Race Realism Is Not Bullshit (Response to @holy’s Post)

[Archimedes]

also the fact that you responded TWICE to a single post of mine shows again that I hit a raw spot indeed. I can read you like an open book you subhuman incel. I am playing your feelings like a violin.

Also lol at this cumskin now begging black gangbangers for backup against other ethnics. Pigskin cuck needs BBC reenforcement to fight his battles. I thought your hyperborean aryan faustian spirit would be enough to eviscerate billions of shitskins with a single punch huh?

@PrinceLuenLeoncur @Chadeep @TheBiggestIncelEver

Jfl at doublepost because you're arguing with me via a hot potato.

Calling black people BBCs is a bit gay, huh? Do you regularly think about black dick? Is this a concern over in the afghani slums?

 

[LegitTheory]

I don’t dismiss any legit research, I just don't blindly trust everything in academia. If academics say valid stuff imma agree. This may come as a shock to you, but you can actually reason from first principles and check studies for their methodology instead of doing character assasinations like women do.

Multiple scientists from academia already eviscerated Pfiffer, Kirgegaard, Rushton etc and the like. As i said it would like citing a flat earther who publishes his work on pseudoscientific journals.

 

[Archimedes]

if so why dont you go to the ethnic muslim neighborhood of your city and try to mog some ethnics there. Im sure you will make headlines with your head stabbed multiple times by the local kurd, afghan, paki, somalien gangbangers.

The fact that you are threathening me physically on an anonymous online forum tells me that I truly hit a raw nerve. Just face it subhuman: there will never ever be a day of the rope. There will never be a racial white awakening. You will be replaced and there is nothing you subhuman incel turd will ever be able to do about.

This is a blackpill forum. Not a bluepilled stormcuck safespace.

"brown people have no honor and will jump and stab you in the back" No shit, gayboy.

 

[LegitTheory]

"brown people have no honor and will jump and stab you in the back" No shit, gayboy.

skill issue. keep coping subhuman

 

[widdi]

Multiple scientists from academia already eviscerated Pfiffer, Kirgegaard, Rushton etc and the like. As i said it would like citing a flat earther who publishes his work on pseudoscientific journals.

send a refuation and we can go over it

 

[Archimedes]

skill issue. keep coping subhuman

You got assraped every response. Have fun talking about BBCs, brown rape gangs, how Muslims will jump you and stab you in the back, and whatever else. Clearly you're the true Storm front cel... I can't compete

 

[LegitTheory]

send a refuation and we can go over it

google is your friend. no one academia takes Pfiffer and his buttbuddy Emil Kirkegaard serious. Literally no one. this is easy to look up with a simple google search. I know you wish that would be the case but it isnt. Plenty of researchers who post on twitter have already destroyed that nerd as well on other platforms completely shredding his papers to shreds.

the thing is: you already have your preconcieved notion so no matter what i send, you will question it even though you yourself have 0 academic expertise. The fact that you have send a paper by Pfiffer tells me already everything I need to know. But I get it. Its 'forbidden' science and thats why Jew controlled academia just doesnt respect Pfiffer and Emil Kirkegaards papers. And thats why they have to publish their works on their own pseudoscientific journal. Its a conspirarcy!!

OpenPsych - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[widdi]

google is your friend. no one academia takes Pfiffer and his buttbuddy Emil Kirkegaard serious. Literally no one. this is easy to look up with a simple google search. I know you wish that would be the case but it isnt. Plenty of researchers who post on twitter have already destroyed that nerd as well on other platforms completely shredding his papers to shreds.

the thing is: you already have your preconcieved notion so no matter what i send, you will question it even though you yourself have 0 academic expertise. The fact that you have send a paper by Pfiffer tells me already everything I need to know. But I get it. Its 'forbidden' science and thats why Jew controlled academia just doesnt respect Pfiffer and Emil Kirkegaards papers. And thats why they have to publish their works on their own pseudoscientific journal. Its a conspirarcy!!

OpenPsych - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It shouldn't be this hard to link at least 1 peer reviewed paper that proves that the Black White IQ gap is fully environmental. I mean if its the mainstream position in academia there should be a ton of papers right?

 

[LegitTheory]

It shouldn't be this hard to link at least 1 peer reviewed paper that proves that the Black White IQ gap is fully environmental. I mean if its the mainstream position in academia there should be a ton of papers right?

