completely Wikipedia is integrated with the rest of the technotalitarians. Apparently it is in actually controlled by a small closed inner-circle of editors who completely control politically important content.
It's useful for non-political scientific and medical info.

@TradeMinister

The group of wikipedia editors are as imperfect as any other group. Peer review doesnt stop at the publication. they provide citations so you, personally, can do your own peer review. So bias or not that is no reason not to read the page, follow the links, and use it as part of a larger range of sources to form your opinion.

You'd be just as negligent if you relied entirely on a single scientific paper or even a single scientific journal as a source of defacto truth. that is not how science works. But the first step is learning how to evaluate sources and arguments in science.

@amerika @arteteco

@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 @manarock @amerika @TradeMinister @arteteco heterozygous sickle cell carriers have resistance against malaria. It's actually an advantageous trait under endemic malaria conditions.

@hector

Yea I know, but technical details like that are above Trade's intelligence levels so gotta keep it simple.

Its similar to dark skin, it puts them at a disadvantage for vitamin D but at an advantage for UV protection and makes it easier for them to keep cool.

@amerika @TradeMinister @arteteco @manarock

@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

Well said, agreed. Even from a non genetic standpoint anyone who has ever though "African" was some sort of singular race and culture is clearly ignorant of the reality.

Tunesians for example clearly have very different physical, cultural, and genetic qualities than someone from Nigeria. They dont even look similar, let alone what else.

@manarock @amerika @TradeMinister

@freemo @arteteco It's not just North Africa vs Sub-Saharan. There are vast differences everywhere. Reducing race to skin color is utterly myopic.

@raucao

Totally agree. I was just picking the most obvious disparity that would be harder to deny since it is obvious the moment you see the two side by side it is clear they are from very different gene pools.

@arteteco

@freemo

I think the Mercatore projection we oftentime use, that distorts the areas far from the equator, can give a wildly wrong idea of the size of Africa. Africa is huge.

I'll attach a video demonstrating the real size of countries, when we remove the UTM distortion

@manarock @amerika @TradeMinister

@arteteco How does this arrive at the "correct" shapes at the end? It's still a projection of a portion of a sphere's surface onto a plane, so distortion is inevitable.

Equal-area projections are a thing, so you can get correct sizes - but AFAIK it's not possible to get a projection where distances between all pairs of points are correct.

@khird you can have a projection where distances between pair of point are correct, but in order to do that you have to abandon the shape.
To get the real size you can do many things, not sure what they did here, but you could for example use the mercatore projection, which is a cylindrical one, and make it tangent to the area you are considering, than move to the next one. We usually have it tangent to the equator, that is why is not much distorted over there.
It's like having a series of local projections, instead of a global one

Hope it makes sense, I don't usually talk about this stuff in English =D

@arteteco

> you can have a projection where distances between pair of point are correct

I don't think this is right, in general. You can have a projection where the distance from a fixed point, to any other arbitrary point, is correct. But in general, you can't have a projection where you pick two arbitrary points and expect the distance between them to be correct.

Take for instance the area bounded by the Greenwich Meridian, the Equator, and 90W. This is a "triangle" in that it's bounded by three "straight" (i.e. geodesic) lines, which intersect in pairs at three distinct points (0N0W, 0N90W, and the North Pole). But all three intersections are at right angles, which isn't possible for a planar triangle. So how could you end up with a projection where this is the "correct shape"?

@khird here of course you don't have correct distances: USA is not that far from Mexico! They are just correct **inside** the country

@arteteco

Yea, you could literally fit the following countries into Africa and **still** have space left over.

* China
* USA
* India
* Mexico
* Peru
* France
* Spain
* Papua New Guinea
* Sweden
* Japan
* Germany
* Norway
* Italy
* New Zealand
* United Kingdom (yes all of it, ireland, england, wales, the whole lot)
* Nepal
* Bangledesh
* Greece

@manarock @amerika @TradeMinister

@freemo @arteteco @manarock @TradeMinister

I think it has always been known that there were five major races in Africa.

