you don't say!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3364244&forum_id=2#31494083)

Not sure why this is hard for libs to understand - since they "love science" so much - humans migrated out of Africa - and survival pressures in different parts of the world genetically reinforced different skill sets - e.g. hunting in africa reinforces different skills from farming in East Asia or surviving cold winters in northern europe.

Hence we end up with different races having much different skill sets and abilities - so we see very unequal outcomes in the Olympics, NBA, NFL, and we also see very unequal outcomes in an economy that rewards cognitive skills.

Every piece of evidence in the world - including the genetics and IQ literature - points in the same direction on this issue - which is that different groups of people have very different skills which drives unequal outcomes - it's simple.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3364244&forum_id=2#31494111)

No idea about whokebe.

You don't have to believe me - but my research focused on non-negative matrix factorization techniques (along with tensor decompositions) for clustering gene microarray samples. Microarray is a technology that let's us see gene expression levels on a probe/genetic level to identify individual genetic variation between individuals.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3364244&forum_id=2#31494337)

No more discrimination lawsuits based on "disparate impact" or statistical outcomes.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3364244&forum_id=2#31494214)

There is still a question of how much people are entitled to other people's labor. But if we know genetics is a primary driver of inequality - on one hand we still want forms of social insurance (welfare) to insure against bad genetics which are out of our control - but OTOH most govt programs aimed at "closing gaps" or aimed at improving education through more school funding etc. are a huge waste (which is very consistent with what we see in the educational economics literature).

So it doesn't mean we should cut welfare - but it does mean that many govt programs are a big waste of money - and that we shouldn't focus on things like closing achievement gaps.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3364244&forum_id=2#31494244)

many of the people deeply concerned with HBD are also more or less a slightly more refined version of redditors posting "mo money dem programz". concern with social policy basically seems to stop with AA and disparate impact

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3364244&forum_id=2#31496479)

Is that a reason to assume they have no other views on unrelated social policies?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3364244&forum_id=2#31496490)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3364244&forum_id=2#31494294)

For example, there seems to be certain sub-Saharan African ethnic groups that do much better on standardized testing and such. Why lump those groups in with the "black" race? Because of their hair and skin color genes? I think it's likely that genetics play a large (but non-exclusive) role in cognitive abilities, but I also think "race" is a very rough concept when talking about it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3364244&forum_id=2#31494367)

I get what you're saying that there's still large within race genetic variation - but OTOH our genetic variation is very geographically structured. If you cluster individuals based on individual genetic variation - the clusters will be highly correlated with geographic origin / ancestry. But you are still correct that there is still fuzziness / overlap to these clusters - as well as large within group variation.

Also to answer your question - yes we know from GWAS studies there are alleles (which strongly correlate to intelligence) that are highly correlated with country-level IQ

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3364244&forum_id=2#31494426)

This is one part of the story that I can't actually untangle. I've seen one study that found a correlation between educational attainment and % european, but nothing with IQ directly, except old studies.

This was supposed to be the "dispositive proof", aside from ad-hoc assortative mating explanations. for HBD

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3364244&forum_id=2#31494637)

This article has some interesting data on UK test scores for African immigrants broken down by national/ethnic background. http://www.unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3364244&forum_id=2#31494702)

"It is now possible using genetic markers to do much better than classify people as "black," "white" or "Asian." The method for doing so is implied in the studies using genetic markers, with the most recent being Tang, H., et al. (2005). "Genetic structure, self-identified race/ethnicity, and confounding in case-control association studies." American Journal of Human Genetics, 76, 268–275.

The next step seems obvious: take a large sample of racially diverse people, give them a good IQ test, and then use genetic markers to create a variable that no longer classifies people as “white” or “black,” but along a continuum. Analyze the variation in IQ scores according to that continuum.

And so I emailed some scholars on both sides of the IQ/race debate, suggesting that they jointly design and conduct such a study. I told them I would undertake to find someone to fund the study. It would be easy to find such a funder, but only if scholars from both sides were on board (otherwise, the funder would fear being called racist). I don't think I'm betraying a confidence when I say that Jensen and Rushton were enthusiastically in favor. Those on the other side, whom I will not name, declined. "

i think everyone knows how this study would turn out.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3364244&forum_id=2#31496551)

This is why PC is so dangerous - it trains people's minds to align their beliefs with what sounds virtuous, tolerant, and progressive, not with what the Truth is. You can't shape people's beliefs by changing Truth - but you can certainly shape people's beliefs by changing what is considered tolerant and virtuous.

Political correctness and liberalism has become a game of virtue signaling - not truth seeking. They align their thought with what sounds tolerant and virtuous - and align their beliefs against perceived intolerance. This is an emotional way of thinking that can be shaped by those in power - rational thinking is harder to manipulate.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3364244&forum_id=2#31494209)

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drin

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3364244&forum_id=2#31494341)