With Christmas eve only hours away, now is the perfect time to blog about one of my absolute favorite movies of all time: Silent Night Deadly Night. And it occurs to me that this Christmas season marks the 30th anniversary of this horror masterpiece.
The plot: A little boy named Billy is taken by his parents to visit his grandfather in the mental hospital. The grandfather is catatonic and seems to have lost the ability to speak, but when Billy’s parents leave him alone with the grandfather, he suddenly comes alive to warn Billy that Christmas eve is the scariest night of the year and to watch out for Santa:
In an amazing coincidence, that night Billy witnesses both parents killed by a man dressed as Santa, an experience that traumatizes him for life.
Growing up in an orphanage, he is severely punished for any behavior seen as naughty.
When Billy turns 18, he gets a job in a small toy store, and when the guy who dresses up as Santa on Christmas eve calls in sick, Billy is pressured into taking his place. Being forced to dress up as the man he thinks killed his parents is too much. Billy snaps, and begins roaming the town with an ax, dressed as Santa, looking for naughty people to punish.
This film was extremely controversial when it first came out, and was actually pulled from theaters, only to resurface years later on video. As a kid I remember waiting for everyone in my family to go to sleep on Christmas eve, and then sneaking downstairs to watch it in a dark room lit only by the multicoloured glow of the Christmas tree. It was the ultimate forbidden fruit; the film they tried to BAN:
And yet with its haunting music, small town atmosphere, nostalgic feel, and childlike story, it captures the Christmas spirit better than any movie I have ever seen. And horror has always been part of the Christmas tradition, going all the way back to Charles Dickens.
And there is HBD in this movie. Although the film plays up the idea that Billy’s psychosis was caused by his incredibly traumatic childhood, the fact that he grows up to be just like the demented grandfather he hardly knew, speaks to the power of genes.
This winter season, wait for an especially cold and snowy night, make a thick cup of homemade real hot chocolate, and watch this movie. The original 1984 classic, not the horrible 2012 remake, that follows a completely different story-line.
Canadian trailers have downstairs?
a better 1984 classic is 1984.
happy baby Jesus day pumpkin head.
stat crux dum volvitur orbis.
Explain again like genes interact with ”environment” and produce behavior”. All of us have at least 5% of probability to develop psychosis. There are different mental states. Personality, predisposition to specific mental state or ”relative suscetibility” and remote suscetibility. By hierarchy, some people have psychotic personality, other people have relative suscetibility (of course that diversity of situations is more higher). They are like that all the time or at least most of the time. In this case, psychosis is hierarchically superior to other ”behavior traits combinations”, because is a personality epicenter. Personality is like climate, and behavior is like weather. Condition where some people have relative suscetibility to psychosis, we called ”psychoticism”. Psychosis, in this case, have greater influence in the personality, but is not a personality itself. In the last, we have the greater majority of population at least in Finland, for example, have remote suscetibility to psychosis. Only with very strong post traumatic event can disrupt this suscetibility.
But ”environmental factors” are very diverse. Then many different cases will happen. And people is like weather and unstable by nature. Some people can have the ”lucky” to suffer post traumatic event during period of emotional fragility or emotional instability.
The complexity of all this events don’t deny the role of genes.
”Environmentalists” believe the role of genes is weaker exactly because the complexity of events.
When you talk about environment, it’s important to distinguish the social environment from the biological environment (i.e. prenatal effects).
One thing I’ve noticed about anti-HBDers, is not only do they hate genetic theories, but they even hate environmental theories that emphasize biology (i.e. nutritional explanations of the Flynn effect)
They’re not just anti-genetics, they’re anti-biology. They’re not pro-environment, they’re pro-culture
It’s not anti-anything to consider all evidence. Nutrition can’t explain all of the FE, period. Heredity is a static and limited fact, period. Missing heritability violates Occam’s razor re: the way genes for intelligence work, period. The black-white gap is not static across the world or in time, as test gains in America show, period. Culture-load leads to higher heritability, period.
