The racial wealth gap is a key indicator of the economic costs of racism

[Apollo Tenzen]

Africans are genetically associated with a lower IQ; they have a smaller frontal lobe, which is where many cognitive abilities of humans reside. I highly doubt they have an efficient front lobe that requires less space to function. The Romans built bridges in Ethiopia, but Africans neglected them without maintenance. Then a white dude came and showed how to build a bridge with minimum resources. THEN THE FUCKING NIGGERS DESTROYED THAT BRIDGE FOR SCRAPS! View attachment 12043

No. Stop the fallacies if you want a debate.
– Hasty generalization (isolated anecdotes treated as universal).
– False evidence (debunked or fabricated biological claims).

 

[Schwarzwald]

It’s funny watching ya'll larp as 'realists.'
One of you thinks the world is a giant HR department for Citigroup, and the other thinks life is a video game where your 'stats' are rolled at birth and you can never level up.
You’re both terrified of the same thing: Individual Will.
You’ll arguing over group averages because you all are too weak to stand on your own two feet and judge a person by their character or their actions. A real 'Master' doesn't need a spreadsheet or a slur to navigate the world. He writes his own principles and treats people with the nobility of a leader, not the pettiness of a clerk. Just shouting from the back of the bus. Let me know when one of you actually learns how to drive.

 

[Konrad Cruze]

No. Stop the fallacies if you want a debate.
– Hasty generalization (isolated anecdotes treated as universal).
– False evidence (debunked or fabricated biological claims).

False evidence?

 

[Schwarzwald]

False evidence? View attachment 12233

>If IQ is the only metric of worth, then you’re just a 'goy' to the people outscoring you...

 

[Apollo Tenzen]

False evidence? View attachment 12233

Maybe you should try getting a job?

sighs
-Is to told to not use fallacies
-Uses GWAS (Genome-Wide Association Study) fallacy anyway.
"1) assuming that variants with the strongest statistical associations are causal instead of correlative, 2) believing that associated loci act through nearby genes, and 3) overemphasizing the contribution of individual loci to the total variability of particular traits"

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10473744

This is a study on who stay on school for longer, not high performance.

1. The Portability Problem: Geneticists have repeatedly shown that polygenic scores developed for one population (Europeans) do not work when applied to another (Africans). This is because of "linkage disequilibrium"—the "tags" used to identify these genes in Europeans aren't the same in Africans. When you try to use these scores to predict IQ in Black populations, the predictive power drops to nearly zero.
2. Environment is the "Switch": Many of these alleles relate to "synaptic plasticity"—the brain's ability to change. If you have the "high plasticity" allele but grow up with lead in the water, chronic stress, or poor nutrition, that gene expresses itself differently. It’s like having a high-end graphics card but no electricity to run the PC.
3. The Ancestry Trap: Africa has more genetic diversity than the rest of the world combined. For every "European allele" you listed, there are thousands of African variations that haven't even been mapped yet. You're trying to measure the depth of the ocean using a ruler made for a backyard pool.

 

[Konrad Cruze]

Maybe you should try getting a job?

sighs
-Is to told to not use fallacies
-Uses GWAS (Genome-Wide Association Study) fallacy anyway.
"1) assuming that variants with the strongest statistical associations are causal instead of correlative, 2) believing that associated loci act through nearby genes, and 3) overemphasizing the contribution of individual loci to the total variability of particular traits"

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10473744

This is a study on who stay on school for longer, not high performance.

1. The Portability Problem: Geneticists have repeatedly shown that polygenic scores developed for one population (Europeans) do not work when applied to another (Africans). This is because of "linkage disequilibrium"—the "tags" used to identify these genes in Europeans aren't the same in Africans. When you try to use these scores to predict IQ in Black populations, the predictive power drops to nearly zero.
2. Environment is the "Switch": Many of these alleles relate to "synaptic plasticity"—the brain's ability to change. If you have the "high plasticity" allele but grow up with lead in the water, chronic stress, or poor nutrition, that gene expresses itself differently. It’s like having a high-end graphics card but no electricity to run the PC.
3. The Ancestry Trap: Africa has more genetic diversity than the rest of the world combined. For every "European allele" you listed, there are thousands of African variations that haven't even been mapped yet. You're trying to measure the depth of the ocean using a ruler made for a backyard pool.

Using insults and calling someone argument fallacies instead of actually pointing out the flaw in their logic shows you have political bias.

1. There exists verifiability in many tests. Here, a method, even if it requires slight adjustment, will consistently give the result of identifying intelligent and unintelligent individuals regardless of region or observer. The image listed all the alleles associated with intelligence that were abundantly present in Europeans. You didn't provide any evidence of other alleles that exist outside of those present in Africa. You said they haven't been mapped means you can't find one to prove me wrong.

2. While the environment is in fact true, we also need to take into consideration customs and inheritance. You nurture and nature both define you. Africans have a ghost hominid admixture. Basically, how Europeans have Neanderthal DNA, similarly, Sub Saharan African have their own admixture. The effect of an environment on communities with different hominid admixtures is not the same. This fact can not be ignored.

3. You talk about lead, but Africans never created huge industries where they could get lead poisoning. They built no sustainable or grand structure even before European came, and not even today, even with a lot of assets left behind more than they already had. The lead poisoning was nothing, even after industrialization, compared to that of other nations like India or the USA. Even Roman had more lead poisoning in the classical era than many African regions have today.

 

[Konrad Cruze]

>If IQ is the only metric of worth, then you’re just a 'goy' to the people outscoring you...

No, IQ is not the only metric of your worth. However, it does show an indication of your capabilities. African didn't create advanced civilization due to resource scarcity, yet Russians, Mongols, and Vikings did take logistics into great account while planning their strategy.

 

[Apollo Tenzen]

Using insults and calling someone argument fallacies instead of actually pointing out the flaw in their logic shows you have political bias.

1. There exists verifiability in many tests. Here, a method, even if it requires slight adjustment, will consistently give the result of identifying intelligent and unintelligent individuals regardless of region or observer. The image listed all the alleles associated with intelligence that were abundantly present in Europeans. You didn't provide any evidence of other alleles that exist outside of those present in Africa. You said they haven't been mapped means you can't find one to prove me wrong.

