How does Sup Forums live with the fact that one of the smartest and most well recognized scientists of our time is a...

How does Sup Forums live with the fact that one of the smartest and most well recognized scientists of our time is a black man?

Other urls found in this thread:

jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/5/398.long
tau.ac.il/~geffene/PDFs/15-Mol_Biol_Evol_1994.pdf
nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/full/415520a.html
rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1786/20133222
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18466230
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12969463?dopt=Abstract
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03382.x/abstract
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1439-0388.2003.00384.x/abstract
digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1393&context=icwdm_usdanwrc
journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070&type=printable
jstor.org/stable/2460058?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14655871
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.174.698&rep=rep1&type=pdf
sociology.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/1043/2008_Reconstructing_Race_in_AJS.pdf
collegium.hrvatsko-antropolosko-drustvo.hr/_doc/Coll.Antropol.28(2004)2_907-921.pdf
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2009.01076.x/abstract
lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/on-the-concept-of-race-in-chinese-biological-anthropology-alive-and-well.pdf
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.3660290308/abstract
bio.miami.edu/mccracken/reprints/condor-113-747.pdf
pnas.org/content/92/10/4259.full.pdf
science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6228/1352
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11815945
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC534810/pdf/pbio.0020442.pdf
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180234/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3951706/
mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/7/707.short
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>smartest

kys desu

He's Pop Sci

Guy is a prop at best.

Nigger is a shill for (((genetically modified 'foods'))).

>posts a half puerto rican
European genes doing their finest, even if they are diluted to the shit.

The smartest scientists aren't the ones in the public's eye. They're the ones creating new shit most likely for the military.

This. You may as well pull the "greatest" musician of our time from the pop charts.

Also: why the need to conflate separatism with supremacy?

>creating new shit most likely for the military
Exactly.

He has an IQ of 126. He's incredibly smart, and black! Explain that rayciss

>one of the smartest
Any sources for that statement?

he has also said some incredibly dumb shit.

As a liberal (at least in the sense that I'm not an outright nazi like most of you), I would really want to like this guy. But he's actually awful. I have no idea if his space science is good or anything but the way he acts a person is just painful.

>one of the smartest and most well recognized scientists of our time is a black man?
He's the fucking Jaden Smith of science.

are you stupid. learn what bell curve means then don't ask this community such daft questions. an nigga he ain't black

i think it is very cool, though he is trained as a scientist i am not sure he is now actually doing any science, just media

but we for sure need more charismatic science popularizers in media to counter the fox news dumbing down of the proles

>never published any papers

he's only on tv because he's black and took astronomy at college

This, they work for Lockheed Martin skunkworks, Bell labs, or are bio-types in places like Monsanto or Eli Lily. Even the best Aerospace people dont work at NASA anymore, the Air Force has its own active space program with their own launch and reentry systems.

Thats some real reddit tier cringe

exceptions prove the rule. but you should have posted Thomas Sowell instead off that fake ass nigger

>smartest
No. He just has a great publicist.

He's never been a scientist. He's never had a job as a scientist, made a single discovery, or done anything of note. He is simply very educated in science, and his politics properly align with those who like to tell you how to think. So he a has a good gig working for those people who produce entertainment that betters the worlds, shapes hearts and minds = mind control.

>"proved" gravity by literaly dropping a mic
He's smart all right...

Why should it matter that he is black?

That's usual diversty propaganda - he has massive advantages because of the race.

These are actually pretty funny.
I like him.

>implying being smart equates to having wisdom, morals or ethics.

Because it triggers you.

one day at a time man

>what libtards think

126 isn't even genius level and this nigger is an outlier. Trump has a fucking higher IQ.

what has he contributed to science beside making videos about scientist that actually contributed stuff.

NDT is an idiot.

You have never heard of 'averages' ? Pretty common word, you might want to look it up

>there are more transcendental numbers than irrational numbers
>there are five levels of infinity
t. tyson

There's nothing remarkable about him. He's just a run of the mill physicist who happens to have TV charisma.
Maybe what's remarkable is he's a nerd who isn't a total social pud?

>Affirmative Action

...