There are many problems with HBD that HBDers superficially treat or ignore outright. Probably because HBDers don’t care of HBD is true.
HBDers are “anti-biology,” because they routinely misunderstand biology and evolution:
“If the evolutionary process is to bring its benefits, it has to be allowed to operate effectively. This means that incompetent societies have to be allowed to go to the wall. This is something we in advanced societies do not at present face up to and the reason for this, according to Cattell, is that we have become too soft-hearted. For instance, the foreign aid which we give to the under-developed world is a mistake, akin to keeping going incompetent species like the dinosaurs which are not fit for the competitive struggle for existence.”
What actual evolutionary biologists think of key HBD tenets:
“There are insurmountable problems with the application of Rushton’s theory of human life histories, in particular his reliance on the concept of r- and K-selection (see later in the article). Chief amongst these problems is the fact that r- and K-selection theory is now considered virtually useless. Biologists who study life history evolution began to falsify this idea in the late 1970s. Since that time, multiple experiments have failed to corroborate the core premises of r- and K-selection theory. It would have been impossible not to notice this event (sort of like an elephant walking into your living room). In addition, even if the theory itself were reliable, Rushton has applied it incorrectly to describe the supposed genetic tradeoffs he wishes
to explain.”
Derp.
Scientists also agree with me: human beings were always smart and their intelligence came from social dynamics — not ‘the cold.’ Who is anti-science?
“Brace (1998:112): “the mode of subsistence of all human populations was essentially the same throughout the entire range of human occupation over the past 200,000 years. This was conditioned by adaptation to the selective pressure engendered by the cultural ecological niche. For these reasons, then, cognitive capabilities should . . . be the same in all the living populations of the world.””
“Similarly, Dobzhansky and Montagu (1947:112) had suggested that natural selection in human societies favored “maturity of judgment and ability to get along with people.” The complex ability to adapt to relationships within a group was a selective factor operating everywhere. How is it possible that cranial size varies with latitude while intelligence is nonclinal in its distribution? Cranial size is
a response to natural selection in a cold climate, while variations in the size of the brain do not determine
intelligence within the species-normal range of 1,000–2,000 cm3, especially considering the role of cultural
environment.”
The answer, once again, is HBDers.
@swanknasty
The adoption studies pretty much cement that iq is highly heritable
The base premise is record iq of biological parents, adopting parents and the iq of the adopted child.
And yes this was done with massive sample sizes and repeated in different countries.
What were the results? The iq of the child tended to be closer to biological parents than the adopted parents.
Parents that were rich, poor, highly educated, high-school dropouts, black or white, hell countries didn’t even matter. The child in adulthood still ended up with own closer to the biological parents.
This is basically the same experiment that proved that height was heritable except the correlation for iq is even stronger than height.
No surprise that the child had height similar to biological parents instead of adopted parents.
So why do u deniers find it since hard to believe intelligence is heritable? Clearly if there wasn’t a genetic component then putting a dog in a school would make him as smart as a human if iintelligence was 100% caused by environment
Swank, you’ve made a great many claims & quoted others doing the same.
Some of the claims are not true & some of the claims are not relevant. The true claims are not relevant & the relevant claims are not true
‘The adoption studies pretty much cement that iq is highly heritable’
Incorrect. The studies had severely restricted E ranges, which means that of course G will be the main variant relative to P variation. Also, high heritability doesn’t actually mean much. It means that P variation is more associated with G variation in a given population at a given time and place. And?
‘So why do u deniers find it since hard to believe intelligence is heritable? Clearly if there wasn’t a genetic component then putting a dog in a school would make him as smart as a human if iintelligence was 100% caused by environment’
Feel free to point out where I said that intelligence has no genetic component. You will find it on page 1 in the Book of Things that I Never Said.
What I have maintained is that culture/environment is probably more important than the genetic component. There is ample evidence behind my contention. G(f) can be improved, successful Kenyan village skills negatively correl with G(c), FE, the most heritable subtests being the most culturally loaded, etc. etc.