2. While the environment is in fact true, we also need to take into consideration customs and inheritance. You nurture and nature both define you. Africans have a ghost hominid admixture. Basically, how Europeans have Neanderthal DNA, similarly, Sub Saharan African have their own admixture. The effect of an environment on communities with different hominid admixtures is not the same. This fact can not be ignored.

3. You talk about lead, but Africans never created huge industries where they could get lead poisoning. They built no sustainable or grand structure even before European came, and not even today, even with a lot of assets left behind more than they already had. The lead poisoning was nothing, even after industrialization, compared to that of other nations like India or the USA. Even Roman had more lead poisoning in the classical era than many African regions have today.

Get a job i am not reading your shit.

 

[Konrad Cruze]

Get a job i am not reading your shit.

So, you admit to be doing all this in bad faith and you never had a proper argument against me.

 

[Schwarzwald]

No, IQ is not the only metric of your worth. However, it does show an indication of your capabilities. African didn't create advanced civilization due to resource scarcity, yet Russians, Mongols, and Vikings did take logistics into great account while planning their strategy.

Listen man, the 'logistics' argument is kind of a self-own because it ignores the actual map. Those Russians and Vikings didn’t win because they had better 'logistics software' in their brains; they won because they lived on a giant East-West landmass where you could actually ride horses and grow wheat for thousands of miles. If you put those same 'high-IQ' Vikings in central Africa with nothing but zebras—which are basically just angry, un-rideable horses—and a vertical climate that kills every crop you move ten miles south, their 'logistics' wouldn't have done shit. We’re all just pink in the middle, man, reacting to the tools the earth gave us. You’re looking for 'nobility' in a spreadsheet because you're scared of the fact that civilizational success is mostly just geographical luck. Quit larping as a warlord and look at the actual terrain.

 

[Schwarzwald]

Using insults and calling someone argument fallacies instead of actually pointing out the flaw in their logic shows you have political bias.

1. There exists verifiability in many tests. Here, a method, even if it requires slight adjustment, will consistently give the result of identifying intelligent and unintelligent individuals regardless of region or observer. The image listed all the alleles associated with intelligence that were abundantly present in Europeans. You didn't provide any evidence of other alleles that exist outside of those present in Africa. You said they haven't been mapped means you can't find one to prove me wrong.

2. While the environment is in fact true, we also need to take into consideration customs and inheritance. You nurture and nature both define you. Africans have a ghost hominid admixture. Basically, how Europeans have Neanderthal DNA, similarly, Sub Saharan African have their own admixture. The effect of an environment on communities with different hominid admixtures is not the same. This fact can not be ignored.

3. You talk about lead, but Africans never created huge industries where they could get lead poisoning. They built no sustainable or grand structure even before European came, and not even today, even with a lot of assets left behind more than they already had. The lead poisoning was nothing, even after industrialization, compared to that of other nations like India or the USA. Even Roman had more lead poisoning in the classical era than many African regions have today.

First, your 'unmapped genes' logic is a joke. You’re basically saying, 'I’m using a map of London to navigate Tokyo, and because the Tokyo map isn't finished yet, London must be the only city that exists.' Geneticists have already shown that the 'tags' you’re using for intelligence in Europeans don't work on African DNA because Africa has more genetic diversity than the rest of the planet combined. You aren't measuring 'unintelligent individuals'; you’re just using a broken ruler.
Second, your 'Ghost Hominid' talk is just another way to avoid looking at the actual terrain. Everyone has admixture—Europeans have Neanderthal, Asians have Denisovan. If 'admixture' was a death sentence for civilization, we’d all still be living in caves. You’re looking for a biological 'boogeyman' because you’re too scared to admit that geography is the real driver of history.


Look Konrad, let’s just play devil’s advocate and say your whole 'hierarchy' is 100% correct for a second. Even if you believe some groups have 'lower stats' on a chart, what is this hate actually doing for you? You’re acting like a guy who hates a dog because it can’t do calculus. Do you kick a dog because it’s not a human? Of course not. A real leader—a real 'Master'—doesn't find glory in being cruel to those he thinks are 'lesser.' That’s 'slave morality' behavior; it’s the pettiness of a clerk who needs someone to look down on just to feel like he’s standing up. Even if you don't see the 'joint mental space' we all share, we are all still 'pink in the middle' and capable of suffering. Carrying all this bitterness just turns your own soul into a 'Stage 3' stress wreck. You're trying to build a civilization out of 'logistics' and 'alleles,' but you’re forgetting that the only thing worth building is a world where you can actually be proud of the man you are when no one is looking. Let the hate go, man. It’s a heavy bag to carry, and it’s not making you any 'smarter' or 'superior'—it’s just making you small.

 

[Konrad Cruze]

Listen man, the 'logistics' argument is kind of a self-own because it ignores the actual map. Those Russians and Vikings didn’t win because they had better 'logistics software' in their brains; they won because they lived on a giant East-West landmass where you could actually ride horses and grow wheat for thousands of miles. If you put those same 'high-IQ' Vikings in central Africa with nothing but zebras—which are basically just angry, un-rideable horses—and a vertical climate that kills every crop you move ten miles south, their 'logistics' wouldn't have done shit. We’re all just pink in the middle, man, reacting to the tools the earth gave us. You’re looking for 'nobility' in a spreadsheet because you're scared of the fact that civilizational success is mostly just geographical luck. Quit larping as a warlord and look at the actual terrain.