IQ tests only portray a social reality not a biological. Psychology is a social science just like gender studies. A soft science. Not a hard science. Unlike natural sciences like genetics or biology which are needed to prove intelligence differences.

Its also low IQ to compare populations who live in vastly different socioeconomic environments. And nope twin studies dont prove shit since they dont control for epigenetics and prenatal and the short window of postnatal environemnt. And whole bunch of other confounding factors.

 

[widdi]

IQ tests only portray a social reality not a biological. Psychology is a social science just like gender studies. A soft science. Not a hard science. Unlike natural sciences like genetics or biology which are needed to prove intelligence differences.

Its also low IQ to compare populations who live in vastly different socioeconomic environments. And nope twin studies dont prove shit since they dont control for epigenetics and prenatal and the short window of postnatal environemnt. And whole bunch of other confounding factors.

Twin studies do control for epigenetic effects, they're modeled as C already in the ACE model. We can infer prenatal effects via looking at monozygotic twins that share/do not share a placenta. Also, if you don't believe in social science, you are going against academic consensus after being super agro about me doing the same thing.

 

[Lord Shadow]

@XiaoXiao thoughts?

 

[XiaoXiao]

The post by @holy that this post responds to:

"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.

You present a whole lot of ideas that on the surface seem reasonable, in respect to genetic diversity in Africa and even acknowledging group differences. But here's the thing: the mere fact that we observe variation within groups does not provide justification for making a jump to conclusions regarding race and intelligence, or race realism, as some would claim it.

Let's take your analogy about body fat. Of course, there is more variance within the sexes than between them, but that does not justify saying, "Hey, let's claim body fat differences are the result of some biological gender essentialism that influences social outcomes." The same logic applies to race and intelligence-you can't just cherry pick variations in traits and then say, "This proves a genetic basis for intelligence differences."

But on your whole "race realism" angle, here is the problem: you say that race realism is about starting with the evidence, and that you don't know the answer on IQ. Well, therein lies the contradiction. You go on to hint at how differences in IQ may be genetic, then provide contradictory evidence that the findings are uncertain. So, if you’re claiming to be “scientific,” why jump to conclusions based on incomplete or conflicting evidence? Isn’t the scientific stance not to make definitive statements on a topic that’s still debated? You are using "we don't know" to justify playing with ideas that are simply not proven, while you yourself claim to be for "evidence-based realism." Well, let me get this straight: You are contradicting yourself when you say the mainstream politically correct view is "clouded by faith," but then you turn around and make a conclusion about genetics and IQ based on contradictory studies. That is not evidence-based; that is confirmation bias. You’re selecting studies that seem to support a narrative and ignoring others. And that’s exactly the type of "faith-based" thinking you’re accusing others of.

Race realism might claim it’s about "letting go of preconceived notions," but the reality is it often leads to reinforcing outdated and dangerous stereotypes, especially when the evidence isn’t clear or is actively contested. So, if you say you are into the truth, then acknowledge it: there is much that is still unknown, yet you double down and want to make choices to continue indulging hypotheses placing genetic explanations of racial differences center front. There you go that in itself is one big inconsistency.

 

[Crusile]

Heritability within groups is uninformative about differences among groups: Cases from behavioral, evolutionary, and statistical genetics - PMC

The causes of differences among groups of organisms have been a topic of conversations in and adjacent to genetics research for decades. Here, we mathematically generalize a set of arguments from more than half a century ago, showing that they have ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

In the absence of environmental control or clear understanding of the causes of a phenotype, it is generally difficult or impossible to isolate the aggregate contribution of genetics vs. environment to an observed difference between groups.

Heritability of complex traits in sub-populations experiencing bottlenecks and growth - Journal of Human Genetics

Populations that have experienced a bottleneck are regularly used in Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) to investigate variants associated with complex traits. It is generally understood that these isolated sub-populations may experience high frequency of otherwise rare variants with large...

www.nature.com

We then investigate the power to resolve heritability of complex traits in GWAS studies subjected to demographic effects. We find that demography is an important component for interpreting inference of complex traits and has a nuanced impact on the power of GWAS. We conclude that demographic histories need to be explicitly modelled to properly quantify the history of selection on a complex trait.

REMINDER RACISM CAN NEVER BE PROVEN, IT IS FUNDMENTALLY IMPOSSIBLE.