‘Swank, you’ve made a great many claims & quoted others doing the same.
Some of the claims are not true & some of the claims are not relevant. The true claims are not relevant & the relevant claims are not true’
Cold climate theory for selection on IQ is junk science — relevant and true. Nutrition can’t explain all of the FE — relevant and true. Most heritable items on IQ tests are the most culturally loaded — relevant and true. Rushton and Lynn are terrible sources — relevant and true. Adoption studies suffer from very restricted range — relevant and true. Black-white IQ gap is not the same in magnitude around the world — relevant and true. Mulatto-white gap is very small in at least a few studies — relevant and true. The authoritative studies on European admixture failed to find a link between it and IQ — relevant and true.
Should I keep going are you going to keep doing what I said HBDers do?
@swanknasty
E was not restricted at all, adopting millionaire’s, parents both having phds were all in the sample.
Guess what the results were?
Having 2 super smart genius parents raising a dumb or average child didn’t turn the child into a supergenius.
This was a bit dishonest of me for not mentioning. But in cases were children were adopted by abusive families and suffered from near 3rd world conditions or adoptions in 3rd world countries Iqs tended to be depressed in the extremely bad families in 1st world countries. And for 3rd Worlders adopting children own tended to be more similar to adopted rather than biological.
This is the exact same pattern that we saw in the same experiment done on height.
What this suggests is that all you need to get is the bare minimum needed for genetic expression. And if you look at the studies it appears that for majority of first worlders they are getting the bare minimum to reach their genetic iq. For thirdworlders since most people are not getting the minimum, environment prevails over genes.
You don’t seem to understand the concept of what heritability means.
A heritability number is basically a gauge of how well one can predict a event.
So getting a heritability if 1 would mean that you could predict the outcome 100% of the time. An example of this would be being born missing the entire brain.
The adoption studies show that iq has a heritability of .65+ in developed countries. What this means is that if you average the iq of biological parents the child raised by adoptive parents will have a high chance of having a iq be close to this number.
Also the two quotes you posted earlier one of them is a author hypothesizing that since we ate the same things 200000 years ago we all developed the same cognitive capacities. It is not evidence that hbd is false just like Gould is not evidence that hbd is false.
In fact research on evolution shows that you don’t need thousands of years to become significantly different.
Swank, claiming something is relevant & true, does not make it either.
‘Swank, claiming something is relevant & true, does not make it either.’
And the same holds for stating the opposite. Consensus is on my side. Burden’s on you, chief.
‘E was not restricted at all, adopting millionaire’s, parents both having phds were all in the sample’
Wrong.
‘A heritability number is basically a gauge of how well one can predict a event.’
‘What this means is that if you average the iq of biological parents the child raised by adoptive parents will have a high chance of having a iq be close to this number. ‘
Close to the correl within whatever % of the P-SD is accounted for by varG, sure. It does not tell us about how “genetically determined” a trait is or how malleable the trait is.
‘So getting a heritability if 1 would mean that you could predict the outcome 100% of the time. An example of this would be being born missing the entire brain.’
Wrong. The h^2 of “being born with (all of one’s) brain” is probably 0. I added what I added because it’s actually impossible to be “born without a brain.” The variation in this trait is almost exclusively determined by environmental variation, even though the trait is almost assuredly the product of genetics.
‘ since we ate the same things 200000 years ago we all developed the same cognitive capacities.’
Not all of what he said.
‘In fact research on evolution shows that you don’t need thousands of years to become significantly different.’
Page 2 of the Book of things I Never Said. What I did say is that there’s no good evidence that IQ has been selected for that strongly; if it’s recent evolution, then you’d expect strong pressure.
But if Pumpkin wants to take the claims I put forward — one by one — and state why they are untrue or irrelevant, I’m game.
>‘E was not restricted at all, adopting millionaire’s, parents both having phds were all in the sample’
>Wrong.