Bad argument, Mongols didn't have land that could produce huge crop yields, and most of the land was too hard to build any significant structures on until modern tools appeared. And those modern tools only appear in regions where the land is soft, easily creating structures first, then mining minerals easily as well. Yet, the Mongols created an Empire. They took logistics into great consideration (they were next to the silk trade) and helped traders with transporting their goods, with the loss being borne by the elites and the traders. This encourages trade in the region. This allowed them to fund their armies and then invade regions where economies were not disturbed as much by their barbarism as the concentration of wealth spread out. So, many tribes stayed since the flow of goods and services has become more prominent and the risk has been reduced.
You just took the positive for the Mongolian and ignored all the negatives then did you the reverse for African. Many Africans had great pieces of land where resources could be harvested, like in Zimbabwe, then structures could be built to work on those resources, and then a trade route could be established. While it is true that they suffered from a fly that killed cattle and moisture was low for high crop yields, they were close to Zanzibar, where Arab traders established their colonies. There was around the African trade route as well. They just needed to establish control or influence over those, but didn't. They didn't bring fertilizers, they didn't bring medicine, and tools to industrialize. They mostly traded to get some luxury foods and items. Also, building luxury homes over the development of infrastructure. Like I mentioned the hominid admixtures argument in my previous post to the other guy. They were racially incapable of making long term decision making.

 

[Konrad Cruze]

First, your 'unmapped genes' logic is a joke. You’re basically saying, 'I’m using a map of London to navigate Tokyo, and because the Tokyo map isn't finished yet, London must be the only city that exists.' Geneticists have already shown that the 'tags' you’re using for intelligence in Europeans don't work on African DNA because Africa has more genetic diversity than the rest of the planet combined. You aren't measuring 'unintelligent individuals'; you’re just using a broken ruler.
Second, your 'Ghost Hominid' talk is just another way to avoid looking at the actual terrain. Everyone has admixture—Europeans have Neanderthal, Asians have Denisovan. If 'admixture' was a death sentence for civilization, we’d all still be living in caves. You’re looking for a biological 'boogeyman' because you’re too scared to admit that geography is the real driver of history.


Look Konrad, let’s just play devil’s advocate and say your whole 'hierarchy' is 100% correct for a second. Even if you believe some groups have 'lower stats' on a chart, what is this hate actually doing for you? You’re acting like a guy who hates a dog because it can’t do calculus. Do you kick a dog because it’s not a human? Of course not. A real leader—a real 'Master'—doesn't find glory in being cruel to those he thinks are 'lesser.' That’s 'slave morality' behavior; it’s the pettiness of a clerk who needs someone to look down on just to feel like he’s standing up. Even if you don't see the 'joint mental space' we all share, we are all still 'pink in the middle' and capable of suffering. Carrying all this bitterness just turns your own soul into a 'Stage 3' stress wreck. You're trying to build a civilization out of 'logistics' and 'alleles,' but you’re forgetting that the only thing worth building is a world where you can actually be proud of the man you are when no one is looking. Let the hate go, man. It’s a heavy bag to carry, and it’s not making you any 'smarter' or 'superior'—it’s just making you small.

I took into consideration both nature and nurture. You only take into consideration your retarded environmental argument and it is pointless. You completely discarded the genetic makeup that they inherited from Ghost hominid admixture, not even entertaining the fact that it could play any sort of function. BECAUSE, this entire argument is in bad faith. I am taking into consideration the point you provide while you completely ignore mine. Which very obvious when you start talking about 'hate'. Smearing my character instead of looking at my argument. Unless you somehow disprove that the Ghost hominid admixture doesn't exist or somehow is filler content in their DNA, even though making up a quarter of their DNA inheritance, then I might be willing to talk. Also, you used the argument that Africans have different alleles for intelligence. However, your faggots didn't list those alleles. You can't because the list I provided didn't list alleles that only exist in European but the entire world. So, this not using a map of London on Tokyo nonsense you are trying to sell me.

 

[Schwarzwald]

Bad argument, Mongols didn't have land that could produce huge crop yields, and most of the land was too hard to build any significant structures on until modern tools appeared. And those modern tools only appear in regions where the land is soft, easily creating structures first, then mining minerals easily as well. Yet, the Mongols created an Empire. They took logistics into great consideration (they were next to the silk trade) and helped traders with transporting their goods, with the loss being borne by the elites and the traders. This encourages trade in the region. This allowed them to fund their armies and then invade regions where economies were not disturbed as much by their barbarism as the concentration of wealth spread out. So, many tribes stayed since the flow of goods and services has become more prominent and the risk has been reduced.
You just took the positive for the Mongolian and ignored all the negatives then did you the reverse for African. Many Africans had great pieces of land where resources could be harvested, like in Zimbabwe, then structures could be built to work on those resources, and then a trade route could be established. While it is true that they suffered from a fly that killed cattle and moisture was low for high crop yields, they were close to Zanzibar, where Arab traders established their colonies. There was around the African trade route as well. They just needed to establish control or influence over those, but didn't. They didn't bring fertilizers, they didn't bring medicine, and tools to industrialize. They mostly traded to get some luxury foods and items. Also, building luxury homes over the development of infrastructure. Like I mentioned the hominid admixtures argument in my previous post to the other guy. They were racially incapable of making long term decision making.

It’s cute that you brought up the Mongols, but you’re literally making my point for me. You admitted they were 'next to the silk trade'—that is the definition of geographical luck. They didn't build the road; they just happened to be born on the only flat, East-West superhighway on the planet.
Your 'soft land' theory for mineral mining is pure fan-fiction—industrialization happened where coal and iron were close together, which is just geological happenstance. You’re trying so hard to find 'nobility' and 'genetics' in what is essentially just a lucky starting position on the map.
When you fall back on 'racial incapability,' it just sounds like you’re scared of a world where your own 'superior' status isn't guaranteed by your DNA. It’s a weak shield for a weak worldview. If you had been born in a Tsetse-fly swamp with no horses and no Silk Road, your 'logistics software' wouldn't have saved you from being just another guy in a hut.
Go back to your spreadsheets, man. Real history is written by the terrain, not by your 'hominid admixture' cope.
It’s funny that you’re crying about 'character smears' while your post is full of slurs—that’s not an argument, that’s just a tantrum. In a real debate, you’d be laughed off the stage for thinking 'Ghost DNA' excuses your failure to understand how a Tsetse fly kills an empire faster than a spreadsheet can save it.
You’re not 'taking my points into consideration'; you’re just ducking them because you’re terrified that your 'superiority' is actually just a result of where your ancestors happened to park their horses. Keep your admixtures and your anger—I'll keep the actual map."

