In honor of this glorious Canada Day, I will estimate the IQ of one of the greatest Canadians of all time and a man who was kind enough to speak to me whenever I phoned: The brilliant J. Philippe Rushton.
Rushton’s utter genius was taking the r-K evolutionary model used in the animal kingdom, and applying it to the much smaller variation between modern human races. He elegantly lumped virtually all of humanity into just 3 races, and found that on dozens of different physical, sexual, and behavioral variables, Mongoloids and Negroids averaged at opposite extremes, and Caucasoids were in the middle. Further, he cleverly mapped this pattern to molecular genetics and resurrected the ancient idea of progress in nature: DNA evidence showed that Negroids were the first to branch off the human evolutionary tree and Mongoloids were the last, making them the new and improved race in Rushton’s mind.
A man of astonishing scientific creativity, he created a nice, simple, elegant theory. He was a brilliant writer who expressed himself eloquently and wrote an extremely well organized book that the great Arthur Jensen described as the most brilliant of its kind in the worldwide literature. Scholar Richard Lynn raved that if there were any justice, Rushton would win the Nobel Prize.
About 10% of whites in America are openly racialist. Assuming 10% of all the World’s 976 million whites, are racialist, then there are about 98 million white racialists on the planet. Assuming Rushton is the most academically accomplished of them all, he’s 5.6 standard deviations above the white racialist mean in academic accomplishment (normalizing the distribution of course).
Assuming IQ and academic accomplishment correlate 0.65, Rushton’s expected IQ would be 0.65(5.6 SD) = 3.64 SD above the white racialist mean.
Assuming white racialists have somewhat low IQs (perhaps a mean of 93 with an SD of 15), then Rushton’s expected IQ would be 3.64(15) + 93 = 148. To put that number in perspective, the average human has an IQ around 90. The average American has an IQ around 97. The average U.S. college grad has an IQ around 110. The average Harvard student has an IQ around 122. The average U.S. president has an IQ around 130. Rushton towered like an intellectual giant above the most elite people in society. Is it any wonder he was the Darwin of the 20th century? A rare original thinker.
I found youtubes of Rushton on the Phil Donahue show. Donahue was the unbeatable champion of daytime talk shows, until Oprah came out of nowhere in 1986 and brilliantly dethroned him, practically overnight. Looking at this video, I can’t help but wonder why a man as liberal as Donahue would give Rushton’s racialist views such a prestigious and powerful platform. I fear that deep down, Donahue was hoping Rushton would convince the audience that blacks were genetically inferior, and this would cause them to stop watching rival Oprah and watch only Donahue instead.
Indeed while Rushton was invited to appear on several shows, big brained Oprah may have been smart enough to know it was not in her ethnic genetic interests to have such an eloquent polished brilliant calm racialist on, and so she and Rushton would never meet. Much wiser to have on a more typical seemingly low IQ racialist who she immediately checkmated with her “monkey business” pun:
I think rushton is pretty mediocre. Jensen is superior to him.
I love Jensen’s work, but a lot of it was just repeating what Spearman & Galton said a century earlier about race, the g factor, & reaction time
By contrast Rushton application of r & K to humans broke new ground
Jensen proved Spearman’s hypothesis. He did way more than just “repeat what Spearman and Galton said a century earlier about race, the g factor & reaction time”.
I hope you don’t really believe that rushton could have an IQ of 148. What he have done his absolutely not genius. To put this in perspective shockley have an IQ of 129 and Watson 125.
I think rushton must be more recognize for what he have done but seriously, he was always talking about the same thing, doesn’t really take a lot of brain. Even Marco Polo have figured out that the chinese were the smartest race of all and I think some scientists have noticed this but they didn’t wanted to compromise their career with such a little subject.
Rushton distinguish himself by his courage and integrity.
Scholar Richard Lynn raved that if there were any justice, Rushton would win the Nobel Prize.
lol. I previously noticed that, a big part of the hbd sphere is in love with the scientists who are talking about hbd openly and think that it make them particularly smart.
And to fininish, I can tell that rushton is definitively not 148 IQ because he was comparing arm lenght of different races in a table to show that asian were the more evolved and blacks the least, that is totally stupid given the fact that arm lenght have nothing to do directly with intelligence but it as something to do with the fact that blacks need more skin surfaces to evacuate the heat. To show how stupid it is, we could do the same reasoning for leg lenght by saying that blacks are the most evolved and asians the least because they have small legs just like ape. Of course everybody can do mistakes and I don’t blame rushton for this but I was just saying that to bring a little more realism in the estimation of his IQ.
We also could notice that rushton have archaic facial features for a White and doesn’t seem to have a very large head.
My estimation(based on nothing statistic) for rushton IQ’s is 120-130.
Cale, as you mention, there are better scientists than Rushton who scored much much lower than 148, but this is probably rare. I estimate 150 to be the average IQ of academic Nobel prize winners & there was a study where a bunch of great scientists were tested & they scored ridiculously high
Keep in mind that the average PhD /lawyer/doctor has an IQ around 123 so we should expect Nobel prize level scientists to be much much higher if IQ has any important predictive power at the high end
The great scientists who score only in the 120s could be based on fictitious claims, ceiling bumping, the fact that they were spatial geniuses given only verbal tests, or were late bloomers who were tested at an early age.
I agree Rushton’s head is not big & i should have factored that in since he’s on the record saying his hat size is medium or so
As for archaic features…in what sense?
I agree that he is mostly famous because he was willing to accept controversy but i factored that in by only comparing him to other racialists
I’m not sure rushton ever compared the races on arm length
My estimate might be way too high but it’s a reasonable guess for perhaps the greatest HBDer since Darwin
Look at that brow ridge, bro.
My hat size is 8 (a fitted hat, when I have no hair which I haven’t for a long long time). What’s that mean?
Extremely impressive RR, assuming it’s brain mass and not steroids thickening the skull.
As a premature baby i thought your head would be tiny.
I’ve not worn hats in over ten years. That’s from when I was a teen. I’ve never used steroids. I have no use for them (at the moment) because I’m nowhere near my genetic muscular potential.
Nobel prize level scientists to be much much higher if IQ has any important predictive power at the high end
Not really.
Sometimes high achievement in a lot of fields requires creativity, and past a minimum threshold, I’d argue that creativity is more a matter of certain personal characteristics than ‘IQ.’ In fact, higher and higher IQ may negatively correlate with important components of high-level creativity.
But it depends on the particular field and at what level it’s at. Sometimes the current advancement is a matter of technical chops — filling in the blanks of a paradigm, showing all the work. There, high IQ would probably be a huge predictor. In other areas, where the paradigm itself is being fleshed out or explained, or even discovered, IQ may be less important.
I have no use for them (at the moment) because I’m nowhere near my genetic muscular potential.
Um. Just a PSA.
Most charts about muscular potential are based on steroid users (even Steve Reeves played around with testosterone). The natural bodybuilder’s muscular potential is much lower than most everyone thinks.
If you want pinnacle-of-humanity-genetics muscular potential, look at Eugene Sandow’s proportions: about 5’8, 180 pounds with a .48 WHR, 7 inch wrist with almost-17 inch arms (at least the right arm).