Look at the datasets plenty of people with graduate degrees and extremely high incomes in the datasets, there have been numerous studies done in different countries with the same results. Children are more like biological rather than adopted.
>Wrong. The h^2 of “being born with (all of one’s) brain” is probably 0. I added what I added because it’s actually impossible to be “born without a brain.”
Bad example let me explain a bit better since you don’t seem to have a math background
Lets say I gave you a information such as how many centimeters it shows on the thermometer.
You would be able to guess the temperature 100% of the time so the (h^2) relationship would be around 1
Lets say I gave you information such as date and time and told you to guess the temperature, since you know the location you can look up past weather data, sure all sorts of other random things could effect the temperature. But You can bet that your guess would be pretty close to the actual temperature. This is a good mathematical representation of the predictive power of a .65 for h^2
Lets say I gave you information such as my age and asked you to guess the temperature, the (h^2) of this would be closer to .1 since there is no relationship between the two numbers.
If you understood numbers you would see how damning getting a h^2 of .65+ for predicting a adopted childs IQ based on knowing his parents IQ is, same thing with height predictions.
While it may not determine malleability, clearly IQ is malleable downwards by the environment getting brain damage. But in this controlled experiment clearly malleability is NOT caused by SES of parents or education of parents or culture. The things that antihbders claim are the causes for intelligence gaps
>Not all of what he said.
“the mode of subsistence of all human populations was essentially the same throughout the entire range of human occupation over the past 200,000 years.”
His argument for why we are all equally smart is essentially we all came from hunter gatherers 200,000 years ago.
Slightly disagree with you because ”biological environment” is not ”pure” environmental factor, based on interaction among people (genes) and environment. Pure environment factors is a circunstancial factor per si, in my not-so-humble opinion.
Prenatal effects is part of set of suscetibilities because we are made by combination between the genes of mother and genes of father. Women with higher testosterone increase the chances to have gifted, homossexual, autistic… child. The problem about genetic hbd views, seems, is that genetics is more maleable than you imagine, but is not random or infinite, but is more maleable.
It would predict the temperature but it would tell us nothing about what caused the difference in temperature or the mechanism.
And a .1 measure would simply tell us that the variation in X variable didn’t account for much of the variation in temperature. It wouldn’t tell us whether X “caused” the majority of the temperature.
It seems like you are the one who doesn’t understand what these numbers can and can’t tell us.
You concede this point anyway, which is the main point. You’re also wrong that education has no malleable effect on IQ. The change in Norway’s compulsory education has been linked to a large portion of its IQ gains.
In short IQ is malleable and highly cultural.
And that author is correct that we mostly lived in HG societies and that large groups probably drove the development of intelligence.
and one thing that stands out is how low HBDers’ IQs are.
Swank,
you may know more than I, but…
AFRICA IS DEVELOPING.
Nigeria is richer than India. is it just the oil?
Africa’s billionaires aren’t just white South Africans, East Indians, and Arabs.
why is Nigeria doing so well relative to other SSA countries? it’s the most populous black African country. it’s got a lot of oil. what else? are SSA’s black billionaires all frauds? or appointees, so to speak?
africa’s billionaires:
http://www.forbes.com/africa-billionaires/
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/2014/02/10/the-mind-of-the-prodigy/
This is a relevant article about the Iqs of child prodigy’s
Pumpkin, can you please make a blog post about this? I have noticed that you don’t have a lot of posts on prodigies.
Interesting article.
I already posted this link. Yes, intelligence is more complex.
Here’s a relevant picture:
Gosh, this is an absolutely shocking diagram. You wonder what the heck general intelligence is if the correlations look like that. Well, at least the correlation is positive for the things normally regarded as the purest signs of intelligence, like mechanical, folding, rotation.