P.s

Starting a rebuttal with ‘bad argument’ is the hallmark of a novice debater—in a real forensics round, you’d be docked points for using dismissive posturing as a substitute for actual logic. If you have to tell me it’s a bad argument instead of just proving it, it’s clear which one of us is actually leaning on a script. Better luck next round, 'Warlord'.

TL;DR ?
Local autistic man is big mad

 

[Konrad Cruze]

It’s cute that you brought up the Mongols, but you’re literally making my point for me. You admitted they were 'next to the silk trade'—that is the definition of geographical luck. They didn't build the road; they just happened to be born on the only flat, East-West superhighway on the planet.
Your 'soft land' theory for mineral mining is pure fan-fiction—industrialization happened where coal and iron were close together, which is just geological happenstance. You’re trying so hard to find 'nobility' and 'genetics' in what is essentially just a lucky starting position on the map.
When you fall back on 'racial incapability,' it just sounds like you’re scared of a world where your own 'superior' status isn't guaranteed by your DNA. It’s a weak shield for a weak worldview. If you had been born in a Tsetse-fly swamp with no horses and no Silk Road, your 'logistics software' wouldn't have saved you from being just another guy in a hut.
Go back to your spreadsheets, man. Real history is written by the terrain, not by your 'hominid admixture' cope.
It’s funny that you’re crying about 'character smears' while your post is full of slurs—that’s not an argument, that’s just a tantrum. In a real debate, you’d be laughed off the stage for thinking 'Ghost DNA' excuses your failure to understand how a Tsetse fly kills an empire faster than a spreadsheet can save it.
You’re not 'taking my points into consideration'; you’re just ducking them because you’re terrified that your 'superiority' is actually just a result of where your ancestors happened to park their horses. Keep your admixtures and your anger—I'll keep the actual map."

P.s

Starting a rebuttal with ‘bad argument’ is the hallmark of a novice debater—in a real forensics round, you’d be docked points for using dismissive posturing as a substitute for actual logic. If you have to tell me it’s a bad argument instead of just proving it, it’s clear which one of us is actually leaning on a script. Better luck next round, 'Warlord'.

TL;DR ?
Local autistic man is big mad

Your TL;DR is a projection here because my reply here was calm. My next reply is where I was mad and used offensive terms. Your P.s also shows some sort of insecurity about someone calling you incompetent in the subject matter. I just stated I found your argument poor. That isn't a big deal. You, on the other hand, like the other guy, have thrown immature remarks from the get-go and ignored my points while only doubling down on your own. Just like I stated in the other reply, which you can reply to here. You are refusing to tackle the Ghost Hominid admixture part without even properly refuting it, saying it doesn't matter, and just keep saying it doesn't matter, thinking it can work if you repeat yourself. But I can repeat myself too.

Also, forgot I admitted both positive and negative if Zimbabweans and Mongolians. You once again, like how I pointed out in that reply, stated this is why it was a bad argument, only took positive for the Mongols and negative for the Zimbabweans. You ignored that Zimbabweans were also born near a trade hub. First the one. Arab established and then later the European after the Ottomans blocked the Spanish and Portuguese from trading through them. You also ignored the fact that Zimbabwean when interacting with those on the trade route, only imported food and tools for luxury. They fixed their food problem by trading their materials for them. However, it was more than enough and the houses they build was mostly luxurious. They didn't try to build any sustainable infrastructure or improve their mining capabilities. Not even trying to get medicine and fertilizer that would have been enough.

 

[Schwarzwald]

Your TL;DR is a projection here because my reply here was calm. My next reply is where I was mad and used offensive terms. Your P.s also shows some sort of insecurity about someone calling you incompetent in the subject matter. I just stated I found your argument poor. That isn't a big deal. You, on the other hand, like the other guy, have thrown immature remarks from the get-go and ignored my points while only doubling down on your own. Just like I stated in the other reply, which you can reply to here. You are refusing to tackle the Ghost Hominid admixture part without even properly refuting it, saying it doesn't matter, and just keep saying it doesn't matter, thinking it can work if you repeat yourself. But I can repeat myself too.

Also, forgot I admitted both positive and negative if Zimbabweans and Mongolians. You once again, like how I pointed out in that reply, stated this is why it was a bad argument, only took positive for the Mongols and negative for the Zimbabweans. You ignored that Zimbabweans were also born near a trade hub. First the one. Arab established and then later the European after the Ottomans blocked the Spanish and Portuguese from trading through them. You also ignored the fact that Zimbabwean when interacting with those on the trade route, only imported food and tools for luxury. They fixed their food problem by trading their materials for them. However, it was more than enough and the houses they build was mostly luxurious. They didn't try to build any sustainable infrastructure or improve their mining capabilities. Not even trying to get medicine and fertilizer that would have been enough.

I read both of your replies, and it’s honestly fascinating that you admitted you were "mad and used offensive terms" because your "soft land" mineral theory didn't hold up. Once you start using slurs and throwing a tantrum, you’ve forfeited the right to be taken seriously in any professional forensics round.
You’re obsessed with Zimbabwe's lack of fertilizer in the 14th century, yet you ignore that your "logistics-heavy" Mongols lived in tents and didn't build a single permanent hospital or laboratory. More importantly, you’re ignoring the Mali Empire because it completely wrecks your "incapability" theory. Mansa Musa didn’t just sit on a "trade hub"; he managed the global gold supply and built the University of Sankore in Timbuktu—a center of science and law that was the envy of the world.
Managing a 60,000-man caravan across the Sahara and manipulating the global price of gold to stabilize an economy is "long-term decision making" at the highest level. You are hiding behind "Ghost DNA" and "admixtures" because you’re terrified of a world where geography—not your "nobility"—is the reason some people got a better "spawn point" on the map than others.
The "bad argument" isn't the map; it’s the fact that you’re calling people "incapable" while ignoring the richest, most logistically advanced empire of the Middle Ages. Keep your anger and your spreadsheets; I’m going back to the actual terrain.

