What is the scientific evidence for genetically influenced mental/behavioral differences between the races?

What is the scientific evidence for genetically influenced mental/behavioral differences between the races?

Other urls found in this thread:


There is none. Closest thing we have to race so far is a concept called genetic clustering. There are essentially 14 clusters of human genetics. 9 are in Africa because it's the most genetically diverse. Europe Middle East and east Asia are almost a single cluster in itself.

So is it simply that we don't have the information? Is that a result of political correctness?

We don't really know much yet. Political correctness in this field is bullshit. Other parts of the world like the Koreans japs and Chinese don't give a fuck about our sense of ethics on the issues so if there are actual markers showing propensity to intelligence that are more common in some clusters than others than it will come out eventually.

We really have very little genetic variation though. Particularly Europe through Arabia to east Asia.

then there's the new area called epigenetics. We are only just starting. Race as the Nazis understood it is wrong.

>What is the scientific evidence for genetically influenced mental/behavioral differences between the races?


- mental faculties are a property of the mind
- behaviour is a property of the mind
- mind is a property of the brain
- the brain is a physical organ
- properties of physical organs are determined by genes
- therefore, mental faculties and behaviour are determined by genes


>we have very little genetic variation
What do you mean by this? One thing I feel like is we haven't even defined a good or comprehensive set of metrics for mental function. It seems like there is so much more to human behavior than intelligence. And briefly, how were the Nazis wrong?

invorment influence behavior and genes as result of this behavior repitition.

There is a practical evidence. Experiment called "development of civilizations on Earth" proves it.

I agree with your reasoning. Just wondering the state of the field. I am astonished when academics deny something that seems like common sense... maybe a little less than I used to be, but it really is a tragedy that our science is limited by our ethics, like ausbro said.

look up stuff like this
racial differences in drug metabolism mean differences in neurotransmitter metabolism if the cause is from cyp450 enzymes

Terrible English but understood
Yes, something that people have known about for a long time.

We need genomics to determine the intelligence gene. And find who has it in recessive to find out who is close to animals.

But I doubt west will do it. Probably China will do it.

Literally evolution

What is hilarious is that if one denies this syllogism, they must believe in a soul. Academics love being atheists, but it is only by believing in a human soul that one escapes this reasoning.

So either one believes in God, or one is a racist. Ha!

Take a trip to Detroit, all the scientific evidence you'll ever need.

Nazis categorised races by visual cues. Hair type and colour, eye colour, facial construction, etc. these categorisations don't match with genetic testing at all. Genetic testing can show more variance within a race than between races. meaning that a little area like Dagestan has more genetic variance than all of the native populations of Europe put together. And other studies have shown two tribes in Botswana can have more genetic distance than between Japan and Europe. And the Middle East is even closer to Europe than that.

this goes back to my earlier comment that the closest thing we have to races is someting called genetic clustering

What do you call it when my blood tests indicated a specific place in Europe, if not race?

A small number of genes could control a large amount of intelligence and it is the distribution of genes in populations that provides these racial differences.

r vs. K gene theory is pretty solid.
Either deduction like the above poster, or historical evidence like r vs. K.

Since niggers evolved in a climate with an abundance of easily avaliable food, and year round simple climate, to survive they just needed to chill.
Whites lived in a more harsh and changing climate, food wasn't readily avaliable, they had to evolve to be smart and WORK TOGETHER to survive. This working together requirement is the fundamental difference that created civilization and a cuvilized man. We don't compete and kikl eachother, because instictivly we must work together and both survive.

Can you give an example of a behavioral effect that a difference in neurotransmitter metabolism would make?

it doesn't matter, we are all inviduals not bound to the averages of the groups we just happen to be born within.

>....the crime statistics?


Well it may not matter personally, but the group is defined by the mean. I understand you have a disadvantage being a slav, but it's okay I still think you are white.

There's a ton of stuff on this for anyone actually interested, here:

Also pic related


if you are familiar with brain states ie alpha theta beta I expect higher inhibitory neurotransmitters to correlate with more time spent in theta states (theta is deep thought/problem solving)

even something as rudimentary and exploratory as IQ suggests differences, and a good part of it(depending on the study really) seems inherited

there might be plenty of mutations involved, at the moment it's hard to pinpoint what is statistically linked to higher intelligence and it's even harder to have a deterministic approach

The idea that a species that had been so spread out for so long that populations in deferent regions of the world developed features independently of one another while somehow maintaining the same level of intelligence doesn't make since.
Intelligence is hereditary after all.

wait so you're saying if a person who is native from europe, has the appearance of european, could have the genetics of a non-european?

i believe thats a bit silly if you ask me, the nazis used visual cues because genetic testing was not invented or was in it's early stages.

But at the end of the day visual cues are a good indicator of race, if you ask me, white people have a certain look, black people have a certain look, asian people have a certain look and even tough there will be people who have some similarities with the other races, if you look white chances are you are white.

>Nazis categorised races by visual cues. Hair type and colour, eye colour, facial construction, etc. these categorisations don't match with genetic testing at all.
false, when it comes to macro-races they were pretty much almost spot on with obvious difficulties at the edges of racial groups
West Eurasians correspond to the old "Caucasians"
East Eurasians correspond to the old "Mongoloid"
west Africans correspond to the old "Capoid"
>Genetic testing can show more variance within a race than between races.
Lewontin's fallacy.
Once you look at variation at more loci, structure appears and the the overall variation between races is much bigger than inbetween. Your problem only reappears if you are talking about even smaller groups than races i.e an Italian and a Spaniard can be closer than two random Italians, but that doesn't happen when looking at major groups.

I think he was talking about a small number of genes being responsible for the differences. When you look at Africa, I think he is saying the differences between Africans is caused by a larger number of genes.

IQ, crime statistics, likehood to commit violence and rape, likehood to run a stable society.

A trip through Harlem

What's with the Einstein image, dumbass
Besides, politically correct goons wouldn't let us do actual proper research
Fuck this

I'm trying to find an article written by a black doctor that basically outlined a bunch of compelling arguments for lower black intelligence (in general) and I think it talked about higher aggression too, but I can't find it.

Google gave me this result which says a lot of the same stuff:

(It's obviously dubious when pushing the point that race affects intelligence is the outright agenda of the website, though. The webpage I'm trying to find was much more convincing because of who wrote it...)

Einstein was the smartest man who ever lived what's your problem?

Question: is it possible for a small number of genes to be responsible for a large number of qualitative differences?

Is that pic from killerclowns from outer space?

That is the most beautiful womyn who ever lived what's your problem?

hormones? I dont know what genes/how many for hormones but that would be a logical conclusion I think. Also as I've been saying liver enzymes particularly I know about cyp450 (cyp1a2 & cyp3a4) have a very large influence on metabolism. I dont know about the genes encoding them however.

Einstein did not contribute to the field of human genetics or express interest in sociology or anthropology
On top of that, the smartest man to ever live was Von Neumann

I meant generally. My line of questioning is how do we have such varied traits among Europeans, eg green/blue/hazel eyes or platinum/blonde/strawberry/red/brown/black hair, if the genetic variance among Europeans is small?

Von Neumann? Who is that?


That pic is old