Ok, so I misread it a little, but still the same conclusion.
you might be interested in this: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_dilettante/2007/12/dissecting_the_iq_debate.html
here Rushton is properly referred to as a “white supremacist”.
for hard core atheist IQ and race obsessed pp:
Research on secularity has noted that, in America, agnostics have significant levels of education, while atheists have relatively low levels of education…Research in nonreligion in Britain has shown that the positive relationship between education and non-religion has been reversed with generations after 1955, in other words, that the nonreligious populations tend to have less education and that religious populations tend to have higher education…
Calling Rushton a racist does not invalidate his research. It may cast doubt on it, as any suspected political agenda would, but what Rushton says seems quite consonant with reality, doesn’t it?
His studies may not be perfect, since society can’t be simulated in a lab. That imperfection is made up for by amount of studies, from various researchers, and high consistency of results, despite one legendary german study never reproduced. Had it been even vaguely reproduced we’d be hearing about nothing else.
Rushton’s racism is not what makes him wrong. Evolutionary biologists explaining why his theories fundamentally misunderstand science does not make him wrong, either. The legion of facts that his theory fails to explain…..those make him wrong.
read the article Kierkegaard.
one may have an aesthetic preference for those who look like himself. there’s no shame in that sort of “racism”. the nation state is a good idea. the propositional state is ridiculous.
Here is what you would never know about the Minnesota study from reading Jensen and Rushton, or, for that matter, Saletan. It held neither race nor expected IQ constant; the black children were adopted at a later age than the other children, which the study’s own authors note is associated with depressed IQ; the black children’s mothers had lower educational levels than those of the white children; the “quality of placement” for the white children was higher than for the other children; and as the study’s own authors have noted, the black and mixed-race children experienced severe adjustment problems as they grew up.
The instrument Lynn used to apprehend these depressed IQ scores is a supposedly culturally unbiased exam called Raven’s Progressive Matrices. “To use an instrument developed in the West on semi and possibly illiterate people is a fool’s errand,” says Nisbett, a Distinguished University Professor at the University of Michigan who studies cognition and social psychology. “Then they use the results to say that half the people in Africa are mentally retarded. It’s laughable.”
here is Shalizi on the same issue again. Shalizi is a gentile btw.
http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/546.html
Swank and Mugabe,
Rushton’s work may not be science all the way. But it is investigation of reality and conclusions from made observations. It could be used to inform policy, what to do, and especially what not to do. It is at least as scientific than other things that inform policy, and there is no need to wait for it to explain EVERY fact out there. One must understand the difference between natural science and other types of science, and not expect or demand of the other types that they be natural science. Besides, natural science doesn’t require that a theory explains everything.
HBDers lauded Nicholos Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance. Chapters 6-10 contained all of the “HBD-heavy” analysis. Note how Wade himself prefaces these chapters:
“Readers should be fully aware that in chapters 6 through 10 they are leaving the world of hard science and entering into a much more speculative arena at the interface of history, economics and human evolution.”
As an actual scientist reviewing Wade’s book stated, “At one moment, he will concede that he writes in a “speculative arena” and, at the next, he will issue pseudofactual pronouncements (“social behavior, of Chinese and others, is genetically shaped”). This strategy lets Wade move in a kind of intellectual no-man’s-land where he gets to look like he’s doing science (so many facts about genomes!) while covering himself with caveats that, well, it’s all speculative.”
In a nutshell, that is the HBD approach.
@swanknasty
I hope u r not implying that this chart disproves heredity of intelligence
People that do well on a on a iq test which requires knowledge of words perform well on other tests that requires knowledge of words such as a vocabulary test.
And since words determine cultural load according to this hack that means that culture = iq!
And let’s ignore the fact that a dumb white child getting adopted by smart white parents stays dumb. While a smart white child adopted by dumb parents stays smart.
Clearly all these prodigies who start speaking at 2 years old are caused environment!
No, I’m not arguing that at all. Look at the chart — the most heritable subtests with the highest g loadings are the most culturally loaded. Therefore ‘g’ probably reflects societal demands more than cognitive demands.
>most culturally loaded.
And he determined that the most culturally loaded tests were the ones that had the most words, and for the ones that don’t have any words he simply made up numbers
Such as giving arithmetic a cultural load of 8%, hooray for pulling numbers out of your ass!