 

[Konrad Cruze]

I read both of your replies, and it’s honestly fascinating that you admitted you were "mad and used offensive terms" because your "soft land" mineral theory didn't hold up. Once you start using slurs and throwing a tantrum, you’ve forfeited the right to be taken seriously in any professional forensics round.
You’re obsessed with Zimbabwe's lack of fertilizer in the 14th century, yet you ignore that your "logistics-heavy" Mongols lived in tents and didn't build a single permanent hospital or laboratory. More importantly, you’re ignoring the Mali Empire because it completely wrecks your "incapability" theory. Mansa Musa didn’t just sit on a "trade hub"; he managed the global gold supply and built the University of Sankore in Timbuktu—a center of science and law that was the envy of the world.
Managing a 60,000-man caravan across the Sahara and manipulating the global price of gold to stabilize an economy is "long-term decision making" at the highest level. You are hiding behind "Ghost DNA" and "admixtures" because you’re terrified of a world where geography—not your "nobility"—is the reason some people got a better "spawn point" on the map than others.
The "bad argument" isn't the map; it’s the fact that you’re calling people "incapable" while ignoring the richest, most logistically advanced empire of the Middle Ages. Keep your anger and your spreadsheets; I’m going back to the actual terrain.

View attachment 12262

You didn't debunk my softland theory for you to claim I got mad over it. I got mad over the fact that you are ignoring the Ghost Hominid admixture evidence and keep taking only positive results for one side while the opposite for the other. You think you can claim I got mad over some imagery debunking that happened, not the actual thing, and I would fall for it, then in shame admit defeat?

Also, you once again failed to provide any substantial evidence as to how the Hominid admixture has a null effect. No comparison of how 2 groups of different admixtures got similar results in the same environment. You dodge it again and instead throw an insult at me for using it, but you didn't provide any rebuttal.
The Mansa Musa empire is one example. There were hundreds of other Sub Saharan African that didn't get anything done. Meanwhile, before Mongolian, there were the Synthians and before that the Yamnaya people. These other 2 didn't even have a Silk Road, unlike Munsa Musa, and the Mongols already had an established trade route. They didn't have materials they could harvest unlike the Mali Empire. Yet, both of these 2 group became the dominant racial group. The Yamanya people invented chariot usage, which allowed them to conquer more established civilizations. Meanwhile, Africans didn't use the wheel for wheelbarrows or carts. Even if half of the terrain isn't suitable, neither is the rocky terrain of Central Asia, where Yamanya lived, who realized the usage of the wheel in warfare. Also, Munsa Musa didn't have to establish or seize control of the trade route. The Silk Road, while important for Eurasia, was mostly not administered, and the Mongols put effort into it and bore half of the damage that occurred. The Sahara was already looked after by the Berbers. Munsa Musa had a relatively easier trade route to manage. While the Mongols had a harsher one. The Mali empire wasn't impressive; instead, it was the medieval equivalent of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia doesn't have an impressive manufacturing or services industry. They just had oil. Meanwhile, the creation of the Japanese industry was more difficult and impressive. They don't have any sustainable development, and a lot of their actions are dumb, only saved by the huge amount of oil they have. Munsa Musa supposedly gave many of his soldiers gold weapons and tools that were ineffective in combat. He also didn't left sustainable structure. While it doesn't take away that his family built and maintained a civilization where people lived comfortable lives, it won't change that he had it easy, unlike the Mongols.

One last thing, I am still waiting for you to list me those alleles from the genetic diversity of African you keep blabbering about, which help the Negros frontal lobe to develop, that don't exist in European. Even though I already posted all the alleles that exist which contribute to intelligence in the entire world, you kept insisting that it was only for European and Africans had their own.

 

[Schwarzwald]

You didn't debunk my softland theory for you to claim I got mad over it. I got mad over the fact that you are ignoring the Ghost Hominid admixture evidence and keep taking only positive results for one side while the opposite for the other. You think you can claim I got mad over some imagery debunking that happened, not the actual thing, and I would fall for it, then in shame admit defeat?

Also, you once again failed to provide any substantial evidence as to how the Hominid admixture has a null effect. No comparison of how 2 groups of different admixtures got similar results in the same environment. You dodge it again and instead throw an insult at me for using it, but you didn't provide any rebuttal.
The Mansa Musa empire is one example. There were hundreds of other Sub Saharan African that didn't get anything done. Meanwhile, before Mongolian, there were the Synthians and before that the Yamnaya people. These other 2 didn't even have a Silk Road, unlike Munsa Musa, and the Mongols already had an established trade route. They didn't have materials they could harvest unlike the Mali Empire. Yet, both of these 2 group became the dominant racial group. The Yamanya people invented chariot usage, which allowed them to conquer more established civilizations. Meanwhile, Africans didn't use the wheel for wheelbarrows or carts. Even if half of the terrain isn't suitable, neither is the rocky terrain of Central Asia, where Yamanya lived, who realized the usage of the wheel in warfare. Also, Munsa Musa didn't have to establish or seize control of the trade route. The Silk Road, while important for Eurasia, was mostly not administered, and the Mongols put effort into it and bore half of the damage that occurred. The Sahara was already looked after by the Berbers. Munsa Musa had a relatively easier trade route to manage. While the Mongols had a harsher one. The Mali empire wasn't impressive; instead, it was the medieval equivalent of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia doesn't have an impressive manufacturing or services industry. They just had oil. Meanwhile, the creation of the Japanese industry was more difficult and impressive. They don't have any sustainable development, and a lot of their actions are dumb, only saved by the huge amount of oil they have. Munsa Musa supposedly gave many of his soldiers gold weapons and tools that were ineffective in combat. He also didn't left sustainable structure. While it doesn't take away that his family built and maintained a civilization where people lived comfortable lives, it won't change that he had it easy, unlike the Mongols.

One last thing, I am still waiting for you to list me those alleles from the genetic diversity of African you keep blabbering about, which help the Negros frontal lobe to develop, that don't exist in European. Even though I already posted all the alleles that exist which contribute to intelligence in the entire world, you kept insisting that it was only for European and Africans had their own.