That’s as good as it gets. Everything else is pretty much a lie.
only that guy’s shoulders are impressive.
“genetics” in the case of bodybuilding is three things:
1. frame, skeleton
2. how big are your muscles to begin with…without any training.
3. if you stuff yourself do you put on mostly fat or mostly muscle? this is a real thing, contra rr. there is a small minority of people who when they eat to excess they put on weight like everyone else…but almost exclusively in the form of muscle.
the biggest reason for “discrepancy” between IQ and achievement/success is that it’s not really a discrepancy.
that is, having all the talent for X is irrelevant if you have no interest in X. this was chomsky’s correct criticism of The Bell Curve.
that is, if everyone cared only for how much money he could make the correlation between IQ and income would be a lot higher. it would be high.
and those who think of nothing else (hernstein and murray) are too autistic to grok that most of their cognitive betters don’t care about it…or it’s secondary or tertiary for them.
I actually agree with this. Capitalism is a game mostly non-geniuses play. I think geniuses are stupid not play, but they’re the geniuses so what do i know.
That’s why I find bill gates so fascinating. As a Promethean once told me, gates is what happens when one of these super high IQ nerds deigns to play society’s game: he blows all the other capitalists away becoming the first centibillionaire of all time, decades before anyone else.
pictures of chiyonofuji lifting…they exist apparently…but the lifting regime of sumos is and always has been pathetic…especially in comparison to american football and rugby.
that’s why i expect an nfl offensive lineman would become a yokozuna with a a year of training.
but also…
so far as there are people who are interested in only one thing…money…
there should be a few very high IQ criminals.
crime pays…if you’re smart enough.
but most criminals are morons so they get caught.
only that guy’s shoulders are impressive.
Well, when you gorge on images of Ahnold and modern bodybuilders and athletes (sumos included!), yes….the normal human form will seem unimpressive.
And (2) is (1) in your list there. Your frame determines how big your muscles are without training. (3) is true but the minority you’re talking about is not 1/100. It’s more like 1/10,000 — not worth mentioning.
Not only that, but if you’re untrained and eat a huge surplus, you’re likely going to gain nothing but muscle if you start resistance training (correctly) while doing so. The more trained you are, the less of a surplus you need to build muscle, and the more fat you’ll gain as the result of a surplus.
Not only that, but your cardiovascular health has A YUGE influence on your muscle/fat gain ratio. Good cardio = good metabolism.
Not only that, but your level of leanness also has a YUGE impact on your muscle/fat gain ratio.
As a Promethean once told me, gates is what happens when one of these super high IQ nerds deigns to play society’s game
Narratives are funny.
Here’s what happened: he got lucky and hit a niche.
Like so many before him.
there should be a few very high IQ criminals.
There are.
They run the world.
You don’t even think of them as criminals.
You agree with what they say and cheer them on as they break the law.
same regime two very different body types.
and this is within japan.
i know swank…
it’s f—ing weird but…
i have personal experience.
and there’s this doc: Why Are Thin People Not Fat?
my personal experience is that i went to the gym at least thrice a week and gained…a little.
then i quit to study for actuarial exams and get tight every night. half a bottle of Ballantine’s.
6 months later i was 30 lbs heavier AND stronger than i had ever been.
NOT kidding!
that’s what REALLY happened!
i know that swank-tard.
and i do NOT cheer them on.
i meant there are a few very high IQ “common” criminals.
people who make bank in a 100% obviously criminal way.
swank brings up a very GOOD point.
what is termed “criminal” is in part a matter of the class of the crime and the “class” of the criminal.
high IQ criminal paradigmatic case is Michael Franzese. he made more than $1b…but in an explicitly illegal way. and he was a connected guy. and he was italian american.
if franzese had been jewish, he’d’ve been pardoned by bill clinton.
how do you know they have the same regime?
Lol, archaic or robust face and little head are proves about non-genius of Rushton, 😉
Genius sometimes need to say obvious (and sofisticate their point of views) and when the obvious is against the true-system then he need to be very courageous.
Many of discoveries of geniuses are ”just” different way to see the same subject.
Rushton create a elegant and sintetized theory that proved empirically racial evolutionary differences.
Without Rushton, obscurantism by shemitic primitive politics would be higher.
Sometimes, genius is made by cibrcunstances, but he need to be a robust character to fight against powerfull and dangerous people.
that is totally stupid given the fact that arm lenght have nothing to do directly with intelligence but it as something to do with the fact that blacks need more skin surfaces to evacuate the heat. To show how stupid it is, we could do the same reasoning for leg lenght by saying that blacks are the most evolved and asians the least because they have small legs just like ape.
Good example. Blacks have longer limbs to maximize heat loss per Allen’s rule:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen%27s_rule
Anthropometricians and even artists have long known about the proportions of the “normal” human body:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape_index
Some of the few interesting things I learned in my undergraduate anthropology classes.
On the flip side, blacks have longer legs. Longer legs are less ape-like, while longer arms are more-ape like, so on balance blacks are no more or less ape than other races 🙂
More to the point r/K theory is a powerful and elegant explanation of the world around us, although Razib Khan argues it’s too much of a over-simplification (important features of the theory, like fertility rates for the races, seem heavily dependent on Malthusian environmental factors like resources and diet, rather than anything innate):
http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2009/08/rk-selection-at-national-level.html?showComment=1250746525736#c7659412158399044459
Psychologically, they are, on average, of course. Some primate species resemble white phenotype, those with pink fair skin, specially.
But if you read human physiological traits and compared with some primates, many pure blacks will look like monkeys. Whites have more progressive and neotenic traits while east asians look pseudo-neotenic, because less progressive traits, or on average, look like a ‘ugly’ chid, by western standard, while adult neotenized ( or gracil??) whites look a beautiful white kid. Human beings are animals and many them look more animalistic. What’s matter is the character of person. Less irrational emotions, more empathetic rationality.
Myself, i have some ”criminal” atavic facial traits.
Correct, East Asians are generally not as attractive, and are less evolved physically. Many East Asians seem to have childlike behaviors in intellectual endeavors, but they seem to be very intelligent in very rote practical matters. The cultures of East Asia was always hierarchical and conformist, which makes sense that East Asians have evolved into these specifications/adaptations.
Creationist narrative: “evolution” ( God?? 😉 ) made human intelligence”.
”There are a reproductive strategy”… Of course, because black tribes ”know” they need to have many kids to avoid extinction caused by greater pathogenic interactions. Average subsaharian african supposed have the same knowledge about human reproduction patterns as well a evolutionary psychologist. When they procreate with many women and have a lot of offspring, they are just thinking strategically.
But not, R-reproductors just have higher mutational ( or pathogenic) load which made them more sexually impulsive and promiscuous.
In other words, they don’t know instinctively that need have a numerous offspring to avoid ‘pathogens’, because are own pathogens itself that cause higher sexual drive, impulsivity and higher total fertility. And pathogens reduce development of organisms and as result made most blacks mature earlier than whites and east asians.
Rationally and or logically speaking, in a ideal world, is smarter know that there are differences among human populations, by following obvious, observable patterns.
Also, look logically smart believe and search by race ”stabilization” or homogenity, specially when you compare hybrid varieties with decanted varieties.