>You’ve got it backwards, chief. Increasing your vocabulary will necessarily increase your comprehension, which will necessarily increase your ability to verbally reason, etc. etc. They are positively correlated because they are all skills that build off of more fundamental skills.
No my argument is regarding the high correlation between the vocabulary scores and stanford Binet scores. The answer is simple both require understanding words.
>the most heritable subtests with the highest g loadings are the most culturally loaded.
Again, the author basically pulled numbers out of his ass to determine which tests were culturally loaded. Oh this question requires translation into chinese? CULTURAL LOADING
>Importantly, they assessed the “Cultural load” of various cognitive abilities by taking the average percentage of test items that were adjusted when the test was adapted for use in 13 different countries.
All he actually proved was that vocabulary was heritable, gee thanks captain obvious!
The entire idea of a culture reduced test is straight from a psychologist’s ass anyway. So the extension of your critique favors my explanation anyway.
“Understanding words” is a culturally dependent skill, slick.
The fact that vocab is g loaded and highly heritable is a fact in my favor.
‘Clearly all these prodigies who start speaking at 2 years old are caused environment!’
Of course, like most HBDers, you have to argue with phantoms to make any sort of compelling point.
‘People that do well on a on a iq test which requires knowledge of words perform well on other tests that requires knowledge of words such as a vocabulary test.’
You’ve got it backwards, chief. Increasing your vocabulary will necessarily increase your comprehension, which will necessarily increase your ability to verbally reason, etc. etc. They are positively correlated because they are all skills that build off of more fundamental skills.
the question of genes and behavior or psychological traits in humans is quite subtle. eventually i suppose this research will be done correctly. but as of now it’s just jive. as Suzuki intimated when the claims are outrageous the standards should be higher. Binet developed the first intelligence test to identify retardation. this was then extended inappropriately imho.
so what is found in behavior genetics is 1. the reification of statistical factors 2. the mathematical and conceptual naivete of psychologists. if those trained in biology examined cc, this would be more interesting.
”Binet developed the first intelligence test to identify retardation.”
Indeed, but iq tests can’t be eliminated. But it is incomplete psychological evaluation.
Swankyshallow is full of certain and s’he’s a ”environmental deterministic”.
Humans are like rocks, they are leaving by the wind, the rain, We aren’t the slave of desire, we are slave of the environment, environment is opressive. Like a Jagger, like a rock.
Rock are completely influenced by environment, humans are not honey!
google translate again?
i’ve read the SCZ has a higher recovery rate in the third world than it has in the first. good luck to you Santa Claus. if the drugs don’t work, try Cachaça. i’ve never had a hangover except the one time i drank Cachaça.
Relevant comment.
No.
Try answer comments with objectivity at least one time here, vitella.
Swanky = Georgi Vitella??
”and one thing that stands out is how low HBDers’ IQs are”
Blacks or Hbders, which of these groups has lowest iq??
Santa brown here ”have” super lower iq too?? =/
Ordinary black man or woman can understand my comments, but never understand the Swankcomments.
Swank never answer my personal questions. But would be interesting understand your background.
If a guy or girl ”full of certain” is stupid, then Swank want to say that s’he is full of doubts, ’cause people who are ”full of doubts” are so-called genius, the exact opposite than stupied noir.
”liberals” with mental chronical disease here (like nutella and its marijuana, 😉 ) have PREJUDICE against people with little vocabulary.
what % of Americans speak any language other than English? it’s small. very small. what % of Canadians speak English and French and aren’t Québécois? it’s small. very small. because they’re stupid? no! because there’s no purpose/reason/motivation to speak other languages. and because English is an easy language. much easier than French.
there’s no such prejudice Santa Claus.
Yes, my motivation to learn any language NOW is zero because i have other ”obsessions” . But i think my primitive english is understandable, better than with google intranslator.
