I know I promised to post about Angela Merkel (and will) but I wanted to do a quick post about the psychology of HBDism.
How high IQ causes HBDism
High IQ people are more likely to be Darwinists than creationists, and HBD is just extreme Darwinism. As Stephen Jay Gould noted, the problem with believing that humans evolved from apes, is that it causes folks to wonder if some humans preserve some of that ape-like heritage. So just as Darwinists are more intelligent than creationists, we’d expect HBDers to be smarter than regular Darwinists (on average). Further, Darwinism is all about survival of the fittest, so extreme Darwinism leads to the HBD belief that the rich are, in some sense, biologically better than the poor.
How low IQ causes HBDism
Low IQ causes conservatism, and I define conservatism as preferring the strong over the weak. The reason low IQ causes conservatism is it’s a simple world view that requires less ability to see things from the perspective of the less fortunate, and may also be a sign of sociopathy (which is probably caused by brain damage and primitive genes).
So if you’re really conservative, you’re going to love rich and powerful groups (i.e Ashkenazi Jews) and have contempt for the poor and powerless groups (i.e. blacks). Thus, you are going to be inclined to embrace the race-class IQ hierarchy, which puts the wealthy and Jewish at the top and the poor and black at the bottom
HBDers are rare
Because HBDers tend to have two traits that are, ironically, NEGATIVELY correlated with each other (Darwinism and conservatism), HBDers are rare and hated by both sides of the political spectrum.
Austism vs Schizophrenia
IQ is not the only trait that influences our views. I also believe all humans fall along a neurological bell curve with autistic neurology at one extreme and schizophrenic neurology at the other extreme. Having an autistic or schizophrenic neurology doesn’t mean you have autism or schizophrenia (you also need a neurological disability) but it does put you at risk.
Now if you have an autistic neurology, you’ll tend to be extremely pro-science and this could cause you to become aggressively pro-HBD, pro-vaccine, pro-atheism and pro-Western medicine. By contrast if you have a schizophrenic neurology, you’ll tend to be aggressively anti-HBD, anti-vaccine, anti-Western medicine, anti-atheism etc.
This is because autistic neurology causes you to be very rational when it comes to facts and very trusting when it comes to people (including scientists). By contrast, schizophrenic neurology causes you to become very irrational when it comes to facts and very cynical and paranoid when it comes to people (including scientists). So an autistic type might never believe that scientists could have a racist or greedy motive and thus would always trust the research or Rushton, Jensen, and the pharmaceutical companies, while a schizophrenic type might always suspect a bad motive and be deeply suspicious of scientists.
But because schizophrenic neurology is (in some ways) the opposite of autistic neurology, and autistics tend to be socially impaired, those with schizophrenic neurology tend to be brilliantly charismatic, to the point of inspiring cult-like worship (i.e. Charles Manson). As a result they can be very dangerous because many people will listen to their anti-science views.
It’s the white trump supporting hbders that make us all look stupid.
No, HBD theories make HBDers look stupid.
Afrosapiens can you explain what theories make us look stupid?
Theories like the one Pumpkin Person formulates on this post, as well as the cold winter theory, the r-K selection theory, the partial selection and torturing of statistics, the complete disconectedness of the HBD world view and actual world trends…
I observe that every HBDer is is deranged to some degree. Some are just angry or hateful, others have more pronounced obsessive disorders and delusions. If we could have physical contact, the difference between pro-and anti-HBDers would be perceptible by naked eye, with HBDers showing the most obvious external signs of marginality and mental disturbance.
@Afrosapiens
Nice trolling. What’s wrong with it?
Life History Theory** Though, Rushton’s main findings are still there to some degree. It’s a great hypothesis.
How so?
Examples?
“Nice trolling. What’s wrong with it?”
Well, it has been unanimously ridiculed by specialists of human prehistory and history. And it comes in opposition with the established fact that tropical Africa has been the place where all stages of the evolution of primate intelligence took place, that hominids never got more advanced by migrating to colder regions.
“Life History Theory** Though, Rushton’s main findings are still there to some degree. It’s a great hypothesis.”
Equally ridiculed, based on demographic variables that experience high fluctuations over time and cirumstances as well within group heterogeneity.
“How so?”
Come on! You know what I’m talking about. You know likeInterpreting every correlation as a causation or cherry-picking data.
“Examples?”
One thing that often makes me laugh for instance is when HBDers cite sexual freedom and hyper-activity as an attribute of the black race when places like West Africa are among the most prudish societies in the world
…
I’m not even addressing this. Reread it and then think about IQs. Though, I know about the factors in Africa, I’ve written about it.
http://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/15/iq-nutrition-disease-and-parasitic-load/
I’ll address this in full later. But, you still have to account for all of the variables Rushton found.
Examples?
Citation needed. See the hypersexuality in both black men and women.
http://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/04/02/the-role-of-leptin-and-sexual-maturity-in-black-girls/
http://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/03/28/down-low-bruthas/
This happens from an early age. Hormones are obviously the answer.
“I’m not even addressing this. Reread it and then think about IQs. Though, I know about the factors in Africa, I’ve written about it.”
I really don’t care about what you write on your blog, regurgitating the Pioneer Fund’s pseudoscience with no added value gives me nothing to laugh about.
“I’ll address this in full later. But, you still have to account for all of the variables Rushton found.”
No, don’t bother, really. I don’t plan to debate with you as I do with others on this blog. I really don’t like your ways and I don’t want to honor you with my attention any longer.