I hear you, but we’re definitely just circling the drain at this point. You're leaning hard on that list of alleles, but you’re missing the forest for the trees. Those genome-wide studies (like the 2018 one you cited) explicitly state that these markers only explain a tiny fraction of the variation in "intelligence" and are heavily dependent on the environment they were studied in. Using them to claim one group is "inherently" smarter is like trying to explain a whole movie by looking at three pixels on the screen.
You keep asking me for a list of "African alleles," but that’s a trap because genetics doesn't work in silos. Africa has the highest genetic diversity on the planet, meaning there are more variations of every type of gene there than anywhere else. I don't need to list "special" ones to prove a point when the basic math of 99.9% shared DNA already does that for me.
As for the Mali Empire, calling it "Saudi Arabia" just to dismiss it is a huge stretch. Managing a global resource and building world-class universities in the 1300s isn't "having it easy"—it’s called running a successful civilization. You can say the Mongols had it harder, but they didn't leave behind a single library or hospital, so what does that tell you about their "long-term planning"?
The British were living in mud while the Romans had running water, and the Chinese had gunpowder while Europeans were still using bows. Civilizations rise and fall based on geography, trade, and timing, not "ghost" genes. You can keep your spreadsheets and your /pol/ memes, but they don't change the fact that real-world history doesn't fit your theory. I’m done repeating myself. Take the L and have a good one.

 

[Schwarzwald]

You didn't debunk my softland theory for you to claim I got mad over it. I got mad over the fact that you are ignoring the Ghost Hominid admixture evidence and keep taking only positive results for one side while the opposite for the other. You think you can claim I got mad over some imagery debunking that happened, not the actual thing, and I would fall for it, then in shame admit defeat?

Also, you once again failed to provide any substantial evidence as to how the Hominid admixture has a null effect. No comparison of how 2 groups of different admixtures got similar results in the same environment. You dodge it again and instead throw an insult at me for using it, but you didn't provide any rebuttal.
The Mansa Musa empire is one example. There were hundreds of other Sub Saharan African that didn't get anything done. Meanwhile, before Mongolian, there were the Synthians and before that the Yamnaya people. These other 2 didn't even have a Silk Road, unlike Munsa Musa, and the Mongols already had an established trade route. They didn't have materials they could harvest unlike the Mali Empire. Yet, both of these 2 group became the dominant racial group. The Yamanya people invented chariot usage, which allowed them to conquer more established civilizations. Meanwhile, Africans didn't use the wheel for wheelbarrows or carts. Even if half of the terrain isn't suitable, neither is the rocky terrain of Central Asia, where Yamanya lived, who realized the usage of the wheel in warfare. Also, Munsa Musa didn't have to establish or seize control of the trade route. The Silk Road, while important for Eurasia, was mostly not administered, and the Mongols put effort into it and bore half of the damage that occurred. The Sahara was already looked after by the Berbers. Munsa Musa had a relatively easier trade route to manage. While the Mongols had a harsher one. The Mali empire wasn't impressive; instead, it was the medieval equivalent of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia doesn't have an impressive manufacturing or services industry. They just had oil. Meanwhile, the creation of the Japanese industry was more difficult and impressive. They don't have any sustainable development, and a lot of their actions are dumb, only saved by the huge amount of oil they have. Munsa Musa supposedly gave many of his soldiers gold weapons and tools that were ineffective in combat. He also didn't left sustainable structure. While it doesn't take away that his family built and maintained a civilization where people lived comfortable lives, it won't change that he had it easy, unlike the Mongols.

One last thing, I am still waiting for you to list me those alleles from the genetic diversity of African you keep blabbering about, which help the Negros frontal lobe to develop, that don't exist in European. Even though I already posted all the alleles that exist which contribute to intelligence in the entire world, you kept insisting that it was only for European and Africans had their own.

I actually took the time to look up that 2018 Nature Genetics paper you keep posting, and it’s honestly embarrassing how much you’re misreading it. The authors, Lee et al., explicitly state that these polygenic scores are "non-portable," meaning the markers they found in Europeans failed to predict anything when applied to people of African descent. You're trying to use a ruler calibrated for one thing to measure something else entirely; the researchers themselves said it doesn't work that way.
Even more damaging to your "nobility" theory is that when they looked at siblings—people with the same parents but different genes—the impact of those "intelligence" alleles dropped by 40%. That proves the study was actually picking up on things like stable homes and wealthy parents, not just raw brainpower. On top of that, these genes only explained about 11% of the difference in how people did in school. Using a study that accounts for 11% of the story to claim a 100% biological rule isn't "logic"—it’s just desperate.
You're ignoring the 99.9% of DNA we all share to obsess over a few markers that the scientists say are mostly influenced by the environment anyway. It’s the same way you ignore that the Mali Empire ran a global commodity superpower while your "superior" Mongols were living in tents without a single library to their name.


PS: Protip, next time you use references, make sure the people who wrote and published them are actually on your side. Citing a paper that explicitly says your method is "limited" and "non-portable" is a massive self-own.

 

[Konrad Cruze]

I actually took the time to look up that 2018 Nature Genetics paper you keep posting, and it’s honestly embarrassing how much you’re misreading it. The authors, Lee et al., explicitly state that these polygenic scores are "non-portable," meaning the markers they found in Europeans failed to predict anything when applied to people of African descent. You're trying to use a ruler calibrated for one thing to measure something else entirely; the researchers themselves said it doesn't work that way.
Even more damaging to your "nobility" theory is that when they looked at siblings—people with the same parents but different genes—the impact of those "intelligence" alleles dropped by 40%. That proves the study was actually picking up on things like stable homes and wealthy parents, not just raw brainpower. On top of that, these genes only explained about 11% of the difference in how people did in school. Using a study that accounts for 11% of the story to claim a 100% biological rule isn't "logic"—it’s just desperate.
You're ignoring the 99.9% of DNA we all share to obsess over a few markers that the scientists say are mostly influenced by the environment anyway. It’s the same way you ignore that the Mali Empire ran a global commodity superpower while your "superior" Mongols were living in tents without a single library to their name.