Giorgio Nutella think humans are like rock, inanimate beings. ”Schizo-relevant-observation” champs!!
isn’t Nutella some Nestle hazelnut choco sugar crap? in Brazil you should be eating Brazil nut butter.
the BIG point is that:
1. an absolute racial hierarchy, independent of environment, is both outrageous and genuinely difficult to prove. so far as it is meaningful there is evidence for and against it.
2. supposing such a hierarchy were fact its political implications would be few or the exact opposite of what most HBDers claim. curtailing aa and foreign aid…perhaps. what else? a larger welfare state combined with encouragement or coercion for the dumb (of whatever race) to have fewer children and the smart (of whatever race) more.
”isn’t Nutella some Nestle hazelnut choco sugar crap? in Brazil you should be eating Brazil nut butter.”
It was a insult?? awwn, soo cute. =)
”the BIG point is that:
1. an absolute racial hierarchy, independent of environment, is both outrageous and genuinely difficult to prove. so far as it is meaningful there is evidence for and against it.”
OUTRAGEOUS?? look emotional, not rational answer. Again, argument with theory, explanation about its theory and if was possible, use examples as possible proves.
More intelligent people to do things to increase survive rates to all. Less intelligent people change to dependent condition.
Explain with DETAILS what you want to say, please!!
You are worried specifically with black people is not?
”2. supposing such a hierarchy were fact its political implications would be few or the exact opposite of what most HBDers claim. curtailing aa and foreign aid…perhaps. what else? a larger welfare state combined with encouragement or coercion for the dumb (of whatever race) to have fewer children and the smart (of whatever race) more.”
Racial hierarchy there are to many traits. Blacks are more muscular. East asians are more collectively smart, but with little cognitive diversity. They are more smart on average than european caucasoids, but the cognitive diversity creates ideal conditions to near to perfect complex organisms called advanced society or civilizations (the touch of the genius).
Europeans caucasoids have more creative genius than any other race, both in quality than in quantity. Ebola is a example of ”intelligence and other-important-cognitive-things matter#”.
Intelligence reduce poverty, injustice, prejudice, stupid deaths, evitable conflicts… why not??
I see dumb people all the time and see babies with them. Any ” super draconian culture” or ”apropriate environment” will can made them more smart. It doesn’t mean that no there smart people who born in stupid families. Like i said, combination between mother and father genes during the primordial conception.
one might prefer a homogeneous population for aesthetic reasons or economic/political reasons, and such a preference should be hateful to none. it’s just a “preference”. it’s a matter of taste. or perhaps homogeneous populations are better for economic development…as a matter of fact.
but it isn’t science!
Every perception, observation or rational or elaborate action about any phenomena can be called science. Astrology is science too, old and based on perceptual patterns.
Politics is science too. Pseudo-Sofisticated and very, very complex statistics about abstraction and not about real things (like humans) is science too, but it is useless because greater majority of people will not be able to understand and science should be knowledge to all. Useless and possible impractical.
White (and sometimes indians or east asians) people debate with other white people about blacks, like ”autism-experts” debate about autism with other ”autism-experts” but not with autistic people.
tried Interstellar. couldn’t get past the first few minutes. self-important, “serious”,…i walked out. The Interview was better. really!
art is low. mass art even lower. at its best it ridicules itself.
reminds me of duchamp’s “fountain”.
.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Duchamp_Fountaine.jpg
…for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it.
skip to part 2 chapter 12…the very end…1:48:40.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/watch/
crede ut intelligas.
certum est, quia impossibile.
ego sum qui sum.
stat crux dum volvitur orbis.
it is finished.
the truth is ridiculous.
proves??
Proofs..
”tried Interstellar. couldn’t get past the first few minutes. self-important, “serious”,…i walked out. The Interview was better. really!
art is low. mass art even lower. at its best it ridicules itself.
reminds me of duchamp’s “fountain”.”
I’m lost. This subject related directly with genes-environment where??
I’m a little prole, i like many homojewllyweird movies but this ”racism” narrative made-me-mad. But a arquetypical non-prole is a observateur individual like penumbra observes the crowd.
