The Bobster

I see. We don't hear this about White privilege though? Why can't we restrict attention to specific ethnicities? Thank you for posting a relevant hypothesis. You think Jewish money is the main factor? Interesting, I'll look into it. You also think Jews are more literate due to their history. Entirely possible. Do you view this as cultural, genetic or both? And you'll find modern Marxist anthropology is nothing but a series of frauds.

Heritability is the genetic portion of variance. By definition cultural/societal effects contribute to the environmental portion, for those non-genetic cultural effects. I'm really not sure what relevance your posts have. You oppose Trump and Brexit apparently, because "good" and "freedom". I tried to steer you back to the OP question. Doesn't seem like you have anything relevant to say. And thanks for the pop-psychoanalysis. I'm "brainwashed" because I disagree with your half baked irrelevance. Forgive me for lol'ing. Hint: you're supposed to counter data before calling it lies.

I was informed by a mod that a thread on "White privilege" would be OK after criticising Jews. Kind of odd I know. Then I thought, if criticising Whites is OK, why not Jews? Kind of back to square one. And when looking for data on White privilege, I found massive Jewish privilege. Spooky stuff.

My OP contained two claims and two pieces of evidence. That's more than some people post. Usual tack is to challenge claims/evidence. Let's not be dishonest here, we know why the thread was locked.

Academic enrollment is affected by politics and immigration. "There's still a gap though and I think that's almost entirely down to factors earlier on in their life" is a claim about heritability, ie. genetic portion of variance. If you stop slandering me I won't need to respond.

Oh, there's a mountain of evidence. It's just you locked the thread before I could post any. Perhaps I wasn't surprised. Still, organised fraud in academia is a valid topic. At least on a science board with intellectual integrity it would be. Extremely important issue. Touchy though right? Kind of scary. And no, ethnic subversion isn't necessarily a conspiracy. It can be more organic, even subconscious. But then, it can be a conspiracy. "Conspiracy" isn't some magic word you can use to dismiss any organised activity. It really doesn't matter whether you call it a conspiracy or not. Of course the pseudoscience is certainly linked to the ethnicity. You think it's a coincidence that Boas stacked the board with Jews pushing Marxist pseudoscience? He could have done that with Japanese Buddhists or Bangladeshi Muslims? Just a coincidence I suppose. Marxist theories which fracture White ethno states are of no political relevance to Jews? What hypocrisy! It's you that is playing games with semantics, thinking labelling something a "conspiracy" makes it magically disappear without looking at any evidence.

This thread is about White privilege in academia. You said you knew why "certain groups", it was "well known", got "life chances". In the context this can be taken to mean you know why some groups are privileged in academia. Is that not what you meant? If it is, why? Nepotism? Genetic IQ? Culture? If it isn't, you are being irrelevant. Which groups are most privileged? You claim to see a problem, what is the problem exactly in your view? You consider unilaterally opening your borders to the point where your people no longer exist to be "good"? I guess you're entitled to your opinion. Do you think Jewish and Asian enrollment should be capped? Maybe replacing half of them with native Mexicans would sort things out, or at least be a step in the right direction?

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy

Are Jews privileged in academia? Is there any indication of nepotism in college admissions? Does ethnic bias ever influence science? How do we establish ethnic bias in science? Finding cases of academic fraud and correlating them to ethnicity would be one way. Are there any examples of Jews doing this? If so, is it a conspiracy? Some data to get the ball rolling.

Do you imagine that people in Saudi Arabia and China "vote for the common good"? Do they even vote? What is your view of "the common good". Sounds subjective. Would one way mass immigration to only White nations be a "common good"?

You wrote: "it is well known why some social groups do not get the same chances in life than others". Sounds pretty relevant to ethnic privilege in education. So tell us.

Really? And why is that? It's kind of the point of the thread. Do these people, White people who vote in their ethnic interest, have any justification to do so? Do other ethnicities ever act in their interest? I see. So you imagine behavior genetic findings. Which ethnicities are most privileged in the USA? There is some data in the OP.

Fascinating that this whole board is a political minority.

Interesting. You think heritability is set in childhood, and not that it increases over time. Any reason you think that? Which ethnicities are most privileged in the States?