Capture, understand and sofisticate similarities, differences or contradictions patterns is the real ”g”, the essence of intelligence.
also, is smarter understand the endogamy and exogamy principles and avoid extreme choices.
Also is smarter avoid generalizations because all human varieties will have exceptions, positive or negative.
It prove that improvement of intelligence can result in the selection of non-objective and empatheticaly rational people, even rationality, need to be selected to flourish demographically.
Extreme racialism correlate with lower intelligence, rational and empathetic ( fair) racialism correlate with ”g”, the real g.
2 points:
1. anyone with IQ about 125 or so or above, with the “right” academic background, within the right academic network, with sufficient funding, with the right team/tutor support and a right research topic, with a persistant personal character, with a correct political view, with age about the near end of his/her career, could have a good chance of scoring Nobel Prize. Hence Panda would say that that anyone using Nobel Prize as a main tool, here or anywhere, to seriously (except by some casual references) try to make a point most likely either has quite low IQ, or has a lazy attitute, or both – therefore it’s not worthy to argue with.
2. I am not sure Rushton’s IQ is 148 or anything around that, but Rushton’s r/k application surely seems logically elegant, powerful, much easier for the masses (avg IQ =90) to understand than Jensen’s g or a big pile of raw data from Lynn. Particualrly Rushton seems to have integrity, balls, and good manners – 1st time I watch those 3 vids, but wow… it was a bit like a mini “Nuremberg trial” instead of a popular TV show…Rushton was sitting there carmly, alone, being the lawyer of himself, and he’s about the only one there who was smiling… ROFL.
Rushton also said East Asians have a cautious disposition, and lack the creativity of Whites, despite having high IQs, which proves my point that East Asians poor fairly in academic pursuits/research, while doing very well, with rote memorization efforts in an academic setting.
Yeah right, rote memory! Your point is a very brilliant indictment of any Int´l exams and any national exams of any Western country that are in existance today: PISA , SAT, TIMASS, GCSE, IMO… you name it. Panda senses that you must be a genius!
Therefore, Panda takes the liberty to assume you must have scored at the very bottom of any or all of those exams?
He never passed any of them…
By the way Pumpkin you should make an article on Ed Kemper.
Ed Kemper had a 140 IQ, but ended up dismembering his mother and literally skull-fucked her skull. Pretty brutal.
Hey PP, given your interest in IQ and horror, maybe you have a series of articles about serial killers and their IQs.
East Asians have a cautious temperament.
None of those exams prove why East Asians lag in human output compared to Westerners!
Despite the over-representation of East Asian students in the Anglosphere Universities, especially in Meriprolestan, there is a scant output coming from the Chinese and Korean students etc…The Japanese are a different story, and they usually stay in Japan.
International Innovation index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Innovation_Index
lol boom goes another one.
Rushton misapplied r/K selection theory. Tropical climates are abundant and are K-selective; cold, harsh climates are r-selective. Similarly, larger size is a sign of more K selection; the exact opposite of what Rushton applied the theory to. r/K selection operates at the individual level, not at the group level, etc. etc. etc.
ropical climates are abundant and are K-selective?
larger (what) size is a sign of more K selection?
IQ selection operates at the individual level, not at the group level?
”at the individual level, not at the group level”
Individuals similarities corroborates into group similarities, then is unlikely to happen (individual to be dissociated from group, even exceptions). If natural selection happen in a individual levels, then it will have impact in group levels.
”At individual level, not at the group level” mean ”at minority level, not at the group level”.
All populations had great families in the past, inuit had on average, 7-8 kids, european had 10-13 kids and african had 13-16 kids or more, because is very expensive to have a lot of kids in extremely cold regions. Less diversity, less mutations, less bad mutations…
Rushton say ”large size” of sexual traits and not body size.
Dear Swank,
r=lot of kid few parental care K=few kid lot of parental care.
There is nothing to add to this theory.
is very expensive to have a lot of kids in extremely cold regions
It’s very expensive to care for a lot of kids in extremely cold regions. Tropical climate generally are where k-selection operates and harsher colder climates are where r-selection operates.
I’m not sure what your point is: couldn’t you argue that colder climates select for higher intelligence given the greater expense it takes to care for a lot of kids there? K-selection doesn’t necessarily mean greater abundance, just more investment into children. If the expense is greater in colder climates for child care, then it selects for personalities that are willing to pay for that expense.
K-selection should predict larger size in non-human animals, given greater investment, but I think it’s just different in humans.
The problem I think is that there’s two opposing theories: cold winters theory vs. r-K selection theory, one that argues that cold winters are harsher and therefor select for greater intelligence and planning, and the latter which argues that northern climes are more stable in terms of resource level, which selects for greater intelligence and planning, while the southern climes are more unstable and harsher, lessening the selection for intelligence because it’s less useful.
To have or to care, SAME thing.
JS,
exactly, japaneses, seems no need fly from ivy leagues, they are self-suficient with their own universities.
Santo – Japanese are the more creative and talented of the East Asians, also more sociopathic, but they keep to themselves mostly.
I’m able to find a few Japanese academics in the Anglosphere Universities. They are good researchers, comparing to other East Asians, and are overrepresented for their small population. Unlike the Chinese, Koreans, etc, who overwhelm the schools, yet serve no purpose in academic learning, other than to get a job after graduating. Japanese come to Anglosphere universities to contribute information as a researcher. Other East Asians just go to the schools hoping to learn a “skill” and get jobs. Big difference!
I’m not sure what your point is:
K-selection doesn’t necessarily mean greater abundance
K-selection occurs when an environment favors putting more care into children. The point is simple; without any evidence, Rushton stated that environments that are typically known in the literature as r-selective somehow were k-selective in his preferred context and vice versa. When Rushton was called out on it, he had no real response.
If the expense is greater in colder climates for child care, then it selects for personalities that are willing to pay for that expense.
If it’s all a matter of natural selection life/death, then the personalities “willing to pay” are going to pay by dying more and reproducing less while the r-strategists propagate and survive.
The problem I think is that there’s two opposing theories:
There are several opposing theories in HBD-land…
K-selection occurs when an environment favors putting more care into children. The point is simple; without any evidence, Rushton stated that environments that are typically known in the literature
Known in which literature? Citation? A primary citation; not Wikipedia.
as r-selective somehow were k-selective in his preferred context and vice versa. When Rushton was called out on it, he had no real response.
Called out by who? And how do you know he didn’t respond. I doubt you’ve read everything he’s written.
If it’s all a matter of natural selection life/death, then the personalities “willing to pay” are going to pay by dying more and reproducing less while the r-strategists propagate and survive.
Judah-Sphere didn’t mean pay with their lives. Anyways, I think Rushton’s point was that in environments where survival is largely a matter of luck, then evolution favours r genotypes, because probability favours large numbers. By contrast, in environments where survival is largely determined by behavior, evolution favours K genotypes.
I think Rushton felt that it was largely pointless evolving even larger brains and restrained behavior in Africa because even smart careful people die of random tropical diseases, so the benefits of more intelligence eventually a reached a point of diminishing returns. Thus it made more evolutionary sense to just have as many kids as possible as quickly as possible, so at least some would be lucky enough to survive.