Our ancestors distinguished among them, which is why you had terms like "hottentot" and "pygmy."

@amerika @freemo @TradeMinister @arteteco @manarock

Hottentot aka San for sure

@Prodigal @amerika @arteteco @freemo @manarock Is that the original population of South Africa before the Bantu and such took over?
There was at some point some speculation that the Eurasian peoples descended from them, or at least from some original South African tribe.

@TradeMinister @amerika @arteteco @freemo @manarock yes.

@amerika

While that certainly hints to acknowledgment of the genetic diversity of the people of Africa, in reality while race itself is a valid scientific concept it is not a discrete notion that is countable. There isnt a specific number of races nor can one person be said to be of a different race than any other. It is a spectrum and from a scientific perspective the best we can really say is, on a sliding scale, how similar are two people in terms of their genetic origin.

With that said, my comment goes a bit off topic and its not all that relevant to the main convo.

@TradeMinister @arteteco @manarock

@freemo @TradeMinister @arteteco @manarock

I disagree. There are four root races and many ethnic groups, all combinations of those root races.

@amerika

while your certainly welcome to hold any personal opinions you want, regardless of if it has reasonable evidence to back up the claim or not, simply saying you disagree and stating what you beleive isnt really much of an argument for what the established evidence says.. you'd have to actually provide some evidence or argument to make a position like that useful to others for consideration.

@TradeMinister @arteteco @manarock

@freemo @TradeMinister @arteteco @manarock

It's commonly acknowledged.

On the other hand, it seems you're presenting a bunch of stuff without "evidence."

And we know that modern "science" doesn't publish any, sooo...

@amerika

Cant publish evidence about something that has no evidence to support it.

As for how common the opinion is, thats not really all that relevant when there is no evidence to back it up.

@TradeMinister @arteteco @manarock

@amerika @freemo @arteteco @manarock I think North Asians would most violently disagree also.
I'm not quite sure where you get four races. I count Asians, Caucasians (I refer to them together as 'Eurasians' despite the English useage of it) and Africans. You can assert that Native Americans have been separate from other Asians long enough to have quasi-speciated if you want, or not.

@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 @TradeMinister @arteteco @manarock

Interesting assertion.

@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

you've offered what now? The only thing ive seen you do is make vague references to assumptions you've made that have long since been thoroughly debunked by the scientific community with mountains of evidence. you havent provided a single piece of valid evidence, or even invalid evidence for that matter.

Literally the only thing you've contributed is racist nonsense with no evidence to back any of it up.

@amerika @arteteco @manarock

@freemo @amerika @arteteco @manarock

When confronted with facts, all you and yours can do is whine about your feelings, launch ad hominem attacks, and try to suppress the facts.


'Attempts to fully discredit his most famous book, 1994's "The Bell Curve," have failed for more than two decades now. This is because they repeatedly miss the strongest point of attack: an indisputable—albeit encoded—endorsement of prejudice.'

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-real-problem-with-charles-murray-and-the-bell-curve/

@TradeMinister

If you say so. Once you bother trying to actually share "facts" rather than random racist bullshit maybe then we can see if your statement is true or not.

@amerika @arteteco @manarock

@freemo @amerika @arteteco @manarock Are you done yet? You are tiresome and I wish you'd just go away.

@amerika @arteteco @manarock

BTW, if one actually reads Murray's work (which no liberal would ever admit doing), his core conclusion is that retards do badly, and white retards do just as badly as Black retards, so one could (and liberals no doubt would if they read it) twist it into an indictment of White trash, who despite not having alleged racism to contend with, generally live much like Black trash.

'“The Bell Curve” and Its Critics

In November 1989, Richard Herrnstein and I agreed to collaborate on a book that, five years later, became The Bell… '

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/charles-murray/the-bell-curve-and-its-critics/​

@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 @mystik @amerika @arteteco @freemo @manarock IQ only correlates to college exams, and curiously, has no correlation at all with success or fulfillment in life.

@icedquinn @TradeMinister @arteteco @freemo @manarock @mystik

Not true. Up through 130, it correlates directly.