One exemple of Rushton’s unsignificant data is the use of twinning rates. The highest rate in the world is in Benin, with 29.7/1000 pregnancies being with twins. But how can you argue that a selective pressure results in trend that inspite being the highest in the world, only affects 2.97% of a population ? That’s stupid. And HBD litterature is full of micro-evidences like this, ignoring traits for which the supposed racial hierarchy is reversed or reorganized.
“Examples?”
Lynn’s estimation worldwide IQ scores has been proven to be greatly flawed for instance. Or the Brain-size IQ correlation is grossly interpreted as direct causation whereas specialists all agree that things are never as simple.
“Citation needed.”
http://cdn3.chartsbin.com/chartimages/l_xxj_703979f5111feb3a13b37cc27e8d4919
You’re also being oblivious of the fact that genital mutilation (A muslim practice in origin) is so widspread in West Africa that most women barely experience sexual pleasure. And marriage there is a much valorized institution, much more than in the west. Anyway, if you want to know, just read about African cultures, but you don’t want to.
“This happens from an early age. Hormones are obviously the answer.”
Leptin rate increases with obesity. Age at first menarche goes up to 15 years in some African countries.
Feel free to think that I’m defeated, but I just don’t want to debate with you. So you may answer this comment but I won’t answer back, you’re unintersting.
How do I ‘regurgitate the PF’? Examples please.
Why not? I love debating. What’s wrong with ‘my ways’? Honor me with your attention. Ha!
It’s the mother’s race, not the father’s that is the determining fact in twinning rates, for one. Two, The amount of twins had increases the amount of progeny had in the population leading to more individuals born who can then reproduce.
That he tests mostly, or only uses tests on young children? Or that he used sick Spanish school children for Equatorial Guinea? That doesn’t mean that all of his data is wrong. I do have a problem with his Southern Italian IQ data, though.
No one ever said that there is direct causation between brain size and IQ, it’s .44, with PumpkinPerson recently saying it’s .33. Plenty of room for varitation.
Do you need sexual pleasure in order to have children? No you do not.
Provide me with some resources.
Leptin increases precede body fat gains to prepare for eventual menstration and higher body fat will better help protect the baby in vitro. I’m more than well-learned on the hormone leptin.
Aw, that’s no fun. Atleast tell me why you won’t answer and why I’m ‘uninteresting’.
I’ll still reply to you here, don’t care if you’ll respond or not.
Trump is a imbecile but other candidates to the presidential american race are even worst. Trump is very human type, a average (intellectualy and cognitively) type with lucky in life (born rich that way) and he’s naturally charismatic specially or fundamentally among white working classes.
Sanders look boring at the surface but their supporters seems to be extremely childish-juvenile-”liberal” ones. Leftism is a neo-religion. Religion is a dead-end of a metamorphosis. Religion start as a revelation/true by pedestrians, develop as ideology and end as official/dominant cult.
People who will vote in Hillary have very little memory capacity, or they are morally (subconsciously) retarded or they are consciously morally retarded.
The other republican candidate look so usually common as a typical candidate of the fake right that i no have many thing to say about him.
The spectrum Stanley Kowalski (Trump), sincere, those who have a feverish-mind, who say exactly what he’s thinking (very rare among politicians), without filter, and Blanche DuBois (Sanders/Hillary), charming, intellectualized, charismatic/sympathetic, those who are prodigious to say what (their) people want to hear and not what truth like to hear. But they are pathological (subconsciously or not) liars or psychopaths.
If Sanders really believe in all stupidity that ”liberals” believe so i think real rational people should fear him.
The only really relevant idea about long term american politics Trump supposedly (at surface) is buying. Excess of immigration will destroy, obviously, the melting pot.
Sanders have cold and indifferent eyes, a Mother Therese with kippah.
Politics create a perfect scenario where the masses of average-smart types will be directed to vote massively for Sanders specially because what he say or not say and ”defend”. It’s all about moral appearance versus moral reality.
I don’t really consider Trump to be conservative. He’s anti-immigration, but immigration serves the powerful more than it serves anyone else. In fact the idea that being anti-immigration is conservative is part of the propaganda.
Trump are irreverent. This pass the idea that he is not a conservative. A typical religious conservative he’s not. He have a mixed behavioral traits, but with strong inclination for conservatism spectrum.
J Farrel -I agree, and I am very glad to see I am not alone. I did an analysis based on educational IQ statistics from pumpkinperson’s website, and what educational attainment, and race Trump supporters have, to find that, Trump supporters have an average IQ of 90 on U.S. White Norms. That would explain a lot of the violence and agression we see at Trump’s rallies.
I think that figure is correct, because based on admiration quotient, referenced by standard bell curve on a nother webapage, shows, that Trump would have an IQ of 122 on U.S. White Norms, very close to pumpkinpersons (I believe on white norms) IQ estimate of 125 for Trump.
The average iq of extreme conservatives is 96-98 among the british ones based on study about political prefferences and cognition and violence in Trump rallies were caused fundamentally by ”fascist on the left” and not by Trump supporters.
Average iq 90 is likely that you will find among Killary supporters with afro-american heritage.
Having low IQ followers is not necessarily a bad thing. It could be a sign that Trump is fighting for the underdogs.
Meh. Maybe. Though, I see it as just Trump being a populist, think Liz “You Didn’t Build That” Warren. Populism is stupid and makes no sense; the average person doesn’t even know what they want!