PS: Protip, next time you use references, make sure the people who wrote and published them are actually on your side. Citing a paper that explicitly says your method is "limited" and "non-portable" is a massive self-own.

A 99.9% of the DNA we all share? Now you are straight-up lying. DNA test proved we all humans have great variation in hominid admixtures. Europeans have 2% Neanderthal DNA, with Jewish people having the highest at 8%. Meanwhile, Africans have a quarter of their DNA from the Ghost Hominid, to a small 2% for people from those groups that lived near the Nile and North Africa, disconnected from the rest of the Sahara. Ignoring this factor is not acceptable.

Also, the University of Edinburgh's Institute of Genetics and Cancer, using the 1000 Genomes Project, came to the conclusion that human intelligence is, in fact, partially inherited. Claiming 50-80% be inherited intelligence and the rest is environmental factors. Though they found it difficult to determine which alleles exactly. I just used the article as a reference for you to look at those alleles that have been found to correlate with intelligence. The writer of the article can disagree with me because he is not the absolute authority. You looked at 40% and called it a victory; however, it didn't state 100% as an environmental factor. In fact, it agrees completely with me. More on inherited genes and less environment. While it can be true that due to different hominid admixtures, people have different alleles for frontal lobe development, but there isn't a list of alleles that contribute to intelligence in African specifically. If you can then I can move on however you haven't.

The 2-repeat allele of the MAOA gene confers an increased risk for shooting and stabbing behaviors​

The article cited above states that they found an alleles which they thing correlate to violent crimes. This allele is also not founded in Caucasians. This prove a genetic reality that you can not ignore not every thing is related to environment.

This is backed by the fact, high employment background Black still out do low employment Whites. Disproving your socioeconomic arguments.
View attachment Screenshot_20260205-175002.png
Along with 1985 federal funded program of Kansas city where a state of the art facility was provided to black children 11.7K dollars per student and a teacher per 11 students with a total 15 schools built. Each with labs and pools. Yet, the city itself stated no improvement was noticed.
View attachment Screenshot_20260205-175819.png

Also, the Chinese are intelligent, which is why they were able to invent gunpowder. However, doing something first doesn't mean anything. Once again, I am taking both environment and inheritance into play here, while you are only taking one. You are using your pretend game as if I didn't mention that I take both factors into consideration. Also, you are forgetting I am seeing the world as multiple different races and different capabilities, not just African vs Non-African. Mongols didn't leave much because I took their DNA and environment into mind. I just complimented them for being able to build a flourishing society using smart logistics and warfare for themselves, and all the obscure nomadic tribes faced far more hurdles. You ignored the fact that Mali had gold, and the Berbers established a trade route; meanwhile Mongolian had to maintain those trade routes without any resources to sell. But I didn't deny their barbarism and lack of sustainability. Also, leaving behind a building isn't the point. But the. When I say they didn't build anything, I mean build something that developed their society. They left the university, but that university barely allowed much of the industrial and medical advancement. They had a great economy in 1300, yet Europeans were they one that contribute to 94% of all scientific and artistic achievements.

Your entire argument is not tackling the hominid admixtures, pretending I am not taking the environment into consideration, and then finding some relation between the environment and societal achievement, and then calling it an absolute victory.

 

[Schwarzwald]

A 99.9% of the DNA we all share? Now you are straight-up lying. DNA test proved we all humans have great variation in hominid admixtures. Europeans have 2% Neanderthal DNA, with Jewish people having the highest at 8%. Meanwhile, Africans have a quarter of their DNA from the Ghost Hominid, to a small 2% for people from those groups that lived near the Nile and North Africa, disconnected from the rest of the Sahara. Ignoring this factor is not acceptable.

Also, the University of Edinburgh's Institute of Genetics and Cancer, using the 1000 Genomes Project, came to the conclusion that human intelligence is, in fact, partially inherited. Claiming 50-80% be inherited intelligence and the rest is environmental factors. Though they found it difficult to determine which alleles exactly. I just used the article as a reference for you to look at those alleles that have been found to correlate with intelligence. The writer of the article can disagree with me because he is not the absolute authority. You looked at 40% and called it a victory; however, it didn't state 100% as an environmental factor. In fact, it agrees completely with me. More on inherited genes and less environment. While it can be true that due to different hominid admixtures, people have different alleles for frontal lobe development, but there isn't a list of alleles that contribute to intelligence in African specifically. If you can then I can move on however you haven't.

The 2-repeat allele of the MAOA gene confers an increased risk for shooting and stabbing behaviors​

The article cited above states that they found an alleles which they thing correlate to violent crimes. This allele is also not founded in Caucasians. This prove a genetic reality that you can not ignore not every thing is related to environment. View attachment 12266

This is backed by the fact, high employment background Black still out do low employment Whites. Disproving your socioeconomic arguments.
View attachment 12267
Along with 1985 federal funded program of Kansas city where a state of the art facility was provided to black children 11.7K dollars per student and a teacher per 11 students with a total 15 schools built. Each with labs and pools. Yet, the city itself stated no improvement was noticed.
View attachment 12270

Also, the Chinese are intelligent, which is why they were able to invent gunpowder. However, doing something first doesn't mean anything. Once again, I am taking both environment and inheritance into play here, while you are only taking one. You are using your pretend game as if I didn't mention that I take both factors into consideration. Also, you are forgetting I am seeing the world as multiple different races and different capabilities, not just African vs Non-African. Mongols didn't leave much because I took their DNA and environment into mind. I just complimented them for being able to build a flourishing society using smart logistics and warfare for themselves, and all the obscure nomadic tribes faced far more hurdles. You ignored the fact that Mali had gold, and the Berbers established a trade route; meanwhile Mongolian had to maintain those trade routes without any resources to sell. But I didn't deny their barbarism and lack of sustainability. Also, leaving behind a building isn't the point. But the. When I say they didn't build anything, I mean build something that developed their society. They left the university, but that university barely allowed much of the industrial and medical advancement. They had a great economy in 1300, yet Europeans were they one that contribute to 94% of all scientific and artistic achievements.