Du-champs fountain seems more useful than its science.
Blacks and greater majority of non-white humanity are race realists and hbders too. Indeed, they have lower iqs. But, they can understand instinctively the reality of differences and similarities, but with simplicity of understanding, possibly conflictual like, homos are weird (contextually non-bonobian speaking, yes, its true), homos deserve to be slaved or ”witches cursed homos”. Half of thought is true, but incomplete, the other half is completely nonsense, but many people in Africa think like that.
If a good white samaritan introduce NOVEL western values like ”homossexuality is normal, even being a minority”, some smart or unconformist (or secret homos or lesbos) local persons can accept better than others, but cattle people need
”popular or group consensus”
Human ordinary soul is pragmatic and convenient.
Real smart people search at deepest levels, intelectual innate curiosity. Ordinary people search at self-convéniènce levels.
”Calling Rushton a racist does not invalidate his research. It may cast doubt on it, as any suspected political agenda would, but what Rushton says seems quite consonant with reality, doesn’t it?
His studies may not be perfect, since society can’t be simulated in a lab. That imperfection is made up for by amount of studies, from various researchers, and high consistency of results, despite one legendary german study never reproduced. Had it been even vaguely reproduced we’d be hearing about nothing else.”
Indeed, what this RETARD ”iliteral” people think they are?? God to judge other ”persona-non-grata”??
Nutella is a joker, called Rushton a racist but many times here he use ”racists” terms against Pumpkin!!! Pay less attention!!
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115802/intelligence-and-drinking-studies-say-theres-correlation
The sooner you talk, the sooner you drink!! Very interesting.
Drink more – live longer, but don’t forget to also aquire the other things related to drinking, such as intelligence, extroversion, and money. Same goes for cocaine.
Sensation seeking… yes, some interesting analysis to give more objectivity in this kind of studies, IQ and alcohol, yes, but why???
VERBAL IQ… (on average, of course). More details. Many different types of ”higher iqs” (and of very smarter without higher iqs like ((possibly)) Poincaré). Higher verbal iq, lower visuo-spatial iq, lower social (simpathy) intelligence, higher emotional intelligence (empathy= honesty and responsibility), average mathematic iq, average logic-abstract intelligence, etc etc… Many profiles can be made.
I think the true correlation with drinking is success, not necessarily money, but if you are held in somewhat high regard by people around you, you have a license to drink. Otherwise drinking is very shameful.
Hugh,
to europeans, because ashkenazim have genes that reduce ”alcohol passion syndrome” and they are very succesfull in Western, many others endogamic tribehoods also are like that.
indeed. one wonders how much cleverer the wettest people on earth, the Europeans, would be without the sauce.it’s not a myth. ireland is a great place to open a liquor store. but the evidence isn’t what the conventional wisdom would expect. alcoholism is not very heritable at all.
and today that “low IQ population”, the Irish of the Republic of Ireland have a higher HDI and higher GDP per capita nominal and PPP than their former masters the British.
and irish americans now make more than WASPs.
maybe it’s the big irish head. biggest in europe.
of course it does require a large head and an IQ above 65 to recognize rushton and jensen for the pseudo-scientists they were. pp has neither sadly.
Yes, Santo, I’m talking about europeans. In addition to success you also need ability to temporarily let go of self control. That don’t come natural for ambitious minorities.
Probably, europeans are more tolerant with alcohol (i’m not, wisky no down in my throat) and these predisposition shape the socio-cultural landscape. Seems europeans tend to have more testosterone expansion or individual variation??
Vitela,
you talk that bigger heads is not correlated with intelligence, when talk about ”blacks negroid” and ”whites caucasoids” or to ”explain” about ”brain size of the arctic tribehoods”. But to talk about irish people you say completely contrary. I noticed ok!? 😉
Movie location and trivia for SNDN, if you’re interested: http://movielocationsandmore.blogspot.com/2014/12/silent-night-deadly-night-1984.html