So it would be entirely inappropriate to shut down a discussion where somebody brings up a case of ethnic bias in academia as a conspiracy theory for two reasons. Ethnic bias, possibly subconscious, isn't a conspiracy. Shutting down discussion before considering evidence clearly isn't the sign of somebody interested in evidence. It's the action of a closed minded bigot. bigot ˈbɪɡət/ noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions. How ironic.

Are Whites privileged in academia? Is there any indication of nepotism in college admissions? Does ethnic bias ever influence science? How do we establish ethnic bias in science? Finding cases of academic fraud and correlating them to ethnicity would be one way. Are there any examples of Whites doing this? If so, is it a conspiracy? Some data to get the ball rolling.

Do conspiracies ever exist? Is it ever reasonable to posit a conspiracy theory? Has there ever been a case where a conspiracy theory had merit? Would ethnic bias and nepotism be considered a conspiracy? Would toeing a party line be a conspiracy? Do people ever use the term "conspiracy theory" as if all conspiracy theories are automatically wrong and can't be discussed, and if so, how does this make sense? Do they apply the term selectively to certain groups, and perhaps ironically, when there possibly is a conspiracy?

Franz Boas, "father of American anthropology", is well known for his work on racial differences. He apparently demonstrated that cephalic index, thought to be a racial trait, changed in different environments. Recent analysis suggests his finding was manufactured by cherry-picking data. "Using the recent reanalysis by Gravlee et al. (2003), we can observe in Figure 2 that the maximum difference in cranial index due to immigration (in Hebrews) is much smaller than the maximum ethnic difference, between Sicilians and Bohemians. It shows that long headed parents produce long headed offspring and vice versa. To make the argument that children of immigrants converge onto an "American type" required Boas to use the two groups that changed the most." http://www.understandingrace.org/resources/pdf/myth_reality/jantz.pdf There is also a suggestion that Boas was a "Marxist" in the subversive Jewish ethnic activist sense, ie. promoting "equality" to fracture White nations in Jewish interest. Kevin MacDonald writes: "By 1915 the Boasians controlled the American Anthropological Association and held a two-thirds majority on its Executive Board (Stocking 1968, 285). In 1919 Boas could state that most of the anthropological work done at the present time in the United States was done by his students at Columbia (in Stocking 1968, 296). By 1926 every major department of anthropology was headed by Boas's students, the majority of whom were Jewish... Boas rarely cited works of people outside his group except to disparage them, whereas, as with Mead's and Benedict's work, he strenuously promoted and cited the work of people within the ingroup. The Boasian school of anthropology thus came to resemble in a microcosm key features of Judaism as a highly collectivist group evolutionary strategy: a high level of ingroup identification, exclusionary policies, and cohesiveness in pursuit of common interests." http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion2/goyim/je1.pdf So I expect this thread to be locked because it's not allowed to criticise Jews or something, but please bear in mind that this relates to possible ethnic subversion at the highest level of academic anthropology, and is entirely appropriate to discuss on this board. I am sure that a charge of "White supremacy" bias in academia would be fine to discuss.

Discussions of this kind often involve ignoramuses wasting everybody's time saying "racist" or "Marxist". I prefer to stay on topic with the science.

IQ is highly polygenic and alleles affecting it have tiny effects, always under 1% outside serious disorders. This is a good review paper on modern IQ GWAS. http://humancond.org/_media/papers/turkheimer11_still_missing.pdfpdf There are no problems with that paper. Finding IQ genes which account for variation within races, and then finding they vary between races, is pretty good evidence. Of course IQ genes are difficult to detect due to small effects, so it needs to be expanded. And there may be largely race unique IQ alleles (in fact there are). Isn't that kind of begging the question? QFT

Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach is the best comprehensive text. There are many examples of game character programming presented in the simplest way possible. Programming game characters generalises to programming real AI, if you get what I mean. It's the same thing.

