thecel
morph king
- Joined
- May 16, 2020
- Posts
- 25,086
- Reputation
- 53,039
The post by @holy that this post responds to:
looksmax.org
I agree with most of OP’s points. The facts he brought up are true. But the conclusion that race realism is bullshit doesn’t follow from the facts.
In other words, I agree with his evidence but not his conclusion.
For instance:
There being more variation within ethnic groups than between ethnic groups doesn’t contradict race realism!
Analogy: Female humans generally have higher body fat percentages than male humans. There is also more variance in body fat percentage within the sexes than between them.
There need not be biologically distinct racial categories for race realism to be legit.
We agree that traits like nose shape and skin tone are continuously variable across geography, evolved due to climate and sunlight levels.
Can’t intelligence be such a continuously varying trait?
Most Important:
@holy and I have different definitions of what race realism is.
What @holy calls race realism, is the subset of race realism that leans towards actual racism. Chronically online guys in fringe communities obsessed with racial purity, the Jews, etc.
What about the variety of race realism that’s closer to the mainstream view of race than to Nazi-tier racism. Simply acknowledging that humans with different ethnic ancestry, on average, have advantages and disadvantages. For example, West Africans are advantaged in power sports because of the “sprinter gene”, myostatin deficiency, and longer limbs in relation to their torsos. This qualifies as race realism in my view.
Why is it race realism? Because it stands in contrast against the bluepilled, soy “race optimism” that’s so prevalent nowadays. The belief that absolutely zero biological racial differences exist. The attribution of every measured difference between ethnic population groups entirely to social factors. “Race optimism” isn’t backed up by science and is more faith-based than evidence-based. I’d go as far as calling @holy himself a race realist, for him citing studies and history already places him in a category separate from the equality-copers.
See, the issue with both Stormfront racist-cels and bluepill equality-copers is that they start with the conclusion and look for evidence to back it up. Whereas race realism is all about starting from the evidence and believing the truth that it unveils. Maybe the truth is that IQ doesn’t differ genetically between races. Maybe the truth is that it does. But whatever the evidence says, is what we shall believe, even if the truth hurts our feelings. This is race realism.
My opinion on race and IQ is I don’t know the answer. Inconclusive. There’s a ton of contradictory evidence out there.
There’s a study that shows the Black-White IQ gap doesn’t disappear when children are adopted by parents of the other race. There’s a study that shows IQ is correlated with head size in children which is correlated with race. There’s a study that shows there still is a Black-White IQ difference even when adjusting for socioeconomic status. Other evidence, however, states the contrary about Black and White IQ in the United States. There’s a study that shows Japanese IQ is higher than White IQ. But that study was debunked by another study that showed no difference. The previous study’s samples were biased: the Japanese sample was disproportionately urban. There’s a popular map of the average IQ of countries around the world. China’s IQ is 105 according to it. But other evidence shows that the average Chinese IQ is LOWER than the average European IQ. And IQ testing itself is culturally relative; culture determines what sorts of test questions test-takers would find familiar (and thus easier to solve).
Do races differ in mean fluid intelligence at the genetic level? I don’t know. But even this answer is a race realist take! Admitting that we don’t yet know the answer is a form of race realism imo. Because the mainstream, socially accepted, politically correct take is to assert that we do know the answer and the answer is that average IQ is uniformly distributed around the globe. We don’t know this. To say that we do is a conclusion clouded by faith, not one based on realism. Merely saying that a genetic racial difference of IQ is A POSSIBILITY is already controversial enough to place you in the category of race realism. Race realism isn’t White supremacy. It ain’t about being absolutely sure that one race is better than another and dying on the hill. Race realism actually is about letting go of preconceived notions about race (both positive and negative) and taking a purely scientific approach. Race realism sometimes is admitting that we don’t know enough to be sure about all the details of human genetic diversity.