Ironically, trump supporters are portrayed as violent and tribal as the Muslims they hate, so that iq of 90 makes perfect sense.
Is he fighting for them, or pretending to do so while taking advantage of them?
Since they are majority-white perhaps the sole cause of their feelings of disenfranchisement is their own intellects, unlike many blacks like Ben Carson, Katrina Pierson, Oprah, and Barack Obama who could not have acheived their success pre-civil rights act. Same with Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, anyone who is not of Nordic ancestry, like Trump supporters. Of course SOME have legitimate grievances but most just blame the cliche “other” for their own failures.
how old are you guy? because you haven’t mature beyond age 12.
automation + outsourcing + open borders + “right to work laws” = 0 wage growth for 90% of the workforce for the last 40 years in america-stan.
the US is at the bottom of the developed world in so many ways that can’t be attributed solely to its ethnic heterogeneity…but can be explained by the promotion over the last 50 years of vicious, amoral, obedient, striving, pushy pod people. the american elite is uniquely un-talented and evil.
however much you might want trickle down economics to succeed, it hasn’t.
it’s 100% pure failure.
so stop blaming other people, blame yourself and the retards you’re related to.
funny how that last line applies to non-Anglo Saxons, but anglo saxons get a pass and are the victims…..
http://www.trumpbart.com/
anglo-saxons don’t get a pass from me. you’ve just invented that.
if there were 12 m illegal british immigrants in the US it would still be a problem, just not as big a problem…they speak english.
and the UK is a dump too.
the poorest germanic language speaking country in Europe.
the largest trade deficit of any developed country as a % of its GDP. and guess who the 2d, 3d, 4th, and 5th worst are? US, Canada, the Antipodes…ANglo-Saxon economics doesn’t work.
and yet sanders is mocked for endorsing scandinavian social democracy…how many Danes wanna move to the US?
the problem with american politics is corruption. the only two candidates running who aren’t 100% bought off are trump and sanders. and classism is just as distasteful as racism…just not to america’s elite.
and classism is just as distasteful as racism…
Says the guy who calls everyone “prole”
Is he fighting for them, or pretending to do so while taking advantage of them?
Well they feel reducing immigration is in both their economic and genetic interests, but we don’t know if Trump will actually do that.
i have never called anyone a “prole”.
And classism is often just disguised racism, because even among the same race, different classes have different ethnic compositions.
Social class often struck me as a very nebulous concept. I think it was partly invented & promoted as a way of diverting attention from ethnic hierarchies.
The rich very brilliantly use social class as a way of getting less intelligent ethnic groups to sell out their own people, by convincing some of them that they are part of the upper class, when really, they’re just tools of it.
only because you live in canada.
the pathologies which attend poverty in the US tend to be blamed on the poor, either on their nature, or on their bad choices/bad taste. i think they serve the role of boogeyman to a lot of americans who are insecure financially, one paycheck away from destitution…which is now most americans afaik.
i’m with rawls…a society may judged virtuous or vicious by how its treats its least fortunate members. in the US they die from a drug overdoes or go to prison…
but you have the wrong end of it peepee.
racial hierarchies are used to disguise class hierarchies. this is why, generally speaking, the more homogeneous the country ethnically the larger its government, the higher its taxes, the greater its social mobility, the lower its crime rate, etc.
there are plenty of poor whites in Latin America, the Caribbean, South Africa, etc.
Canadian classism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailer_Park_Boys
this is why, generally speaking, the more homogeneous the country ethnically the larger its government, the higher its taxes, the greater its social mobility, the lower its crime rate, etc.
That’s because whites don’t want their tax dollars being used to support non-whites on welfare, but they have no problem with their tax dollars supporting another white on welfare, because it’s like supporting family.
So in a country where everyone is white, the welfare state grows.
This is a classic example of ethnic genetic interests:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/08/02/w-d-hamilton-believed-in-ethnic-genetic-interests/
I understand your argument that the rich use race to divide and conquer the poor, but in multiracial societies, and even in America, the upper class are ethnically different from the middle class who are ethnically different from the underclass.
In South Africa, the whites used the Indians and Coloureds to buffer themselves from the Blacks.
Honestly, Trump was always very friendly with blacks, and Eastern European Immigration (the Polish hotel workers Rubio brought up, who were lesser skilled), so I think he may be tricking them. Blacks, who have perhaps more to gain solely on this immigration thing than whites, don’t seem to be falling for it, so I tend to think he is indeed lying.
*That’s because whites don’t want their tax dollars being used to support non-whites on welfare, but they have no problem with their tax dollars supporting another white on welfare, because it’s like supporting family.*
An eloquent way to summarize. I like it.
according to the following story…
american politics has become a cabal of a small minority of the rich against everyone else…including the large majority of the rich.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/04/leaked-documents-show-strong-business-support-for-raising-the-minimum-wage/
The survey of 1,000 business executives across the country was conducted by LuntzGlobal, the firm run by Republican pollster Frank Luntz, and obtained by a liberal watchdog group called the Center for Media and Democracy. (The slide deck is here, and the full questionnaire is here.) Among the most interesting findings: 80 percent of respondents said they supported raising their state’s minimum wage, while only eight percent opposed it.
this explains why the votes for mccain had a hump in the upper middle income range and then declined a lot iirc. for romney idr.
Yes, I understand the rich are resented.
However, Mexicans and Muslims are not the rich.
Of course that would mean they are smarter, and that is plausible, because;
Mexicans are Mongoloids
Middle Easterners are white.