>well recognized scientist
cult leader

Popular scientific is intended to make you believe that you understand a thing which actually you don't understand, and to gratify what I believe to be one of the lowest desires of modern people, namely the superficial curiosity about the latest discoveries of science.

reminder that black science man's only "contribution" to science was being the fourth author on a 0 impact paper on some incredibly boring galaxy movement. he was literally apefirmative actioned into an astrophysics ph.d

>well, we finally graduated a nigger ph.d so our department is good on niggers for a few years until the diversity office gets up our ass again and we have to find another nigger

This guy is propped up by pop culture.
He may be smart in one area. I don’t know. But scientists tend to concentrate in one area. That doesn’t mean the media should then accept them as an authority in all areas. I doubt he is all that bright because he seems to be in love with this attention and makes no qualifiers related to his limitations. All real scientists and engineers that I know also manage to admit uncertainties and limitations to what they know. This guy can’t even do that when caught.

>Explain that rayciss
N.A.X.A.L.T. fallacy

He's a nigger.

I'm glad.
It makes me feel better about the world and hope that blacks are not really that bad.

That being said, he is far from being pure black..

I bet in the realm of actual science he's thoroughly mid-tier, maybe even bottom-tier, but he gets pushed as being one of the best because he's a nigger.

some of these are kind of funny but they don't make him into Super Science Nigger

Actual physicist here. I study laboratory plasmas and microparticle dynamics.

The most brilliant researchers aren't the ones you see hosting events or doing the talk show circuit, they're the ones sitting in a lab or an office shitting out 15-20 major papers a year. Nobody hears names like Shukla, Ganguli, or Avinash because people like that are too busy working to run around sucking dick in exchange for news interviews.

I don't really have anything against NDT's handful of genuine scientific contributions, but the truth is that he stopped being a contributing scientist decades ago. He's a political activist now, nothing more.

but the op brought up race first. looks like the triggering of the op was self-imposed

Sigh

HE IS NOT A SCIENTIST
HE IS A SCIENCE POPULARIZER

Smart, fine, but you know what they say about those who can't do

Wtf only 126? no way

>every mulatto is straight outta Afrikka

Conflicted desu senpai. Obama is also seen as black despite being directly related to both Clinton and Bush. Why this man chooses to speak about fields of science he's not versed in is beyond my scope of reasoning.

>He may be smart in one area
not even close

He is a stamp collecter not a scientist.
His great accomplishment is that heresy about Pluto not being a planet

There are a few things that I don't understand from people that spout this garbage.

First thing is: A lot of the time Sup Forums tries to make it seem as though blacks are just genetically predisposed to being stupid, I mean literally because of their genetic makeup. When asked why there are blacks that exist with the same genetic makeup as any other black besides one difference(High I.Q) they pull out this "bell curve" rhetoric, which never fully answers the question.

The second thing is: I see a lot of Sup Forumsites try to argue that I.Q is 60-80% inheritable, then yet they still try to discourage intelligent blacks from mating with their wimmenz because "Muh regression to the meme" argument, which completely contradicts the heritability argument.

>Fox News dumbing down the proles

Sweetie if fox was the only one doing it we wouldn't have a problem. All of the 24 hour news stations exist to control information intake.

Are you implying black people are dumb?

stemfags get jealous they'll never publish anything significant and they can't explain the material well enough to make popsci bucks like neil

A TV scientist ?

>First thing is: A lot of the time Sup Forums tries to make it seem as though blacks are just genetically predisposed to being stupid, I mean literally because of their genetic makeup.
this is true. pic related

>When asked why there are blacks that exist with the same genetic makeup as any other black besides one difference(High I.Q) they pull out this "bell curve" rhetoric, which never fully answers the question.
yes it does. you don't know what a normal distribution is, do you?

>I see a lot of Sup Forumsites try to argue that I.Q is 60-80% inheritable, then yet they still try to discourage intelligent blacks from mating with their wimmenz because "Muh regression to the meme" argument,
also because of pic related

>which completely contradicts the heritability argument.
no it does not.

nigger your "arguments" are dumb as shit

Average person that graduated college has an iq of 120

"Scientist" He is a tv personality that supports the mainstream "scientific" understanding of the bigbang. The whole thing is more religion then science, the electric universe is the way forward.

Source? I do not believe that the women and niggers who get degrees like [nigger/woman/gender] studies, communications, etc, have an iq of 120

>this is true. pic related

Your pic doesn't prove that the I.Q difference is because of genetic factors.

>yes it does. you don't know what a normal distribution is, do you?

I'm talking about a hard scientific answer, not your fucking numbers game, you dolt.

>also because of pic related

Has very little do with what I said.

>no it does not.

Yes, it does memezilla, if your I.Q is heritable then that means that the children should be just as intelligent as the parents, but apparently, this only counts when it's huwhite peeple.