Your entire argument is not tackling the hominid admixtures, pretending I am not taking the environment into consideration, and then finding some relation between the environment and societal achievement, and then calling it an absolute victory.

Bro, you're still just vomiting the same half-read /pol/ copypasta, but every "source" you drop literally shoots your own argument in the foot. It's like you're trying to own me with papers that say the exact opposite of what you're claiming. Peak clown energy—keep citing stuff that refutes you; it's making this easy.Let's rip this apart one by one, since you're obsessed with ignoring the caveats in your own links:First, that 99.9% DNA similarity "lie"? Nah, that's straight from modern genomics (like the Human Genome Project updates—any two humans share ~99.9% at the base-pair level, with tiny variations in SNPs). Your hominid admixture rant is pure fanfic. Europeans/non-Africans average 1-4% Neanderthal (not 2%, and no credible source says Jews hit 8%—that's made-up BS; Ashkenazi averages ~2-3%, same as other Europeans). For Africans: the "ghost" archaic admixture in West Africans (Yoruba/Mende) is 2-19% max, per the actual 2020 Science Advances paper you probably skimmed (Durvasula & Sankararaman). Not 25%, and not some "downgrade"—the authors call it neutral ancestry variation, no ranking of "better ghosts." North Africans/Nile groups have even less due to back-migration, but it's not a flat 2%. If archaic DNA is an "anchor" like you say, you're dragging more caveman baggage than anyone. Hypocrite much? Ignoring this doesn't make your superiority complex real.On intelligence: The University of Edinburgh's Institute of Genetics and Cancer (using 1000 Genomes data) actually pegs heritability from DNA variants at ~30% (not 50-80%—that's from twin studies, which include environment too). Their 2017 review says "only around 30% of the variation in intelligence is inherited," and they've struggled to pin down alleles because it's polygenic as hell—no "list of alleles for frontal lobe in Africans" like you're demanding, because none exist that prove racial gaps are genetic. The articles you reference (like polygenic scores from Nature Genetics) warn against extrapolating to causation or races—environment crushes the rest. You say the writer "disagrees" but "agrees with you"? Nah, they explicitly say it's hard to determine alleles, and the 40% you mock is from shared environment/studies, not disproving anything. You're demanding proof that doesn't exist because your "hominid admixture = IQ" theory is junk—no studies link it to intelligence gaps.MAOA 2-repeat allele: Your "article" (likely Beaver 2013) only looked at African-American males vs other African-American males—no Caucasian comparison because it's super rare in them (0.1-0.5% across reports). They couldn't test cross-racial effects properly. It's within-group correlation at best, tied to GxE (gene-environment interactions), not "genetic reality" proving race=violence. Multiple reviews (like in Biological Psychiatry) warn against overinterpreting to races—it's not absent in Caucasians, just low-frequency, and no proof it's the "crime gene" without environment. Your own source says effects may be independent in rare cases, but the bulk is environmental. Keep waving a no-comparison study like it's proof—it's illiterate.That "high employment background Black still outdo low employment Whites" claim? You got it backwards, anon—it's the opposite of what data shows. Studies like Sampson 2005 (AJPH) on violence victimization: poor urban Blacks (51.3/1,000) have rates similar to poor urban Whites (56.4/1,000)—Whites actually slightly higher. When you control for SES/neighborhood, the Black-White violence gap shrinks over 60% (or vanishes in some datasets). High-SES Blacks have lower crime than low-SES Whites overall (Brookings 2024 review). Your graph (probably some cherry-picked FBI table) ignores confounders like policing bias, poverty depth, redlining—stats show SES explains most, not all, but definitely not your flipped narrative.Kansas City: Yeah, the 1985-1995 deseg program dumped $2B+ into facilities (11.7k/pupil, low ratios, labs/pools)—and it flopped. But your "own source" (Cato/Hoover reports) says why: "structural problems of our current educational system," not biology. They called out how fancy resources diverted from fixing systemic rot, poverty legacies, segregation fallout. Test scores didn't budge because it didn't address the real issues—policy, family support, bias. Not a "gotcha" on genes; it's proof throwing money at symptoms ignores the broken foundation.Chinese gunpowder/Mali vs Mongols: "Doing something first doesn't mean anything"? Lmao, then why brag about European "achievements"? Mali Empire wasn't just "gold and Berber routes"—they built sustainable wealth through innovation in trade, agriculture, scholarship. Sankore University (25k students, 700k manuscripts) advanced surgery (cataracts), astronomy, math, chemistry while Europe was post-plague slumping. Mongols were nomadic conquerors—brutal logistics, yeah, but they didn't "maintain routes without resources"; they looted and taxed. Leaving "buildings" vs "developing society"? Mali left a legacy of knowledge that influenced global trade/Islam—Europeans later "contributed 94%"? That's from Murray's biased 2003 book "Human Accomplishment," which cherry-picks Western inventories (97% science from Europe/NA, ignoring Islamic/Asian foundations like algebra, optics, gunpowder precursors). It's Eurocentric BS—actual history shows non-Europeans drove half the breakthroughs (e.g., Arabic numerals from India via Arabs). You're not "taking both environment and inheritance"—you're twisting environment to prop up inheritance myths while ignoring how colonialism gutted non-European progress.Your whole rant boils down to dodging hominid facts (your numbers are wrong), pretending environment doesn't dominate (it does), and goalpost-shifting because equality scares you. I'm not "pretending" you're ignoring environment—you straight-up are, by cherry-picking abstracts and ignoring conclusions. This ain't debate; it's you sealioning with refuted memes because admitting systemic factors mean your "superior/inferio clan" fantasy crumbles.

 

[Schwarzwald]

It’s funny to see someone preach about 'biological reality' and 'data' while simultaneously admitting they don't have a background in biology and need a survival guide for beginners. Maybe focus on learning how to wrap a bandage before trying to lecture people on complex evolutionary science. The irony is loud.


>Such a small board it's funny what you come across just posting.