By contrast in cold climates, you were more likely to die because of stupidity, not bad luck, so evolution favoured big brains that could learn how to build fire, clothes, and shelter, and because such skills took so long to acquire, evolution favoured lots of parental care.
Yet sub-sahara africa, despite of all its resources and raw foodstuffs, blacks die in large numbers from starvation. What gives?
I don’t see the same problems afflicting the Sahara Desert Africans (eeehhmm Arabs I mean)!
Rushton was called out by Joseph Graves.
Another commenter pointed this out to you a few months back.
One of the originators of the theory, Pianka: [t]hus in the temperate zones selection favors high fecundity and rapid development, whereas in the tropics lower fecundity and lower development could act to increase competitive ability
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2459020?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Current theory about r and K selection has its origins in the work of Dobzhansky
(1950), who suggested that natural selection operates differently in tropical than in temperate areas.He
argued that mortality in temperate climates is affected by physical factors, such as severe storms, that
are independent of population density. In these relatively unstable environments, natural selection
favors those that take advantage of favorable short-term conditions by having many, rapidly maturing
offspring. In contrast, tropical areas have more stable climates where mortality is population
dependent
http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1327&context=articles
Worse still is the fact that Rushton makes his entire argument about the nature of
selective forces that lead to racial differentiation in life history features utilizing hypothetical
arguments about the nature of the predictability of Pleistocene temperate versus
tropical environments. The argument proceeds that the environments that existed in
Europe and Asia required greater intelligence to survive than those in the tropics. Hence
genotypes with greater intelligence left more progeny than those without. This in turn
would lead to directional selection for greater intelligence at the cost of alleles contributing
to early reproductive success. This, of course, is not an r- and K-selection
argument in reality. It simply asserts that intelligence is negatively genetically correlated
with reproduction. He then proceeds to test his version of differential r- and K-selection
theory in early humans, utilizing data he gathers from modern human populations!
Thus, in reality he is asserting with this method that all features of human life history
patterns were fixed in the Pleistocene!
And how do you know he didn’t respond.
The piece by Graves outlines his only response, and Graves dismantles it. Even Peter “HBD” Frost thinks that Rushton was simply wrong about r/k selection theory.
didn’t mean pay with their lives.
If the environment selects for less care to children, then the people who care for their children are going to operate at a selective disadvantage. That’s what blank-selection means.
Rushton’s point was that in environments where survival is largely a matter of luck, then evolution favours r genotypes, because probability favours large numbers. By contrast, in environments where survival is largely determined by behavior, evolution favours K genotypes.
That wasn’t his point. His point was to argue that where whites “evolved” were environments of stability and environments where blacks “evolved” were environments of unpredictability…and it was based on nothing but conjecture. The data he uses are from modern times; Western Europe’s TFR was similar to Africa’s until the modern age.
Yet sub-sahara africa, despite of all its resources and raw foodstuffs, blacks die in large numbers from starvation. What gives?
I don’t see the same problems afflicting the Sahara Desert Africans (eeehhmm Arabs I mean)!
Yes because at no point in history did other races face these problems.
Now is not forever.
Pianka credits E.O. Wilson as being one of the two originators of the theory
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2459020?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Wilson praised Rushton as an honest & capable researcher & said his race theory uses solid logical evolutionary reasoning & is only controversial because he’s discussing humans instead of geographic variation in a non-human species
Your point about predictability is the same as my point about luck. An unpredictable environment is an environment where luck looms large
Rushton had facts that can only be explained by evolutionary theory such as the differing rate of multiple births in the races (unlike fertility, that’s not influenced by culture excluding very modern science advances )
No Rushton didn’t have any facts that were relevant: he had facts suggesting his hypothesis which he used to then verify his hypothesis.
He didn’t have any facts suggesting temperate climates for humans were more predictable and stable than tropical environments.
Santo, the TFRs were similar up until modernity. It is you who us confused.
And, as further indication that Rushton was confused:
“Finally, r- and Kselection
never explicitly dealt with environmental predictability. This is more in the
domain of ‘bet-hedging’ hypotheses (as described in Stearns, 1992). Bet-hedging theory
generally does not yield the same predictions concerning the evolution of life histories
as r- and K-selection. Again, Rushton simply has these concepts confused.”
So you see, even his actual point was misguided.
Finally, r- and Kselection
never explicitly dealt with environmental predictability. This is more in the
domain of ‘bet-hedging’ hypotheses (as described in Stearns, 1992). Bet-hedging theory
generally does not yield the same predictions concerning the evolution of life histories
as r- and K-selection. Again, Rushton simply has these concepts confused.”
Swank, instead of posting quotes from whatever anti-Rushton source you can find, please clearly explain, in your own words, why you feel Rushton is wrong to correlate r-K strategies with environmental predictability, and please explain why having lots of kids is not a form of bet-hedging. In your own words.
The originators of r/k selection theory aren’t “anti-Rushton sources.” Peter Frost is definitely not “anti-Rushton.”
please clearly explain, in your own words,
Before we get to bet-hedging vs. r/k, are you conceding then that Rushton had no evidence warranting his conclusions about temperate climates being generally predictable and stable versus tropical climates generally being unpredictable and unstable and r/k selection?
On the face of it, he inverted expectation: tropical climates are generally more stable than temperate climates. And he doesn’t seem to have any real evidence supporting that inversion.
You are trying to separate space and time. ”Blacks” are, by now, the product of past events, period. Made supositions about what could be happened is not productive in my opinion.
Is important to know the etiology or founder effect of r-like-reproductors and the k-like-reproductors individual phenotype (s) first.
Blacks seems, have higher rates of schizophrenia and adhd, or ‘mutational’-pathogenic load.
East asians have the lowest adhd rates, which correlates non-linearly with some dimensions that produce creativity and seems have lower idealistic-místic psychological predispositions ( they are more supersticious than modern westerners, but not so much)
Stable environment produce higher diversity and subjective survive-priorities. Higher mortalities, infant mortalities, is not cause just by lower maternal care but also by higher mutational load. Pathogens ( look for greater incidence of diseases like cancer and heart problems among africans) kill more r-like individuals while contribute to increase sexual impulses and as consequence higher fertility rates.
Unstable environments, specially very hard like cold regions, don’t necessarily select for intelligence but eliminate those who have higher mutational load. K-reproductors have less kids because on average they are less sexually impulsive, lower sex drive than r-reproductors, lower pathogenic-mutational load causing sexual desire. And they tend to be healthier than r-reproduvtors and mixed-”strategy-reproductors.
Less diversity and more altruism group development ( cooperation to survive and not competition, male competition) because less psychological dis-order ( behavioural exuberancy- less diversity) and mirror-genes.
I’m trying talk about first possible stage of natural selection in humans.
Swanky,
mortality is more important than fertility.
All human populations had many kids in the past’s but seems subsaharians had more kids than eurasians. What i said, this differential fertility may be happen specially during foundations of many old human populations.
but seems subsaharians had more kids than eurasians.
Based on what, exactly santo?
I’ve offered the co-founders academic thoughts on the theory. I’ve offered an evolutionary biologist’s academic thoughts on the theory. I’ve offered a social psychologist’s academic thoughts on the theory. (I can keep going).
In return, I have E.O. “Alabama” Wilson’s non-academic thoughts and vague speculation. At what point do you need to start producing evidence, exactly?
Mortality and fertility were both much higher in pre-modern times.
And if you’re trying to reference the “foundations” of human populations, then populations with low density — migrants to a cold environment where the environment as-encountered has a low carrying capacity and accordingly low density — favor r-selection.
One of the most important differences between blacks, whites and east asians for this debate is the maturation rates, sexual impulsivity and physiology. Fertility rates is not a trait, because fertility can be controled by circunstances.
So cultural factors or circumstances explain Western Europe’s differential fertility rates but genetic sexual impulsivity, etc. must explain African fertility rates and stats.
It’s all genetic until it isn’t.
Nope, necessarily, average subsaharian black, even the american or western hemisphere diaspora ones, in NY, Parri, Guatemala, whatever the place where he will be, tend to be more sexually impulsive than whites. ”Whites” are very, very diverse. There are great differences among them. But, the average white, still will be less sexually impulsive than average black. Pure K- reproductors, in my opinion, are some smart liberal and moderate conservatives, most people are mixed k or r reproductors, even within families.
Generally, K-reproductors can adjust their fertility and life style depending on environmental factors. And K-reproductors, mature later, it help to explain why they CAN have few children, control the number of kids they want to have, without external direct social interventions. I know two (adopted) relatives who are typical r-reproductors. Poverty circle is caused fundamentally by ”have kids before have stability, aka, money”. Why many ”poor” people don’t plan their life***
Irrational causes help to explain partially why they can’t solve simple problems like ”have kids in the right time”.
There are great differences among them.
Yes, right now in the modern era. Where’s the evolutionary evidence? What about the fact that Western Europe and Africa seemed on par re: TFR and mortality before the modern era?
Themselves.
Oh, so because a group is dysfunctional during an era, they must have been that way for all time.
Before the modern era is a very long time you know*
200 years ago? 50-60 years of which blacks were still slaves in the United States.
My explanation is specially about early evolutionary history of human populations
Your “explanation” is that because a certain group is dysfunctional in the modern era, they evolved to be dysfunctional in the modern era. Wafer thin and unsupported by anything beyond speculation — that’s the point.
Swanky,
One of the most important differences between blacks, whites and east asians for this debate is the maturation rates, sexual impulsivity and physiology. Fertility rates is not a trait, because fertility can be controled by circunstances.
”Yes, right now in the modern era. Where’s the evolutionary evidence? What about the fact that Western Europe and Africa seemed on par re: TFR and mortality before the modern era?”
Themselves.
”Western Europe and Africa seemed on par re: TFR and mortality before the modern era?”’
You have evidences about it*
Before the modern era is a very long time you know** And it don’t prove your point, what is your point**
My explanation is specially about early evolutionary history of human populations. Of course, when civilization emerge, mortality rates (and fertility, sometimes) tend to decrease>
”Oh, so because a group is dysfunctional during an era, they must have been that way for all time.”
But, you say ”blacks” just have different cognitive profiles, culture and environment and nothing about ”dysfunctional”.
And i don’t say anything about ”dysfunctionality”. White ”dysfuncionality”**
”200 years ago? 50-60 years of which blacks were still slaves in the United States.”
Just 200 years ago** How, how, how, the slavery legacy…I thought LIBERAL modern politics that creates Actual dysgenic effects on afro americans and not just slavery. But, generally, more powerfull and macchiavelic people who slaves the ”weaker” and not the otherwise. Not forget the african elite participation in worldwide slavery.
”our “explanation” is that because a certain group is dysfunctional in the modern era, they evolved to be dysfunctional in the modern era. Wafer thin and unsupported by anything beyond speculation — that’s the point.”
You love quotas!! They, on average, evolved to be dysfunctional in modern scenarios, which require planning or even, domesticate behaviour. I respect some criminal low functioning to understand intuitively that govern tend to be corrupt and morally failed like him.
But, you say ”blacks” just have different cognitive profiles, culture and environment and nothing about ”dysfunctional”.
I didn’t say any of that.
hey, on average, evolved to be dysfunctional in modern scenarios
Again, what’s the evidence. If you point me back to current day trends, you aren’t explaining anything.
Swank, as Pumpkin said you are the village idiot, can you now please shut the fuck up ?!
Seriously you must be a dishonest arrogant black to flood this blog with insanities.
And if you want to deconstruct the supposedly hbd myth, go on and create a blog where you proove point by point what you want to prove, but STOP FLOODING this blog I have pleasure to read because every time I went there my pleasure is screwed by your stupidity and your arrogance.
Thank you to read this and to apply it.
You don’t have to read anything I write, yet you do. I wonder why…
I am so smart that I don’t do any effort to read you, I just can’t don’t read you it take me only one seconde to read a comment from you.
I am so smart
Who are you trying to convince…
it take me only one seconde to read a comment from you.
Use that second to skip them instead, and all your problems are solved.
”I didn’t say any of that.”
”Again, what’s the evidence. If you point me back to current day trends, you aren’t explaining anything.”
I change my sentence
”Blacks, on average, were placed in modern scenarios as slaves and after, any strong cognitive eugenics was made in this population”.
You don’t want this kind of explanation, just those that fit with your scientific beliefs system.
”Blacks, on average, were placed in modern scenarios as slaves and after, any strong cognitive eugenics was made in this population”.
First, this is all still recent, so you may as well be pointing to current trends. Second, black slaves != African blacks; they could just as easily be a heavily selected subset. Third, do you have any data for this contention, or is it more supposition?
Swanky,
if you were a genius here, then at least you may understand their own belief systems. Maybe, you are a genius because you have incredible skill to understand their own confusion.
You look so arrogant when you say my thinkings are ”just” suppositions, yes, but it doesn’t mean that it is worse than what you are saying here. And your confusion full of contradictions are ”scientifically proven” facts. Please!!!
it doesn’t mean that it is worse than what you are saying here.
What I am saying here, in this post, is that Rushton’s r/k theories rested on supposition rather than evidence. And that his particular application contradicted many tenets of the theory. That’s all.
are ”scientifically proven” facts.
Slavery is a fact, but the dysgenic trends, etc… that’s a theory (it’s not unreasonable, though).
”lavery is a fact”
Then, ”slavery” is your fact that you put in this debate**
Black sub classes in cities like Detroit had may kids than smart blacks, because effects of long term social welfare without any decent family planning. Sub classes are less smart and more impulsive. More biological dysfunctional kids, more mainstream perception about ”black inferiority”, more real racism. It also happen in less intensity among poor whites.
Also, cheap labour large scale immigration and permissive culture destabilize black families (liberal imposition in the public american life).
i’m not favour to back for older religious mainstream culture, i’m favour to responsible liberty for those who desire live like that and help for those who need.
I can go along with that assessment, but the main question is whether some confluence of public policy and culture caused the vicious cycle or if it’s just evidence that blacks “evolved” to be that way. You seem to believe the form, I believe the latter has equal standing. Or maybe something else, like aslight genetic difference, through incrementally differential environmental treatment, becomes a huge environmental difference over time. GE correlation that emerges over many generations.
You could take any genotype for anything, arbitrary trait or not, and through cultural will, produce a different “group mean.” We hate you a little 1st generation, hate you more 2nd generation, and by the 10th generation, your ancestors will be pretty stupid and it will be very much associated with whatever arbitrary reason invented at outset. But that’s speculation…
*latter and former
Swank thinkk closer about the facts https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/inbreeding/
Cochran says: “Marry a Pygmy and your kids are going to be short. Marry someone from a population whose average IQ is below 90 (much of the world) and your kids will on average be less smart.”
Blacks is a isolated population and consider that IQ is 80% genetically determined, the only way to change that is to of course breed with the higher IQ population or breed only higher iq individuals to reverse dysgenics
one more impoerant academic paper is here: http://lambdaphagy.tumblr.com/post/123110707714/mixed-race-relationships-are-making-us-taller-and
do you not know of these facts, swank?
here, another: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14618.html
remember swank that the GWAS show that all traits from education attainment, cognitive ability and IQ are genetic, and the GWAS are all replicated and reliable
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/198/3/1277
Blacks is a isolated population
In what sense? There’s plenty of gene flow between “blacks” and other populations.
consider that IQ is 80% genetically determined
I assume you mean the heritability of IQ is 80%, which != “genetically determined.” A rooster’s crow can predict the sunrise; it doesn’t mean the sunrise is determined by the rooster’s crow.
the only way to change that
The high heritability you just quoted will be much lower if you’re using this in a “breeding” context. Twin studies estimate H^2; additive effects are h^2. If H^2 is .8, then h^2 is probably at most .4-.5.
Height is not the same as IQ.
And GWAS has failed to replicate much of anything.
swank, how can you say that culture or anything else causes the dysgenic trends in negros when it’s pretty clearly judging by evidence genetic and evolutionary? eevn if specifics of Rushton’s theory is wrong or exaggerate, even then the facts of the matter remain. https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2015/07/04/demography-is-destiny/
It is genetics, all the way through. Within blacks, within whites, two distinct breeding populations in america, have different genetic structures within them.
Santo, blacks are overall useless. Their personalities are sociopathic and uncooperative, evolved out of Africa from their tribal nature of primitive warring and conflict.
Swanky,
i want a real better world despise if some trues will look bad for me (of course, i talk about really important trues that correlates with rational morality. For me, white biological genocide is the same than artificial extinction of some ”undesirable” phenotypes like homossexuality). I see many leftists put their ideology forward what their own ideology say that’s matter like (real) equality. Deny natural (implies genetics or what do you want rename) inequality in many ‘things’ like ”intelligence”, won’t made people equal, just will do you happy, a selfish joy.
i want a real better world despise if some trues will look bad for me
I agree with you. We only disagree on whether the differences we see are the result of genetics or environment.
I’m not sure if within smaller groups (between families) differences are genetic or not. Because heritability is local, it has more analytical power with smaller and less environmentally varied populations.
But talking about huge populations where uniform or nearly uniform cultural presses can separate them by many SD and fail to account for much variance, then heritability is less useful.
The populations known as races are just too big and spread out over too many different environments, and some more than others; there’s too much there, and there’s too much cultural baggage. So, when dealing with large populations, we should formulate public policy based on what we know: huge shifts to the right of the bell curve are possible in these traits — violent crime, FE, etc.
Real improvement seems to be possible, and it’s not like these welfare leftist policies have been around for long at all (despite all we’ve achieved). They deserve another few generations, at least.
Dear Swanky,
racial differences are by simple observations ( On the surface) and not just speculations.
No one is saying that racial differences (P) don’t exist or aren’t observable.
don’t you blieve then that black white etc. are obviously biogenomic race? that their differences in traits are genetically cause?
Trees are selected by climate and landscape (like altitude). Why not animals… and human beings**
Temperament
Whites= tempered climate, ambiverted personality.
Subsaharian blacks= tropical climate, extraverted personality.
East asians= cold climate, introverted (and pragmatic) personality.
Some people choice mountain (introverted) than beach in the vacation. Other people prefer beach (extraverted) than mountain.
Just speculations like Swanky said.
I never said that humans or animals or anything else was never selected for anything or whatever else it is you’re trying to intimate I argued.
Either there’s a good amount of evidence that a specific trait was selected for or there isn’t. To argue on this point doesn’t imply a categorical rejection of natural selection or anything else.
Jews are pathological intra-altruistic themselves, i.e, when empathy intra-group is so very higher, that psychopathy will be the only that remain.
Remain for people out of tribe, the chosen ones.
Pumpkin to Swanky ”explain in your own words”
Bingo Pump, other congratulations for you!!
Except I already stated my position “in my own words.” And all the sources weren’t anti-Rushton.
Pumpkin was clear, explain with your own words, (s)he don’t want your excuses, again.
From my first post on it: [t]he point is simple; without any evidence, Rushton stated that environments that are typically known in the literature as r-selective somehow were k-selective in his preferred context and vice versa. When Rushton was called out on it, he had no real response.
Paraphrasing my latest: Rushton had no evidence warranting his conclusions about temperate climates being generally predictable and stable versus tropical climates generally being unpredictable and unstable and r/k selection.
On the face of it, he inverted expectation: tropical climates are generally more stable than temperate climates. And he doesn’t seem to have any real evidence supporting that inversion.
Only in la-la land is citing to biologists, social psychologist, and an HBDer anthropologist “making excuses.”
Swank, you still haven’t answered the questions you just try to distract people with so many different topics. It makes for good propaganda but it doesn’t advance knowledge.
So I’ll repeat the questions & hopefully you’ll answer them this time:
please clearly explain, in your own words, why you feel Rushton is wrong to correlate r-K strategies with environmental predictability, and please explain why having lots of kids is not a form of bet-hedging. In your own words.
The original topic: without any evidence, Rushton stated that environments that are typically known in the literature as r-selective somehow were k-selective in his preferred context and vice versa. When Rushton was called out on it, he had no real response.
Your response: Known in which literature? Citation? A primary citation;
I furnish the citations. Then you say “instead of posting quotes from whatever anti-Rushton source you can find…” even though you asked for the citations. And then, rather than address the original point about r/k selection and Rushton’s lack of evidence and the literature, you now want to talk about bet-hedging.
But sure…I’m the one trying to distract with a different topic.
why you feel Rushton is wrong to correlate r-K strategies with environmental predictability
is also a misstatement of my position. His conclusions about which environments are and are not predictable and stable invert the literature and general expectation.
Let’s see if you can answer simple yes or no questions.
1) Do you think Rushton was wrong to correlate r/K with environmental predictability?
It’s either a yes or it’s a no.
2) Do you think it’s incorrect to argue having lots of kids is a form of bet-hedging?
It’s either a yes or it’s a no.
Let’s see if you realize that you’re trying ot ask loaded questions:
1) Is there any evidence that Rushton ever managed to correctly “correlate r/K with environmental predictability,” regarding humans in tropical versus temperate climates?
Yes or no, pumpkin. And if so, please indicate it.
So you can’t answer simple yes or no questions. Just as I thought. Because answering questions requires you to be accountable for what you argue. Much easier to throw everything against the wall and hope something will stick, and if it doesn’t just throw something else.
But I’ll answer your “yes or no” question. No Rushton never managed to “correctly” correlate r/K with environmental predictability, regarding humans in tropical versus temperate climates, he simply made verbal arguments on that point. That’s a part of his theory that remains unproven.
And so my original point stands as correct.
I didn’t answer your first question because it required me to assume a premise out of issue. I never argued that Rushton’s error was in trying to correlate r/K to environmental predictability. I argued that his conclusions on which environments produced which type of selection were contra the literature. The responses to him listed several reasons why he may have come to those mistaken conclusions, and I listed some, but my original point and the only point I’m accountable for is correct.
And so my original point stands as correct.
If your original point was simply that not every single thing in Rushton’s theory is proven, then sure, that’s correct. He admitted that himself.
I didn’t answer your first question because it required me to assume a premise out of issue.
And you didn’t answer the second question because?
I never argued that Rushton’s error was in trying to correlate r/K to environmental predictability.
Yes you did. You wrote:
And, as further indication that Rushton was confused:
“Finally, r- and K selection never explicitly dealt with environmental predictability. This is more in the
domain of ‘bet-hedging’ hypotheses (as described in Stearns, 1992). Bet-hedging theory
generally does not yield the same predictions concerning the evolution of life histories
as r- and K-selection. Again, Rushton simply has these concepts confused.”
So you see, even his actual point was misguided.
I argued that his conclusions on which environments produced which type of selection were contra the literature.
You argued that too.
The responses to him listed several reasons why he may have come to those mistaken conclusions,
What are you saying was his mistaken conclusion:
1) That K correlates positively with predictability?
2) That cold climates are more predictable?
3) That coldness correlates with K?
4) All of the above?
Be specific Swank!
not every single thing in Rushton’s theory is proven, then sure, that’s correct
The centerpiece of his r/K application is that tropical climates were r-selective and temperate climates were K-selective. Without this element, which you admit is unsupported by evidence, the theory falls apart.
Yes you did. You wrote:
No. My original point was that his conclusions were contra the literature, and one line of evidence in service of that point were statements in the literature about how Rushton seemed to have conflated several concepts. The original point was always the same.
And because you conceded the original point, a dispute over evidence in service of the original point is now moot.
And you didn’t answer the second question because?
It was also loaded — neither I or the posted article argued that “having lots of kids isn’t a form of bet hedging.” r/K is dictated by density and BH is dictated by the survival variability ratio between juveniles and adults. The agreement in predictions between both is like the directional correspondence between the minute and hour hands —> depending on local conditions they completely agree, completely disagree, and everything in between, which is why the 4 additional questions you asked are pretty much irrelevant. The answer to all of them in the ether is “sometimes maybe,” but Rushton never presented evidence to support any of his sweeping conclusions on the matter, and in the literature, and in everyday life, tropical climates v. temperate climates generally have features lending themselves to K and r selection, respectively.
And while we are talking about being “accountable for” what we argue:
Arguments are not science, they’re just your opinion.
and
Rushton never managed to “correctly” correlate r/K with environmental predictability, regarding humans in tropical versus temperate climates, he simply made verbal arguments on that point
must mean that that all was just Rushton’s opinion and not science.
not every single thing in Rushton’s theory is proven, then sure, that’s correct
The centerpiece of his r/K application is that tropical climates were r-selective and temperate climates were K-selective. Without this element, which you admit is unsupported by evidence,
Dishonest argument. I never said climate K selectivity was unsupported by evidence, I said Rushton never managed to “correctly” correlate r/K with environmental predictability, regarding humans in tropical versus temperate climates, he simply made verbal arguments on that point. In other words, Rushton was able to correlate K with race (a proxy for ancestral climate) but he failed to “correctly” correlate ancestral climate with ancestral environment predictability, because he took no measures of that.
However failing to correlate is different from failing to show evidence. Correlations are a quantitative form of evidence, and Rushton admittedly never quantified environmental predictability, but he pointed to Africa’s sudden droughts and devastating viral, parasitic and bacterial diseases to show how unpredictable it was.
Further, his evidence was largely tautological: Cold adapted races are more K, thus they must have been selected to be more K, since there’s no cultural explanation for why 60 different physical and mental variables all cluster into his racial pattern. The racial genetic difference in K itself was the center-piece of his theory, not the specific evolutionary mechanism that caused it. Indeed at times he speculated that Mongoloids were the most K because they branched off the evolutionary tree at a later more advanced stage, not even referencing climate.
No. My original point was that his conclusions were contra the literature, and one line of evidence in service of that point were statements in the literature about how Rushton seemed to have conflated several concepts.
You claimed he was confused for saying predictability selects for K. Yet way above you cite Pianka claiming stable (i.e. predictable) environments select for K and that Rushton was wrong because tropical environments are more stable. So you attacked him with two completely contradictory arguments, and which point your arguments achieve their own negation.
The original point was always the same.
You say your original point was that Rushton was contra to the literature, yet the literature you cite contradicts itself!
And because you conceded the original point,
Dream on. I conceded that Rushton failed to sufficiently correlate r/K of the races with the predictability of their ancestral environments. How is that conceding your original point that “his conclusions were contra the literature”? The literature you cite contradicts itself on predictability selecting for K, and when I ask you whether predictability selects for K you now say “sometimes maybe,”
By throwing everything against the wall, hoping something will stick, you’ve trapped yourself in a web of contradictions.
It was also loaded — neither I or the posted article argued that “having lots of kids isn’t a form of bet hedging.”
I never said you did. I’m asking you whether it is or not? It’s either a yes or a no, Swank.
Arguments are not science, they’re just your opinion.
and
Rushton never managed to “correctly” correlate r/K with environmental predictability, regarding humans in tropical versus temperate climates, he simply made verbal arguments on that point
must mean that that all was just Rushton’s opinion and not science.
That part of his theory is indeed not scientifically formed. Yes it was his opinion. An educated opinion, but an opinion nonetheless.
However most of his theory is scientifically quite substantiated.
More censorship. Rushton said that tropical environments were r-selective rather than K-selective: this is contra the literature. Rushton said that environments that are “predictable” are K-selective rather than r-selective, which is also not necessarily true.
You equate stable and predictable. I did not do this. The literature I cite did not do this. Stable means that factors beyond population density affect the population size. The survival variability ratio is a function of randomness. i.e. predictability. Rushton made conclusions about both stability and predictability that were unsupported by evidence, and the way he argued against the first accusation — his conclusions about tropical climate versus temperate climate — by asserting different “predictability” and that “predictability was the main part of r/K,” suggested that he didn’t have a grasp on the theory.
So…the questions are irrelevant.
You’re not being censored Swank. I set up the blog to automatically put comments in moderation when the same commenter becomes too repetitive within the same thread within a short span of time, and I have to go home and manually retrieve such moderated comments from my desktop computer to get them to show.
Rushton didn’t grasp r/K theory? I guess E.O. Wilson didn’t understand r/K theory either (despite being one of the two founders of the theory) since he endorsed Rushton’s work. Too bad these two eminent scientists aren’t nearly as smart as you Swank, with your degree from the university of wikipedia.
And if my questions are so irrelevant, why are you afraid to answer them? Could it because answering them requires actual understanding, and not wikipedia talking points?