Trump is an idiot, Ann Coulter is an even bigger idiot.
Or at least they act like it/appeal to big idiots.
They both used to defend the super rich anyway.
Case closed.
the rich are not resented per se.
that’s just another lie or an example of a lack of insight on the part of people like romney who blamed his defeat on “envy”.
those who get rich without creating anything of value or use their wealth to buy politicians…this is what is resented.
people like henry ford will always be heroes to most people.
trump is no less an idiot than any of the other candidates as far as i can tell.
people thought ike was an idiot.
i’d rather have an honest idiot than a corrupt genius.
An eloquent way to summarize. I like it.
Thanks.
Blacks, who have perhaps more to gain solely on this immigration thing than whites, don’t seem to be falling for it, so I tend to think he is indeed lying.
You could make a very good argument that blacks have the most to gain from limiting immigration, but at least one reputable poll found blacks are less anti-immigrant than whites are:
One in five whites, compared with 14% of blacks and 8% of Hispanics, prefer deporting undocumented immigrants back to their home countries.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/184577/favor-path-citizenship-illegal-immigrants.aspx
Either many blacks are not smart enough to know immigration hurts them & benefits the ruling class OR blacks have empathy for all oppressed groups, not just their own.
Or blacks might think that a backlash against Hispanics might be followed by a backlash against blacks.
But Trump, if he gets the nomination, might be able to convince blacks that opposing immigration is in their interest, especially given the ethnic cleansing of blacks by immigrants that has occurred in some urban regions.
*Or blacks might think that a backlash against Hispanics might be followed by a backlash against blacks.*
If I was black I would be tempted to try to ride this anti-hispanic surge into the metaphorical “promised land.”
It seems like anti-black racists are generally more intelligent than anti-hispanic racists, so I am more empathetic to the anti-black racists, but perhaps I am terribly prejudiced against low-IQ whites.
My father, who speaks two Latin languages, said he was automatically “in” among blacks because of that fact.
He also had a good repertoire with Asians (his first wife was part Asian) because of latin roots, latins are seen as less thuggish/scary to Asian women as opposed to Northern Europeans (stereotyped as Viking Savages). Plus, Asians aren’t in competition with the Mexicans for jobs.
I don’t think blacks or asians, at least the majority that are democrats, are prejuidiced against hispanics, that burden mainly falls to low-IQ whites.
Trump will get creamed in the general, although I shudder at Hillary being the next President.
those who get rich without creating anything of value or use their wealth to buy politicians…this is what is resented.
The rich who most get bashed in the media for buying politicians are the Coke brothers. But I kind of like the Coke brothers. They oppose neocon wars in the Middle East and they like to hire people who didn’t attend Ivy League schools for top positions in their company.
On the other hand, they might be bad for the environment.
But if the media hates them so much, they must be doing something right.
On FX’s “The People vs. OJ Simpson” the sole hispanic juror is seen to have the same ideology as the black jurors, he was one of the ten initial “Not Guilty votes” (the two Whites voted Guilty). One black juror said she was sure they would keep “brown folk” (as opposed to blacks) off the jury. I really think that, at least in terms of cultural perceptions, blacks are not against hispanics.
I use popular culture as evidence too much, I know 🙂
It seems like anti-black racists are generally more intelligent than anti-hispanic racists,
I think people who are racist against the most disadvantaged group are the least intelligent, because that shows the least compassion, so I would guess anti-black racists are the least intelligent, but I have no data, so could be completely wrong
I think Ann Coulter opposes undocumented Hispanics partly because she’s blond, tall and thin, and a lot of undocumented Hispanics are the opposite of that.
Another example of Rushton’s genetic similarity theory.
We oppose those who look least like us.
Ann Coulter even refused to hug a Hispanic woman:
There are many tall, thin, white, Hispanics, but few blonde ones.
I suppose if you count basques as hispanic, there may be more, but Ann Coulter has never criticized people from Spain.
I LOATHE Ann Coulter, she was the biggest Noe-Conservative from the beginning, as big as John Bolton, and know she wants to flip-flop and join the Alt-Right.
I am a Cuban-American (of Iberian, including Portuguese, Basque, and Italian descent on my father’s side) , and as I said earlier of Portuguese descent. After all Cubans have done for HBD (the Ritchiewine academic advisor was Cuban American), (Virginia Abernethy, the r-k selectivity scholar at Vanderbuilt, is also Cuban), we are re-payed with Ann Coulter’s slurs of “third-worlder” and “Marco Rubio is anti-white”?
Screw that puta; http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=punta
🙂 🙂 🙂
Yes, I’ve seen that video.
I love this blog because it is a kind-natured (at least as far HBD blogs go), I even initially believed you were a female. So naturally, I am a bleeding heart and don’t hate hardly anyone. But I HATE HATE HATE Ann Coulter. I honestly would secretly be happy if she was hit by a bus.
She is more of a “gas the jews” type than an HBD scholar. I have several non-white hispanic friends, they’re not all terrible like she says.
I also hate her for the reasons listed above, in the comment directly prior to this.
She is perhaps the only person I truly hate.
When I get pissed like this my grammar goes out the window…. lol
“Another example of Rushton’s genetic similarity theory.
We oppose those who look least like us.”
I think you are wrong there Pumpkin. When differences are big enough they no longer matter. That’s why hippos and hyenas don’t fight very often, no colliding interests.
”’Either many blacks are not smart enough to know immigration hurts them & benefits the ruling class OR blacks have empathy for all oppressed groups, not just their own.”’
First,
leftist coalition are composed by (on average) short term thinking groups.
”But I HATE HATE HATE Ann Coulter”
then i’m the gay here, period.
Hate hate hate so much***
I fuck her.
But i need to climb a ladder before.
I have angry about jooss
they are so loved!!!!
fans are boring but useful sometimes.
fans love to be explored by their masters.
true luv!!!
Albeit unlikely, there is a reasonable possibility Ann Coulter is transgender, it’s slightly more likely than most conspiracy theories.
Who thinks she is attractive? Look at the Adam’s Apple.
I hate hardly anyone. She is someone, as my father used to say with whom “the world would be better without”
“I have never killed anyone, but I have read some obituaries with great satisfaction”
-Mark Twain
Trump vs. Alternatives,
Post-Apocalyptic Nuclear wasteland vs. Third World hell-hole.
I’ll take the latter.
I think you are wrong there Pumpkin. When differences are big enough they no longer matter. That’s why hippos and hyenas don’t fight very often, no colliding interests.
Well if the differences are great enough, the two groups compete for different resources, and they can’t even recognize how different they are. It’s like a child trying to guess if he’s more related to a cactus or a pine tree.
*”Well if the differences are great enough, the two groups compete for different resources, and they can’t even recognize how different they are. It’s like a child trying to guess if he’s more related to a cactus or a pine tree.”*
It’s definitely interesting. Ann Coulter does not speak ill of blacks, who are most unlike whites, while Hispanics are most like whites (reddish-brown skin, more subtle mongol features as compared to east Asians). So why doesn’t Ann Coulter hate Asians more (she hates them a little less than Hispanics) and blacks?
it’s not just immigration. it’s also trade.
why did blacks move from the south to detroit, chicago, etc?
it wasn’t just so they could drink from white drinking fountains.
it was for jobs.
now detroit is a shell and south side chicago is chiraq.
it didn’t used to be that way.
of course blacks are still de facto segregated or for all i know segregate themselves to some extent, and some have blamed all the pathologies of the black “community” on welfare.
but really the problem is they have no opportunities and their schools in most cases are just prisons…a way/weigh station on the way to prison. as chomsky has noted the explosion in incarceration rates in the Us since 1980 have an economic explanation…people useless to the new globalized economy are locked up.
jobs in the auto industry were so plentiful for blacks at one time that none other than Bob Marley worked in it…in Detroit…really. (but his dad was white and he died from a white man’s disease…melanoma.)
the idea that lowering the global Gini coefficient should come on the backs of the developed world’s 99%…that national governments should simply be sock puppets for multinational corporations with allegiance to none other than their shareholders…if that…this is an ABSURD idea.
and though china has developed…it hasn’t developed nearly as much as peepee thinks…and the rest of the third world…
i mean, has the global Gini coefficient ACTUALLY been lowered over the last 30 years?
all of america’s trade deals have been abject failures for most americans. they’ve increased the current accounts deficit every fucking time.
trump attacks one part of the problem, sanders the rest. all other candidates attack none of the problem.
automation + outsourcing + open borders + anti-union laws = wages stagnant for 90% of people for 40 years.
your balls need to be hooked up to a truck battery jorge.
In 1966 Marley…moved near his mother’s residence in Wilmington, Delaware in the United States for a short time, during which he worked as a DuPont lab assistant and on the assembly line at a Chrysler plant, under the alias Donald Marley.
I wouldn’t give a shit about immigration, as long as we had a selective policy, if it wasn’t for regression to the mean (I don’t give a shit about the AmRenner who feels insecure at seeing a smart black, I honestly don’t), but regression to the mean. Ah….
“This is because autistic neurology causes you to be very rational when it comes to facts and very trusting when it comes to people ”
I think it’s more like IF the facts add up, the particulars of the people presenting the facts and their possible motives can be disregarded.
I think it’s more like IF the facts add up,
But facts can be cherry-picked. Different study designs give different results.
Some say you can lie with statistics, but you can’t, because any cherry-picking of facts, or statictics, immediatly becomes part of facts or the statistics.
Which is why I like meta-analyses better.
Every study answers some questions. It can be hard to formulate or even know what questions are answered. The trick is to not discard everything just because there is uncertainty.
I like this idea.
“High IQ people are more likely to be Darwinists than creationists, and HBD is just extreme Darwinism.”
HBD is stupid Darwinism
“believing that humans evolved from apes, is that it causes folks to wonder if some humans preserve some of that ape-like heritage.”
I believe in Darwinism and I observe everyday that all humans preserve the same degree of ape-like heritage.
“The reason low IQ causes conservatism is it’s a simple world view that requires less ability to see things from the perspective of the less fortunate, and may also be a sign of sociopathy”
The reason why morons embrace HBD is because it is simple to understand (simplistic, obvious in appearance), it flatters their ego and degrades those they hate the most.
” Thus, you are going to be inclined to embrace the race-class IQ hierarchy, which puts the wealthy and Jewish at the top and the poor and black at the bottom”
Conservatives have contempt for every group but their own.
“HBDers are rare and hated by both sides of the political spectrum.”
HBDers are not rare enough, but they are not hated, they are more ridiculed than hated.
“Having an autistic or schizophrenic neurology doesn’t mean you have autism or schizophrenia (you also need a neurological disability) but it does put you at risk.”
Man, you’re hearing voices.
“But because schizophrenic neurology is (in some ways) the opposite of autistic neurology, and autistics tend to be socially impaired, those with schizophrenic neurology tend to be brilliantly charismatic, to the point of inspiring cult-like worship (i.e. Charles Manson). As a result they can be very dangerous because many people will listen to their anti-science views.”
Ok, HBDers are misunderstood geniuses and anti-HBDers are charismatic illuminates. Is that all ?
I believe in Darwinism and I observe everyday that all humans preserve the same degree of ape-like heritage.
Well Darwin believed that humans evolved from monkeys in Africa because it was in Africa that he saw monkeys that were most like humans (chimps, gorillas). So if the monkeys that were most human lived in Africa, it caused Victorian scientists to think the humans who are most monkey also live in Africa. Some argue that’s how modern racism began.
Conservatives have contempt for every group but their own.
In my humble opinion you’re confusing conservatism with ethnocentrism, but conservatives are only ethnocentric when their group is on top. When their group is not, they have historically been called Uncle Toms who side with the groups above them.
So black conservatives worship whites. White conservatives (particularly in the United States) worship Jews and Israel. Jewish conservatives admire themselves.
Gay conservatives worship Straights.
Poor conservatives worship the rich.
Female conservatives worship men.
Conservatism is all about worshiping POWER, especially institutionalized power.
Ok, HBDers are misunderstood geniuses and anti-HBDers are charismatic illuminates. Is that all ?
The purpose of the post was not to imply HBDers are right and their critics are wrong. Rather it was to argue that HBDers are more autistic and their critics are more schizophrenic. BOTH have blind spots.
“Well Darwin believed that humans evolved from monkeys in Africa because it was in Africa that he saw monkeys that were most like humans (chimps, gorillas). So if the monkeys that were most human lived in Africa, it caused Victorian scientists to think the humans who are most monkey also live in Africa. Some argue that’s how modern racism began.”
Scientific racism emerged as society changed its understanding of the world from religious concepts to rational concepts. At first, racism was based on interpretations of religious texts in order to justify slavery, then it used interpretations of scientific theories and findings to justify segregation, colonization, white supremacy and xenophobia. Western racism would have existed with or without Darwin, the only thing that needed to exist is racist policies to be justified.
That constant need of justification is a proof that racism is not part of human nature, men have hardship oppressing others just for the thrill of it. Even Nazi Germany had to brainwash its population for it to become supportive of the persecution of the Jews. That’s off-topic, I know.
“In my humble opinion you’re confusing conservatism with ethnocentrism”
The most accepted definition of conservatism is that it is an attitude of attachment to traditional order and values. It is inapropriate to say that conservatism leads to “worshipping” some groups. For instance, African-American conservatives do not support white suppremacy, they rather support the advancement of their community through the means of traditional values such as hard-work, church-going and individual responsibility whereas affirmative action and social programs are perceived by them as shameful handouts. Their end goal however is not to become dark skinned whites and they are probably as proud of their heritage as liberal blacks, they tend to take role models that are black and who share their values and might be as offended by Fox news and the Tea Party as other blacks.
“White conservatives (particularly in the United States) worship Jews and Israel.”
That’s an American thing, based on christian views of the biblical Israel, as well as the financial interest that the American armamant industry has in providing Israel with weapons.
In Europe, Antisemitism is nearly as present at the far-right as at the far-left. Pro-Zionism and neutral attitude towards jews is a moderate attitude.
“Poor conservatives worship the rich.”
I strongly disagree with that. In Europe, and I guess in some regions like Appalachia and the South, there is a high sense of conservative lower-class pride that comes with a strong reject of “uppity” behaviors. These people have limited education and will favor against their own interests conservative policies that will favor the elites they have a lot of contempt for but won’t oppose the traditional values and order they adhere to.
“Rather it was to argue that HBDers are more autistic and their critics are more schizophrenic. BOTH have blind spots.”
Your worldview visibly has no room for balanced people…
I don’t know what kind of foolishness affects HBDers. What I know is that there are no scholars or bloggers whose main occupation is to prove the equality of races. What I mean is that the equality and unity of mankind didn’t come out as a single, politically oriented theory. What happened is that findings after findings the basis of the hereditarian position came to be destroyed without an concerted effort. You put things like the Race-IQ controversy was an ideological battle between the Pioneer Fund and the NAACP or Southern Poverty Law center, but no, this debate is only a debate between HBD and science.
The most accepted definition of conservatism is that it is an attitude of attachment to traditional order and values.
But tradition is tradition precisely because it is the dominant culture, so this is yet another example of conservatism siding with power. By contrast, liberals are against the ruling established order and side with the underdogs (the counter-culture).
In almost every case from minority rights, feminism, gay rights, military interventions, etc, liberals side with the underdogs and conservatives side with the powerful.
It is inapropriate to say that conservatism leads to “worshipping” some groups. For instance, African-American conservatives do not support white suppremacy,
In the eyes of many liberals they do.
they rather support the advancement of their community through the means of traditional values such as hard-work, church-going and individual responsibility whereas affirmative action and social programs are perceived by them as shameful handouts.
In the eyes of many liberals, the system is rigged against the disadvantaged, so supporting traditional values like hard work is just seen as serving the ruling class.
“But tradition is tradition precisely because it is the dominant culture, so this is yet another example of conservatism siding with power.”
Tradition is not always that of the dominant culture. European Muslim conservatives are islamists, African European conservatists are fearful of pronounced integration and like to hold on to their own traditional values. In the case of African Americans, their culture is close to American culture but differs from it in many aspects, so does African American conservativism.