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as “the greatest or most significant or most influential” rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.

only if they're not in a garbage major

>Your pic doesn't prove that the I.Q difference is because of genetic factors.
yes it does you illiterate reddit flag faggot

>I'm talking about a hard scientific answer, not your fucking numbers game, you dolt.
statistics is a hard scientific answer you illiterate reddit flag faggot

>Has very little do with what I said.
lmao you're dumb as shit

>if your I.Q is heritable then that means that the children should be just as intelligent as the parents
wrong. this is not how genetics works you dumb nigger. look up the law of independent assortment and segregation

question: are you a nigger? you have to be to be this stupid

...

worshiped by leftists because he is

>a black scientist
>a scientist

>yes it does you illiterate reddit flag faggot

Nice correlation fallacy, retard.

>statistics is a hard scientific answer you illiterate reddit flag faggot

Oh my bad, I forgot how statistics = hard biology

keep projecting.

>lmao you're dumb as shit

sup' pot.

>wrong. this is not how genetics works you dumb nigger.

So then I.Q isn't 60-80% is what you're telling me then?

...

>black man
Taught by white men
Raised in a white society with white standards.
KYS

>IQ 126
>smartest scientist
Nigger, my daughter has an IQ of 136 and has already excelled more than this jig ever did in school. Stop posting this middling, token nig as anything other than what he is—a virtue-signaling shitskin.

>Nice correlation fallacy, retard.
It's darkly amusing how many people take introductory statistics and then go around spouting 'correlation is not causation' without really understanding the relationship. You cannot have causation without correlation, and significant correlation on its own is sufficient for making a working predictive model. You do not need to understand precisely how gravity works to make accurate predictions about its effects based on partial information. The corruption of academia by these sorts of half-assed appeals to perfection (which are extremely selective in their application) is destroying the entire Western intellectual system.

You have no actual arguments. You lost.

b-but he used the word "intriguing" and referenced a false idiom
he is brilliant

>nigger
Why the racism?

Afro science nigger man.

>It's darkly amusing how many people take introductory statistics and then go around spouting 'correlation is not causation' without really understanding the relationship.

A millions time this

because niggers are stupid, that guy who is trying to argue while presenting 0 evidence and 0 arguments is stupid. calling him a nigger is justified

are you trying to defend niggers?

If most black people were scientists like him, non of us would hate them. They would be comparable to non cat eating asians.

>significant correlation on its own is sufficient for making a working predictive model
Proof?

That's remarkably low.

Who is he?

>Spouts some pseudointellectual garbage
>Shits on the chess board then struts around like he won


>You cannot have causation without correlation

No shit, but that's not what the cum hoc fallacy explains, the cum hoc fallacy you're using is suggesting that since these two things are connected then one must have caused the other by default. But when talking about biology you don't just wave numbers around, throw your hands up and then say "welp we're finished here!" you dig deeper. Especially when talking about things of this nature, if two people have the exact same genetic makeup but one still has the higher I.Q(which is the variable you're trying to predict) then that put's a fucking monkey wrench in your research, don't you think?

No, the problem with western academia is that morons such as yourself treat an exchange of ideas as a game to be won.

I can tell your sexlife is non existent. I have a hottie white gf. Words you will never hear beta. Not so deep :^)

Inb4 muh dik
Not even black mate. I just wanted to call out your shitty little fedora life you nerd.

>Proof?
basically all of science, ahmed. We use a certain hedgehog agonist which promotes proliferation. we give our cells this magic potion and they grow and divide--we don't know the mechanism yet (the cause), but the correlation is enough that we (and others like us) publish data while using this small molecule. please fuck off and do your own research before making a fool of yourself

>if two people have the exact same genetic makeup
doesn't exist you dumbass nigger. your "arguments" are coming from fantasy land

go be a nigger somewhere else

>muh dick
not an argument

I read that before. Is that dumb ass implying that hurricanes can be accurately predicted years in advance like eclipses.

Can we talk about your moms divorce? You poor broken human being. I have pity for you.

>basically all of science, ahmed. We use a certain hedgehog agonist which promotes proliferation. we give our cells this magic potion and they grow and divide--we don't know the mechanism yet (the cause), but the correlation is enough that we (and others like us) publish data while using this small molecule. please fuck off and do your own research before making a fool of yourself
This is not a proof of sufficiency.

Next?

He's an engineer, not a scientist.

He's a black ((man))

>doesn't exist you dumbass nigger.