"Racial realism" Is Fucking Delusional
Let's start with straight facts: These racist fucks love citing "race and IQ" studies without understanding basic population genetics. The entire concept of distinct biological races is scientifically bankrupt. There's more genetic diversity between two random African villages than between...
looksmax.org
I agree with most of OP’s points. The facts he brought up are true. But the conclusion that race realism is bullshit doesn’t follow from the facts.
In other words, I agree with his evidence but not his conclusion.
For instance:
There being more variation within ethnic groups than between ethnic groups doesn’t contradict race realism!
Analogy: Female humans generally have higher body fat percentages than male humans. There is also more variance in body fat percentage within the sexes than between them.
There need not be biologically distinct racial categories for race realism to be legit.
We agree that traits like nose shape and skin tone are continuously variable across geography, evolved due to climate and sunlight levels.
Can’t intelligence be such a continuously varying trait?
Most Important:
@holy and I have different definitions of what race realism is.
What @holy calls race realism, is the subset of race realism that leans towards actual racism. Chronically online guys in fringe communities obsessed with racial purity, the Jews, etc.
What about the variety of race realism that’s closer to the mainstream view of race than to Nazi-tier racism. Simply acknowledging that humans with different ethnic ancestry, on average, have advantages and disadvantages. For example, West Africans are advantaged in power sports because of the “sprinter gene”, myostatin deficiency, and longer limbs in relation to their torsos. This qualifies as race realism in my view.
Why is it race realism? Because it stands in contrast against the bluepilled, soy “race optimism” that’s so prevalent nowadays. The belief that absolutely zero biological racial differences exist. The attribution of every measured difference between ethnic population groups entirely to social factors. “Race optimism” isn’t backed up by science and is more faith-based than evidence-based. I’d go as far as calling @holy himself a race realist, for him citing studies and history already places him in a category separate from the equality-copers.
See, the issue with both Stormfront racist-cels and bluepill equality-copers is that they start with the conclusion and look for evidence to back it up. Whereas race realism is all about starting from the evidence and believing the truth that it unveils. Maybe the truth is that IQ doesn’t differ genetically between races. Maybe the truth is that it does. But whatever the evidence says, is what we shall believe, even if the truth hurts our feelings. This is race realism.
My opinion on race and IQ is I don’t know the answer. Inconclusive. There’s a ton of contradictory evidence out there.
There’s a study that shows the Black-White IQ gap doesn’t disappear when children are adopted by parents of the other race. There’s a study that shows IQ is correlated with head size in children which is correlated with race. There’s a study that shows there still is a Black-White IQ difference even when adjusting for socioeconomic status. Other evidence, however, states the contrary about Black and White IQ in the United States. There’s a study that shows Japanese IQ is higher than White IQ. But that study was debunked by another study that showed no difference. The previous study’s samples were biased: the Japanese sample was disproportionately urban. There’s a popular map of the average IQ of countries around the world. China’s IQ is 105 according to it. But other evidence shows that the average Chinese IQ is LOWER than the average European IQ. And IQ testing itself is culturally relative; culture determines what sorts of test questions test-takers would find familiar (and thus easier to solve).
Do races differ in mean fluid intelligence at the genetic level? I don’t know. But even this answer is a race realist take! Admitting that we don’t yet know the answer is a form of race realism imo. Because the mainstream, socially accepted, politically correct take is to assert that we do know the answer and the answer is that average IQ is uniformly distributed around the globe. We don’t know this. To say that we do is a conclusion clouded by faith, not one based on realism. Merely saying that a genetic racial difference of IQ is A POSSIBILITY is already controversial enough to place you in the category of race realism. Race realism isn’t White supremacy. It ain’t about being absolutely sure that one race is better than another and dying on the hill. Race realism actually is about letting go of preconceived notions about race (both positive and negative) and taking a purely scientific approach. Race realism sometimes is admitting that we don’t know enough to be sure about all the details of human genetic diversity.
Last edited:
