fucking hate sociology.
assignment is to watch a video "Race: The Power of Illusion" or something stupid like that and they're trying to tell me that there's absolutely no biological component to race.
makes sense that all the "sociologists" here are niggers and chinks trying to spread white guilt
Other urls found in this thread:
fda.gov
cbsnews.com
genengnews.com
jhered.oxfordjournals.org
tau.ac.il
nature.com
rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
digitalcommons.unl.edu
journals.plos.org
jstor.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
sociology.as.nyu.edu
collegium.hrvatsko-antropolosko-drustvo.hr
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
bio.miami.edu
pnas.org
science.sciencemag.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
mbe.oxfordjournals.org
researchgate.net
uff.br
eebweb.arizona.edu
jstor.org
bearproject.info
eebweb.arizona.edu
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
researchgate.net
researchgate.net
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
mbe.library.arizona.edu
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
research.amnh.org
jhered.oxfordjournals.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
sciencedirect.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
people.virginia.edu
isites.harvard.edu
webspace.pugetsound.edu
atavisionary.com
sciencedirect.com
sciencedirect.com
sciencedirect.com
pastebin.com
twitter.com
just bring a picture compairing skull structure of different races to class.
or dont and just get the credit and move on, no sense getting hung up on the liberal indoctrination.
>I fully agree race is a social construct, but my friend keeps bringing up skull shape, cranial capacity, and thigh bone curvature difference between racial groups. I want to prove him wrong but I just don't know how :\
Just find an angry asian or black woman to bitch at him about how he's "whitewashing my people."
OP THIS
dumping resources for you to use btw
If race isn't real then why do different races react differently to certain medications?
fda.gov
Why is our genetic makeup inextricably linked to culture and behavior?
cbsnews.com
>Scientific consensus is that race isn't real.
source?
(1997) Barbujani et. al., find a human genetic distance of ,155. There are no recognized subspecies.
jhered.oxfordjournals.org
(2001) Kim et. al., find an Asian dog genetic distance of ,154. There are eleven recognized subspecies.
tau.ac.il
(1994) Roy et. al., find a North American coyote genetic distance of ,107. There are nineteen recognized subspecies.
nature.com
(2002) Schwartz et. al., find a Canadian lynx genetic distance of ,033. There are three recognized subspecies.
rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org
(2014) Jackson et. al., find a humpback whale genetic distance of ,12. There are three recognized subspecies.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
(2008) Lorenzen, Arctander & Siegismund find a plains zebra genetic distance of ,11. There are five recognized subspecies.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
(2003) Pierpaoli et. al., find a European wildcat genetic distance of ,11. There are three recognized subspecies and five biogeographic groups according to (Mattucci et. al., 2016).
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
(2007) Lorenzen et. al., find a Kob antelope genetic di
>Scientific consensus is that race isn't real.
source?
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
(2003) Jordana et. al., find a south European beef cattle genetic distance of ,068. There are eighteen recognized subspecies.
digitalcommons.unl.edu
(2004) Williams et. al., find a red winged blackbird genetic distance of ,01. There are twenty-two recognized subspecies.
journals.plos.org
jstor.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
sociology.as.nyu.edu
collegium.hrvatsko-antropolosko-drustvo.hr
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
bio.miami.edu
pnas.org
science.sciencemag.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
digitalcommons.unl.edu
tau.ac.il
(1997) Wise et. al., show that the genetic variability within humans is 0,776. There are zero recognized human subspecies.
mbe.oxfordjournals.org
(1997) Wise et. al., find a chimpanzee genetic variability of ,63. There are four recognized subspecies.
(2001) Uphyrkina et. al., find a leopard genetic variability of ,58. There are thirteen recognized subspecies.
source?
(2001) Eizirik et. al., find a jaguar genetic variability of ,739. There are nine recognized subspecies.
eebweb.arizona.edu
(2000) Culver et. al., find a puma genetic variability of ,52. There are six recognized subspecies.
nature.com
(2002) Schwartz et. al., find a Canadian lynx genetic variability of ,66. There are three recognized subspecies.
jstor.org
(1998) Paetkau et. al., find a North American brown bear genetic variability of ,5275. There are nineteen recognized subspecies.
bearproject.info
(2000) Waits et. al., find a Scandinavian brown bear genetic variability of ,687. There are nineteen recognized subspecies.
eebweb.arizona.edu
(1996) Garcia-Moreno et. al., find a coyote genetic variability of ,629. There are nineteen recognized subspecies. They further find a Gray wolf genetic variability of ,574. There are thirty-seven recognized subspecies.
(2001) Girman et. al., find an African wild dog genetic variability of ,643. There are five recognized subspecies.
(2001) Kyle & Strobeck find a North American wolverine genetic variability of ,55. There are two to three recognized subspecies.
(2001) Walker et. al., find a Scandinavian wolverine genetic variability of ,325. There are three recognized subspecies.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
(2000) Polziehn et. al., find an elk genetic variability of ,395. There are seven to eight recognized subspecies.
mbe.library.arizona.edu
(1995) Forbes et. al., find a bighorn sheep genetic variability of ,6235. There are three recognized subspecies.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
(2000) Reinartz et. al., find a bonobo genetic variability of ,535. There is one subspecies.
research.amnh.org
(1999) Paetkau et. al., find a polar bear genetic variability of ,68. There is one subspecies.
jhered.oxfordjournals.org
(1999) Wilton, Steward & Zafiris find an Australian dingo genetic variability of ,445. There is one recognized subspecies.
eebweb.arizona.edu
(1996) Garcia-Moreno et. al., find a domesticated dog genetic variability of ,5085. There is one recognized subspecies, and there are many breeds.
>"Race is a social construct"
I wonder if the scientists who invented (pic related) know that?
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
sciencedirect.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
people.virginia.edu
(2000) Turkheimer presents his Three Laws of Behavioral Genetics and explains their meaning.
Turkheimer begins by stating, "The nature-nurture debate is over. The bottom line is that everything is heritable, an outcome that has taken all sides of the naturenurture debate by surprise. Irving Gottesman and I have suggested that the universal influence of genes on behavior be enshrined as the first law of behavior genetics (Turkheimer & Gottesman, 1991), and at the risk of naming laws that I can take no credit for discovering, it is worth stating the nearly unanimous results of behavior genetics in a more formal manner."
The Three Laws are as follows:
? First Law. All human behavioral traits are heritable.
? Second Law. The effect of being raised in the same family is smaller than the effect of genes.
? Third Law. A substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioral traits is not accounted for by the effects of genes or families.
In short: no one is born tabula rasa.
isites.harvard.edu
(2005) Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen (author of, "The g Factor") conclude that IQ is the greatest indicator of future success in Western societies when inter-generational income dependence is accounted for.
They also found that IQ is at least 50% heritable and likely nearer to 80% heritable. To draw comparison, height is 70-90% heritable.
During their analysis they concluded that Whites have a minimum of 75% IQ heritability.
webspace.pugetsound.edu
(2004) Plomin & Spinath discuss intelligence in the wider context of genetics, genes, and genomics.
Their discussion is multi-faceted; their analysis illustrates proof of the genetic heritability of intelligence, the immense weakness of environmental explanations for intelligence, changes in heritability during development, a multivariate analysis of IQ and various testing metrics, gene expression profiling, and genomics.
This is an excellent compilatory piece.
sciencedirect.com
(2009) Rushton & Jensen refute erroneous claims made about the nature of the Flynn Effect and its relationship with the Black-White IQ gap.
In their conclusions they state, "We conclude that predictions about the Black–White IQ gap narrowing as a result of the secular rise are unsupported. The (mostly heritable) cause of the one is not the (mostly environmental) cause of the other. The Flynn Effect (the secular rise in IQ) is not a Jensen Effect (because it does not occur on g)."
sciencedirect.com
(2001) Rushton & Rushton show evidence for racial-group differences in the form of brain size and structure, IQ, and musculoskeletal trait variation.
Their analysis shows significant variation in both the structure and sizes of the brains of Negroids, Caucasoids, and East-Asians. In addition to this, they have found differences in the skull shapes and structures of the races, alongside differences in average height and weight and all parts of the bone and muscle structures from the neck to the feet.
sciencedirect.com
(2007) Shatz analyzes the relationship between IQ and fertility.
They find that IQ is negatively associated with total fertility rate, birth rate, and population growth rate. This means that higher IQ populations are less fertile than lower IQ populations.
sciencedirect.com
(2013) Michael Woodley, Jan Nijenhuis, and Raegan Murphy conclude that Western IQs have declined by an average of 1,6 points per decade since the Victorian Era.
Higher IQ people are more productive, healthier, and are more creative. The reduction in IQs across the West has been met with a marked decrease in average productivity and general health despite vast increases in average wealth, nutrition and access to healthcare.
The cumulative reduction in IQ is between 12,45 and 13,35 points or roughly one standard deviation on a normal IQ bell curve. This represents an eight-fold reduction in the number of geniuses and a counter to the Flynn Effect.
The resultant decrease in IQ is attributed to dysgenics in the form of outbreeding and negative mate selection within populations. The importation of migrants of different races and ethnicities preempts the outbreeding and subsequent loss in IQ. This effect has sped up as migration has increased.
the differences between skeletons is one of the very first things I learned in forensics and I'm very positive that it's also one of the very first things covered in anthropology.
Now here's why race matters
Why do people treat the "social construct" label as a free pass from dealing with it? You live in society. Its constructions are all around you.
The science of biology is a hate crime now.
but hitler did it so it can't be right
user, Rushton was a fraud and a moron. You shouldn't use his debunked bullshit as proof of anything.
his penis shit was the only one you nigger
>no biological component to race
My fucking anthropology book is trying to tell me the same thing. I looked up the author and it's written by a literal SJW. The book also talks about focusing on gay rights, and the need to have an equal amount of men and women in the field.
I can't believe you took sociology willingly.
>Rushton was a fraud and a moron
Proof? The best I've seen up with is that certain data he's used has been faulty, but nothing close to being debunked.
Not a nigger, sorry. A child can poke holes in his thesis.
Then do it. Poke those holes. I'm waiting
Good way to get a C.
His r/K theory was dismantled by the original author.
His iq scores from many countries are useless.
He was writing papers on genetics, a field he had no expertise with.
I agree with his conclusions but his methodology was shit.
When social scientists say that race is a social construct, they don't mean that there are zero genetic differences between population groups.
Rather, they mean that our conceptions of "white" and "black" and "asian" are merely socially constructed (there is genetic difference between germans and italians too, for example).
The centerpiece of his hypothesis on why niggers are dumb, r/K, is self refuting. If cold climate was the key to intelligence, inuit would have the highest iq. The skulls hypothesis is trash too because Neanderthals had much larger cranial volume than Homo sapiens. user, there are meta studies that are reliable, Rushton was a quack.
The worst class. Godspeed friend.
Our categorization of color is also "socially constructed". Doesn't mean it's arbitrary or wrong.
When someone says, "X is a social construct" all they mean to say is, "I don't like how many people conceive of X."
You guys are fucking LUCKY.
My accounting textbook keeps talking about debits and credits and dollar signs and shit
Aren't you oversimplifying his hypothesis? I thought the whole point was that temperate climates that allowed for agriculture and required long-term planning selected for higher IQ. There's no reason why the frozen wastelands up north would select for higher intelligence.
There's a modest correlation (roughly .4 I think) between cranial volume and IQ.
No, I'm not simplifying, that was the cornerstone of his theory. The skull hypothesis is self refuting, as is almost all his ideas, especially his ridiculous Bubonic plague theory. He was a moron that had the right conclusion (niggers are dumb) but he had shit hypotheses on why.