And here’s another yes or no question you’ll be too scared to answer. Are stable environments predictable?
I guess E.O. Wilson didn’t understand r/K theory either
More likely is that he never reviewed Rushton’s work in any detail.
Too bad these two eminent scientists aren’t nearly as smart as you Swank,
And the other scientists I cited.
And if my questions are so irrelevant, why are you afraid to answer them?
Because as phrased the only real answer is “sometimes maybe.” It’s not “predictability” per se, it’s who the environment is more predictable for, which is why a ratio is involved. A stable environment may or may not be “predictable” in the sense of leading to K-selection and vice versa, which is why “predictability” by itself doesn’t mean anything, which is why him arguing that in the context of an ad hoc response to his original inversion of the literature strongly suggests confusion.
Feel free to start producing primary citations at any time. Preferably from biologists. Why haven’t you done that? I’ve shown you the academic opinion of Rushton from biologists and how their objections and arguments have nothing to do with the political implications of Rushton’s work.
More likely is that he never reviewed Rushton’s work in any detail.
I see. So E.O. Wilson, one of the co-founders of r/K theory , didn’t know what he was talking about when he praised Rushton’s application or r/K to human races, but Swank, who can’t answer simple yes or no questions about the theory, has greater understanding than Wilson or Rushton. LOL! You are delusional.
Because as phrased the only real answer is “sometimes maybe.” It’s not “predictability” per se, it’s who the environment is more predictable for, which is why a ratio is involved. A stable environment may or may not be “predictable” in the sense of leading to K-selection and vice versa, which is why “predictability” by itself doesn’t mean anything, which is why him arguing that in the context of an ad hoc response to his original inversion of the literature strongly suggests confusion.
LOL! What a convoluted argument. In a desperate attempt to sound smart, you are making things way more complicated than they are. The theory is actually very very simple, Swank.
If you’re in an unpredictable environment, there’s no benefit to evolving a large complex brain & lots of parental care, because big brains can’t learn from environments that can’t be predicted, and parental care can’t prepare off-springs for unexpected catastrophes.
It’s analogous to the stock market. If the stock market is predictable, you invest all your money in one stock (analogous to a K strategy where you invest all your resources in one child); if it’s unpredictable, you spread all your money in many stocks (analogous to an r strategy, where you invest all your resources in having as many kids as possible)
It’s so simple, even a child can understand it.
Feel free to start producing primary citations at any time.
Feel free to make a coherent argument at any time.
didn’t know what he was talking about
Do you have a single academic paper where he actually reviews Rushton’s work?
If you’re in an unpredictable environment, there’s no benefit to evolving a large complex brain & lots of parental care
Actually, there can be, depending on who the environment is unpredictable for. That’s the point. Rushton asserted that predictability in and of itself was the key: it does not end the inquiry, which indicates that Rushton didn’t fully grasp the theory he was drawing on, and apparently neither do you.
Feel free to make a coherent argument at any time.
I already did. Rushton never showed any evidence that tropical environments were r-selective during evolutionary time and temperate climates were k-selective during evolutionary time; the literature treats them, generally, in the opposite way.
You didn’t have any comeback to this beyond a vague statement from Rushton that a 12 million square mile continent sometimes can experience unpredictable conditions.
Rushton also discussed r/K selection in a way that made it seem like he confused r/K selection theory with bet hedging theory. You didn’t have any comeback to this beyond asking irrelevant questions.
Do you have a single academic paper where he actually reviews Rushton’s work?
You do realize that academic journals are not the only forums where scientists express their views right?
Actually, there can be, depending on who the environment is unpredictable for.
It’s a tautology Swank. An unpredictable environment is by definition one where you can’t predict who will survive so saying that large brains and parental care can predict survival in an unpredictable environment is a contradiction.
That’s the point. Rushton asserted that predictability in and of itself was the key:
And he was right. If it’s unpredictable which organisms are going to survive, the best evolutionary strategy is to reproduce many organisms.
it does not end the inquiry, which indicates that Rushton didn’t fully grasp the theory he was drawing on, and apparently neither do you.
We do. You don’t.
I already did. Rushton never showed any evidence that tropical environments were r-selective during evolutionary time and temperate climates were k-selective during evolutionary time;
Wrong. The fact that colder climates selected for races with more K traits is strong evidence. Further, climate was only part of Rushton’s explanation for race differences in K. The other part was the time period when each of the 3 races branched off the main trunk of the human evolutionary tree. He argued more recent organisms were generally more K.
the literature treats them, generally, in the opposite way.
A ridiculously sweeping generalization.
Rushton also discussed r/K selection in a way that made it seem like he confused r/K selection theory with bet hedging theory.
Utter nonsense. You simply failed to grasp the similarity between r/K theory and bet hedging theory and why predictability is fundamental to both.
In r/K theory, when survival is unpredictable, it makes sense to have many kids, rather than invest everything in just a few. Similarly, in bet hedging theory, when survival is unpredictable, it makes sense to have kids in may different time periods, rather than just a few.
Both theories claim that when survival is unpredictable, you should not put all your eggs in one basket. Instead you should devote your resources to having many kids (r/K theory) or having kids in many different time periods (bet hedging) because any specific kid, or any specific time period, has a low probability of being fruitful; thus spread it out to increase the odds.
”Santo, blacks are overall useless. Their personalities are sociopathic and uncooperative, evolved out of Africa from their tribal nature of primitive warring and conflict.”
Yes, i do. A virtuous minority them need to be ever separated from bad apples.
I know (and not, ”i do”), lol.
“Much wiser to have on a more typical seemingly low IQ racialist who she immediately checkmated with her “monkey business” pun:”
Oprah knew she was nowhere near Rushton’s level. That’s why she had to have a low IQ ‘racialist’ (PP don’t call morons like that racialists. They’re just hateful morons who look for anything to back their ideology and are in no way interested in the science behind it) on her show and not Rushton, because Rushton would have decimated her just like Jared Taylor decimated Queen Latifah.
The same would have happened to Oprah if she would have allowed Rushton on her show and she knew that so that’s why she chose a bunch of low IQ, hateful idiots to have on her show so she can look better than them. But someone who actually knows the data and what he’s talking about? Nah, he’d destroy her and she knew it.
Yo PP, you understand that Rushton’s triarchic race model is now archaic right? You also understand that those estimates going back tens of thousands of years are also outdated, correct?
The modern races of Man are new, within the last 6500 to 10 ky. Eurasians split about 10 to 6500 ya. Modern day Africans arose around that time as well. Rushton’s data is old and it’s #2017 now and we have much better information on human population genetics.
“Indeed while Rushton was invited to appear on several shows, big brained Oprah may have been smart enough to know it was not in her ethnic genetic interests to have such an eloquent polished brilliant calm racialist on, and so she and Rushton would never meet. Much wiser to have on a more typical seemingly low IQ racialist who she immediately checkmated with her “monkey business” pun:”
I guess Queen Latifah isn’t big-brained and smart enough to not allow Jared Taylor on her show, in which he summarily decimates her.
The only thing Taylor gets wrong is that he says whites are more likely to be serial killers.
WRONG!
And here’s Jared Taylor on Donahue.