So now blacks DON'T have similar genetic makeup? You seem confused fedoralord, did you forget to pull your brain out of your ass?

The family member I have the most hope for accepting the Norse gods as more worthy of veneration than abrahamic ones is actually my adopted black cousin.
Hes 10 years old, likes vidya, magic the gathering and football. Anytime I speak he listens intently.
I really don't get this misconception that race is what creates culture. There's plenty of white people that are self hating retards no one wants to be around. If someone is smart enough to realize that eurocentric culture is superior why wouldn't you accept them even if they arent white?

>shitty and boring attempts at trolling
please try to be funny or original

and what research papers have you published with "proof of sufficiency?" reminder that in my field, biomedical research, we have a higher standard for evidence than in social """""sciences"""""

he's part white. So he's a white man with a tan, nigga.

>similar
you said the same genetic makeup before and now you are just changing your story to try to avoid being btfo. looks like you still have 0 evidence, 0 sources, and 0 arguments. you lost.

Lol so whites came from albinism, a disease, and they are ashamed. Your so called IQ doesnt exist because race doesnt exist. Your just a homnid great ape. Get over your pathetic life you little lonely broken faggot. Sorry you have no game or social skills you max level socially ostracized wizard.

Finish rotting you obsolete autismo. You're of no further use.

>and what research papers have you published with "proof of sufficiency?" reminder that in my field, biomedical research, we have a higher standard for evidence than in social """""sciences"""""
I have multiple mathematical publications with proofs of sufficiency. That's why I'm asking you to back up your claim that significant correlation on its own is sufficient for making a working predictive model.

I said same because that's what Sup Forumsacks argue.

0 evidence? I'm not the one making a claim, I'm asking you to prove yours. Which you seem to be avoiding my constant name calling and meming buffoonery.

I think you know that I.Q and genetics aren't connected, especially since I.Q can be raised. Just do the world a favor and kill yourself, k'?

>Lol so whites came from albinism, a disease, and they are ashamed
source?

Your so called IQ doesnt exist because race doesnt exist

lmao you're so wrong. here we go:
(1997) Barbujani et. al., find a human genetic distance of ,155. There are no recognized subspecies.

jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/5/398.long

(2001) Kim et. al., find an Asian dog genetic distance of ,154. There are eleven recognized subspecies.

tau.ac.il/~geffene/PDFs/15-Mol_Biol_Evol_1994.pdf

(1994) Roy et. al., find a North American coyote genetic distance of ,107. There are nineteen recognized subspecies.

nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/full/415520a.html

(2002) Schwartz et. al., find a Canadian lynx genetic distance of ,033. There are three recognized subspecies.

rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1786/20133222

(2014) Jackson et. al., find a humpback whale genetic distance of ,12. There are three recognized subspecies.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18466230

(2008) Lorenzen, Arctander & Siegismund find a plains zebra genetic distance of ,11. There are five recognized subspecies.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12969463?dopt=Abstract

(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/doi/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03382.x/abstract

(2007) Lorenzen et. al., find a Kob antelope genetic distance of ,11. There are two to three recognized subspecies.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1439-0388.2003.00384.x/abstract

(2003) Jordana et. al., find a south European beef cattle genetic distance of ,068. There are eighteen recognized subspecies.

digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1393&context=icwdm_usdanwrc

(2004) Williams et. al., find a red winged blackbird genetic distance of ,01. There are twenty-two recognized subspecies.

journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070&type=printable

jstor.org/stable/2460058?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14655871

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.174.698&rep=rep1&type=pdf

sociology.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/1043/2008_Reconstructing_Race_in_AJS.pdf

collegium.hrvatsko-antropolosko-drustvo.hr/_doc/Coll.Antropol.28(2004)2_907-921.pdf

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2009.01076.x/abstract

lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/on-the-concept-of-race-in-chinese-biological-anthropology-alive-and-well.pdf

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.3660290308/abstract

bio.miami.edu/mccracken/reprints/condor-113-747.pdf

pnas.org/content/92/10/4259.full.pdf

science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6228/1352

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11815945

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC534810/pdf/pbio.0020442.pdf

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180234/

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3951706/

digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1393&context=icwdm_usdanwrc

tau.ac.il/~geffene/PDFs/15-Mol_Biol_Evol_1994.pdf

(1997) Wise et. al., show that the genetic variability within humans is 0,776. There are zero recognized human subspecies.

mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/7/707.short