“In almost every case from minority rights, feminism, gay rights, military interventions, etc, liberals side with the underdogs and conservatives side with the powerful.”
Liberals stand for justice and equality, that implies some degree of siding with the disadvantaged but this is not blind support of the disadvantaged. For instance, European liberals reject islamic fundamentalism as much as European conservatives do.
“In the eyes of many liberals they do.”
What matters is what they do in their own eyes, and that has nothing to do with supporting white supremacy.
“In the eyes of many liberals, the system is rigged against the disadvantaged, so supporting traditional values like hard work is just seen as serving the ruling class.”
No, liberals don’t see hard work as serving the ruling class, what they fight for is that black hard-workers have equal payback to white hard-workers, and they believe that welfare, affirmative action and social programs will need to remain or being expanded as long as the effort-return gap remains.
Tradition is not always that of the dominant culture. European Muslim conservatives are islamists,
And Islamic culture is about siding with the powerful, so men have more rights than women, straights have more rights than gays. So once again we see that conservatism is about siding with the powerful over the underdogs.
Liberals stand for justice and equality, that implies some degree of siding with the disadvantaged but this is not blind support of the disadvantaged. For instance, European liberals reject islamic fundamentalism as much as European conservatives do.
But they don’t want to bomb and invade their countries the way conservatives do, so again, they are less tough on weaker countries than conservatives are.
What matters is what they do in their own eyes, and that has nothing to do with supporting white supremacy.
What matters is what they do in reality.
No, liberals don’t see hard work as serving the ruling class, what they fight for is that black hard-workers have equal payback to white hard-workers, and they believe that welfare, affirmative action and social programs will need to remain or being expanded as long as the effort-return gap remains.
Liberal believe that hard work alone is not the solution to inequality, because they believe the system is rigged to benefit the powerful
Citation needed.
“So once again we see that conservatism is about siding with the powerful over the underdogs.”
Conservatism is about adhering with a traditional order. Every tradition creates unequalities and ascribes different people to different ranks. Ideology is not simply about siding with one group of people, when a Muslim woman adheres to male domination, she’s not siding with men, she’s siding with god.
“But they don’t want to bomb and invade their countries the way conservatives do, so again, they are less tough on weaker countries than conservatives are.”
You don’t even know how wrong you are, the current French Left-wing government has launched two wars against terrorism and is a fervent supporter of Israel. Jacques Chirac’s right-wing government didn’t want to follow the US in the invasion of Irak and campaigned for the recognition of Palestine. After the attacks in Paris and Brussels, liberals were the most active in condemning terrorism and deffending freedom of speech, freedom of thought and secularism. The far-right Front-National always opposes military interventions and have a “what goes around comes back around” attitude when it comes to commenting on terrorist attacks.
“What matters is what they do in reality.”
What they do is denouncing prejudice and advocating for the recognition of their efforts and their human worth.
“Liberal believe that hard work alone is not the solution to inequality, because they believe the system is rigged to benefit the powerful”
Of course hard work alone is not the solution, since society is not ready to equally appreciate everyone’s hard work.
“Citation needed.”
Are you denying the reality of the holocaust ?
You don’t even know how wrong you are, the current French Left-wing government has launched two wars against terrorism and is a fervent supporter of Israel. Jacques Chirac’s right-wing government didn’t want to follow the US in the invasion of Irak and campaigned for the recognition of Palestine. After the attacks in Paris and Brussels, liberals were the most active in condemning terrorism and deffending freedom of speech, freedom of thought and secularism. The far-right Front-National always opposes military interventions and have a “what goes around comes back around” attitude when it comes to commenting on terrorist attacks.
You got me there. I ignorantly assumed the politics was like in North America where the conservative party is more hawkish and pro-Israel than the liberal party. But correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the French conservative party have a reputation for being antisemitic and more of the Jewish community there supports the liberal party? Could that help explain the strange role reversal on the issue of Islamic terrorism and Israel?
Of course in North America Jews tend to be more liberal too, but there are also extremely strong Jewish voices in the conservative party. Don’t know the dynamics in France.
redacted
redacted
RaceRealist, I had to redact your last two comments. Too mean-spirited. I don’t mind insults directed against me but please be respectful of other commenters.
“But correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the French conservative party have a reputation for being antisemitic and more of the Jewish community there supports the liberal party?”
No, the only anti-semitic party is the Front National. Conservative “Les Républicains” have many Jews among them (Nicolas Sarkozy had some Jewish heritage), in the same proportion as in the Parti Socialiste.
There are no ethnic statistics in France so I can’t have official data on the political leanings of the Jews. It is also important to mention that the majority of French Jews are Sephardim from North Africa who are succesful as small shop keepers and skilled or semi-skilled professionals but who are not associated with big business as Ashkenazim are.
The media often reports a growing anti muslim immigration sentiment among the Jews in fear of Islamic anti-semitism. That leads to greater affinity with the moderate right wing. On the other hand, a large part of the Jews supports the liberal equalitarian, universalist and secularist ideologies that have long been typical in the French Ashkenazi community.
I would say that 2015 French jews are about 60% conservative, 40% liberal though their very heart might rather lean towards liberalism.
“Could that help explain the strange role reversal on the issue of Islamic terrorism and Israel?”
