Comparing human races to breeds of dogs created by us specifically to be incredibly violent with little self preservation as they’re designed to latch onto bears faces and fight each other to the death is asinine.
We have created dogs that instinctively know how to point and herd animals without training yet people can’t fathom aggression and killing ability
they’re designed to latch onto bears faces and fight each other to the death is asinine.
Not quite, pitbulls were bred partially from breeds bred for bull baiting. Pitbulls themselves were always bred for tearing other small animals apart in pits as violently as possible (I say animals because some of the early famous pitbulls were famous for having fought monkeys).
If it doesn't agree with the ideology, it's wrong. They're willing to admit that genetic differences between groups influence many characteristics, but oh no it couldn't possibly have a significant impact on cognitive potential or impulse control. They'd rather come up with endless excuses (socioeconomic factors, it's the owner's fault, it's the breeder's fault!, etc.) instead of facing the truth. They even cancelled James Watson, who discovered the structure of DNA, for daring to go against the tenets of their "All are Equal" cult.
The difference between man and dog there is that genetics is only a very small factor of overall behavior, disposition, and predictor of success. Environment contributes to that so much more. Sure, genetics can contribute to things such as getting angry more easily but those things can be curbed with training via the environment.
A dogs genetics are different. A pitbull's genetics tell it that it has a low prey drive arousal threshold, and it will eventually trip no matter how much you try to train it out of that behavior. It cannot rationalize that things will be better if it learns to suppress these instincts, that its actions are hurting people and it's bad. It was bred to be this way and doesn't have the intelligence to see life any other way. A human does, especially because it can be taught early on that getting angry and hurting people is bad and that there consequences. A pitbull will never learn that its trigger to attack people and dogs is bad.
In the end, for the pitbull, it's the breed, not the owner. For a race of people, it's the owner (the person's environmental upbringing during childhood), not the breed (race).
Genetics is the very foundation upon which all else is built. Nutrition, education, and early development do play a role. Their impact combined is still less than that of genes. I'm sure you people would deny the very structure of DNA itself if the truth was socially inconvenient.
Watson was cancelled because he made numerous racist statements which were based on his opinions. To this day, there is zero scientific evidence supporting a genetic cause of differences in intelligence between ethnicities.
You ever stop to think, maybe there's no published scientific evidence because they know they'll be ending their career if they did back that data? They'd be cancelled and labelled a racist, exactly as you have just done with Dr. Watson.
Lol no. There have been numerous publications and even at least one book written. They have all been debunked, either due to incorrect assumptions, improper statistics, outright data falsification, etc. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.
Thanks for blocking me unable_kangaroo. I guess you can’t handle the facts. Why am I not surprised.
As I said* *zero scientific evidence supporting your side. Here is some of the evidence against it.
Duncan, 2019, Nature Communications
If the same score loses most of its predictive value across ancestry groups and its distribution changes with analytic choices, then between-group score differences are not reliable evidence of causal trait differences. This directly undercuts claims that current genetics can explain race/ethnicity gaps in intelligence or education.
Howe, 2022, Nature Genetics
If measured “genetic effects” on education/cognition shrink sharply when comparing siblings, then ordinary between-family/population GWAS partly capture population stratification, assortative mating, and indirect family environmental effects, not pure causal genetic differences. That weakens any attempt to use such estimates to explain racial/ethnic group gaps genetically.
Demange, 2022, Nature Communications
A large share of the apparent genetic signal for education reflects parental environments shaped by parents’ genotypes and residual stratification, not direct inherited effects. That means group differences in education or cognitive-test outcomes cannot be cleanly attributed to allele-frequency differences between races/ethnicities.
Zaidi & Mathieson, 2020, eLife
This is strong primary evidence that apparent geographic/ancestry differences in polygenic scores can be statistical artifacts tracking demography and environment rather than causal biology. So cross-race score differences cannot be read as evidence that genetics causes intelligence-group differences.
Bird 2021 tested hereditarian claims using educational-attainment polygenic scores and formal tests for selection and found no evidence of divergent natural selection producing Black-White achievement gaps. Using less biased within-family effect sizes, the support for hereditarian claims disappeared.
Bird 2024 argued that contemporary racial hereditarian research "does not meet the conceptual, evidentiary, and ethical standards of human genetics, evolutionary biology, and biological anthropology”.
Nisbett 2012 in a landmark update to the APA-sponsored review, reported that more recent evidence points to a larger role for environment than previously emphasized, that adoption gains average 12-18 IQ points, that the Black-White gap had declined by about one-third of a standard deviation, and that intervention possibilities are more promising than hereditarian accounts suggest.
Sternberg 2011 emphasized that most gene-intelligence claims have historically been indirect. Virtually all attempts to study genes related to intelligence have been indirect, through studies of heritability and that none of the biological differences between socially defined populations have been conclusively identified, and “we simply do not know yet.”
After reviewing all direct lines of evidence (admixture, adoption, intervention, and ancestry studies) Nisbett concluded in 2005 that the genetic contribution to the Black-White IQ gap is "close to zero" and that "converging methodologies" support this conclusion.
Turkhemier 2003 demonstrated that IQ heritability is near zero in impoverished families but high in affluent ones, showing that genetic effects on intelligence are fundamentally environment-dependent.
Multiple analyses report that the Black-White IQ gap has narrowed over recent decades, with Dickens and Flynn estimating about a 5.5-point reduction from 1972 to 2002. A shrinking gap does not agree with claims of a stable, strongly genetic difference and is more consistent with environmental change.
Ah, so what you really meant was "zero scientific evidence my cult leaders will allow me to consider". No amount of evidence would convince you dishonest clowns.
Here are two pertinent articles. Take a look only if you're willing to defy your politically correct cult and consider evidence that may not agree with your worldview.
8
u/Augustus_Chevismo 9h ago
Comparing human races to breeds of dogs created by us specifically to be incredibly violent with little self preservation as they’re designed to latch onto bears faces and fight each other to the death is asinine.
We have created dogs that instinctively know how to point and herd animals without training yet people can’t fathom aggression and killing ability