Testing colorism using genomic data without phenotypic data Clear Language, Clear Mind May 20, 2016 by Emil O. W. Kirkegaard Normally, testing colorism or other causal models of why human racial traits have nonzero relationships to socioeconomic outcomes requires that one has the following data: Measure of racial ancestry Measures of racial appearance Measures of socioeconomic outcomes such as income or educational attainment Path model wise, one can think of it this way: Discrimination models involve the Race-based discrimination node, while the familial (genetic or shared environmental) involve the human capital traits route. Thus, a strong test of the colorism model vs. familial models is simply to check whether the racial phenotype x S outcomes link is still nonzero after one controls for the racial ancestry (bio-geographical being the currently popular euphemism). Familial models says it should be zero, race discrimination model says it should be nonzero. Which is right? Lots of datasets with the required three variables exist, but I have not found any public dataset yet. It may exist and if you know one, Id like to hear from you. Note that it must be fairly large because the racial appearance x S outcome correlations are often in the area of .10. Thus, the dataset must be able to distinguish clearly between a .10 and a .00 correlation. The standard error of a correlation is calculated by: (equation given here, for details see this book, page 42 in the third ed., section 2.8; book is on libgen) Thus, we algebraically re-arrange this to have n on the left side and get: Thus, if we plug in our desired value of se, e.g. .02 and a correlation of .10 and .00, we get the sample sizes required, which are 2477 and 2502. This is definitely within the realm of possibility of typical medical studies. Furthermore, one could combine several datasets to one larger dataset (integrative data analysis, the superior method of meta-analysis). Genomics meets sociology Still, suppose we cannot get such a dataset for whatever reason. Can do we something else? Yes. We can use genomic datasets with no phenotype data at all. This may be much easier to get. The only requirement is that we have SNP-level data for the participants and they must belong to a racially admixed population with substantial variation in S outcomes. If we have that, we can estimate the racial appearance traits using GWAS results (such as this GWAS for facial features, and this GWAS for various racial phenotypes). Then we do the same for S outcomes using GWAS for e.g. educational attainment (e.g. Okbay et al 2016). Finally, we estimate the racial ancestry itself using standard admixture methods. With these, its a simple matter of checking if racial appearance has any effect beyond that of racial ancestry itself using multiple regression. For the less statistically inclined, what this does is ask the following questions: When looking at genetic data only, do persons with more genes for brighter skin have more genes for higher income than one would expect based on their overall level of European ancestry? When looking at genetic data only, do persons with more genes for wider noses have fewer genes for higher education than one would expect based on their overall level of African ancestry? and so on for other combinations of ancestry and racial appearance traits It is clear that a racial discrimination model predicts that these questions should be yes, whereas the familial models predict that the answer should be no. Thus, it allows for strong inference. One caveat of this is that it relies on the heritable part of the variation in these traits. Both racial ancestry and phenotypes have heritabilities near 100% and also have fairly simple genetic architectures, so they are (/will soon be) easy to predict from genomic data. Socioeconomic outcomes are not as heritable (e.g. educational attainment perhaps 40% but seems to be increasing) and have very complex genetic architectures. The result is that our correlations will be very small. The correlation that matters is the correlation between our genomic prediction scores and the real scores. The latest GWAS found that these polygenic scores explained 3.2% of the variance, which is a correlation of .18. So, if the correlation between the racial appearance and the S outcome is .10, this becomes about .018 in our data. Thus, we need a sample size that can distinguish between a correlation of .00 and .018, a tiny difference. How large would such a dataset need to be? Suppose we want a standard error of .0025, n = 160k. Large indeed, but considering that we need no phenotype data at all, this data can come from just about any source as long as it contains data on the same population e.g. Mexicans or African Americans. This is assuming the current GWAS results. Supposing that we soon reach the breaking point Hsu is positing and perhaps start using better methodology as well, then perhaps we can predict most of the heritable variation in educational attainment. Suppose we could predict 75% of it, i.e. 75% of 40%, so 30%, which corresponds to a correlation of .55 or about about 3x the current (.18). With that, the expected genomic correlations would be .055 and .000 and we could get away with a much larger standard error, perhaps .01. This would require a sample size of only 10k already well within reach.

I wanted to quote a text with links. Any idea when the restriction ends?

PKU is a classic example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylketonuria I think you would just say it's "treatable".

I tried to post something and it didn't work. Do you know when it will be available? I can post without them meanwhile.