>>109312550Ok you have. Pre-determined belief set, and you are just *declaring* things to justify it. A lot of what you're saying is invented in your own mind, and you have obviously not looked into it. The evidence for genetic affect is massively overwhelming. The "scientific consensus" you imagine exists, does exist, but it's going against you, not in favor.
>with any reported differences being minor, inconsistent, and often attributable to environmental factors rather than inherent racial biology.These p-values say otherwise.
>>109312078 Some of these are like 10^-30, that's not inconsistent, that's decisive. Furthermore, look at the shape of these brains.
>>109311596 that is a huge difference.
>Neurologists like Paul Broca and Marie-Jean-Pierre Flourens, used lesion studies to show that brain functions aren't localized as phrenologists claimed,Now you're getting into weird highly specific claims. Brain size correlates strongly to IQ. That's scientific consensus. Africans also lack a lot of the brain genes other races have because they have no Neanderthal DNA
>Gould's work focused on critiquing racial bias in 19th-century craniometry,Gould's "work" was politically motivated bullshit. He was fanatical, because he was jewish, so he made up his data.
>Results were that black adoptees averaged a higher than average IQ when placed in good income homes, suggesting environment boosts IQAnd those results were fucking debunkes. The scientist behind it admitted she biased her results, issued a humiliating correction, then left the scientitic profession entirely.
You can spam AI all day, but I'm still right