There is no “strange role reversal”, North America is not the standard of human behaviors. The Jews have a longer history in France than anywhere in the Anglosphere. Israel itself was founded with the socialist ideal of the Kibutz and Zionism started as a left wing movement.
There is no “strange role reversal”, North America is not the standard of human behaviors. The Jews have a longer history in France than anywhere in the Anglosphere. Israel itself was founded with the socialist ideal of the Kibutz and Zionism started as a left wing movement.
So because of the horror of the holocaust, it sounds like Jews are still viewed as underdogs in much of Europe. So in Europe, supporting Israel would be a liberal value, consistent with my definition above.
“So because of the horror of the holocaust, it sounds like Jews are still viewed as underdogs in much of Europe. So in Europe, supporting Israel would be a liberal value, consistent with my definition above.”
1- Most people don’t give a damn of Jews and Israel.
2- Most people don’t understand the Israeli-Arab conflict and just think “there’s always war there
3- French culture is very equalitarian, even conservatives have claims of anti-elitism
4- Those who understand the Israeli-Arab conflic and are moderate think that both Jews and Arabs have rights on these lands and that extremists of both sides make lasting peace impossible
5- Supporting Israel is seen as submission to America, the French traditional position is that the 1948 resolution has to be respected, that Israel has a right of secured existence but has no right of expansion.
6- Most people are horrified by Israel’s brutal campaigns against Palestinian terrorism.
Bottom line, the reality and the diversity of opinions is too complex to fit in your simplistic paradigm.
Apologies, PumpkinPerson, won’t happen again.
Yep, I’m not sure where Pumpkin got the idea that all conservatives worship Jews. That’s mostly just a Anglo-prole-sphere thing. In most other places, it’s the exact opposite.
Also, I think Pumpkin’s explanation of autism vs. schizophrenia as it relates to ideology/belief system is vastly oversimplified. There’s a lot of paranoid, anti-vaxxer types in the HBD-sphere, as was demonstrated on one of Jayman’s latest posts over at Ron Unz. In fact, I’d expect the HBD-sphere to attract a certain number of paranoid, contrarian types.
Overwhelming autistic people in wrong planet declare as liberals or other similar variant.
Pumpkin is forgeting the fact that mental excesses overlap one each other more times than he is thinking.
Autistics tend to have a higher verbal iq and with a ”cold” personality make them look more rational than they on average seems to be. In other words they have a verbosen and very well structured narrative and many times this trait will correlates with rational attitudes and many other times will not.
i’m trying to look for avrg autistic as with potential to be a real open-minded but its naivety make them look a typical liberal who are not autistic.
Yep, most of the people on Less Wrong (who also tend to be above average on the autism spectrum) identify as liberal.
Autistics are a population within other population, or subpopulation. Of course there are a diversity of prefferences that reflect this hierarchical reality, but what seems they tend to be overwhelming left-leaning.
neuropolitics showed that liberals have much more right-hemispher activation than conservatives, who have more left-hemispher activation, and moderates in the center.
This suggest for us very obviously that they tend to have more symmetrical brains than conservatives. Look also that neuro-traditional women also tend to have more symmetric brains than men and more inter-hemispher communications than men who tend to have intra-hemispher communications (more objective, goal-leaning, *seems*).
Women are more intuitive-leaning and men are more logical-leaning. To be more intuitive mean more prone to commit logical mistakes, specially when you no have a healthy and prodigious balanced brain, while the otherwise is to commit intuitive mistakes.
Interestingly, liberals report less confidence with their guts-instinct while conservatives report more. Liberals, seems, have more confidence exactly in their weakness, logical/sequential thinking while conservatives have more confidence in their intuitive approach, the same daltonic predominant and mental response, but less wrong.
Yep, I’m not sure where Pumpkin got the idea that all conservatives worship Jews. That’s mostly just a Anglo-prole-sphere thing. In most other places, it’s the exact opposite.
Which might show the validity of my definition of conservatism. In many times and places, Jews were an oppressed group so philosemitism was a liberal value. In 21st modern America, and the Anglo-sphere in general, Jews are a strong group so philosemetism is a conservative value. And so the Democrats are less pro-Israel than the Republicans, and the far left (Louis Farrakhan, Occupy Wallstreet, and anti-war movements) tends to have a lot of antisemitism
Also, I think Pumpkin’s explanation of autism vs. schizophrenia as it relates to ideology/belief system is vastly oversimplified. There’s a lot of paranoid, anti-vaxxer types in the HBD-sphere, as was demonstrated on one of Jayman’s latest posts over at Ron Unz. In fact, I’d expect the HBD-sphere to attract a certain number of paranoid, contrarian types.
But the HBD bloggers themselves tend to be very pro-vaccine. .Their comment sections have anti-vaxxers but their comment sections also have anti-HBDers and they’re often the same people.
Maybe there’s no connection, I’ve just noticed that a lot of anti-HBDers tend to be very cynical about the motives of scientists. For example I had a professor who said Rushton only put East Asians at the top of his hierarchy to make it look more objective, but his real goal was to put blacks below whites. Other anti-HBDers are constantly claiming HBD is funded by so-called racist interests (i.e. The Pioneer Fund) in much the same way anti-vaxxers believe pro-vaccine research is funded by corporate interests (i,e. Big Pharma).
What (jewish) media say about joos, you just repeat…
the real story behind this ”official narrative” is bit more ”anti semitic” but reveal the eternal weakness of white european populations.
A civilization which was created by people pillage and still collecting skulls can’t work rationally for very short or very long time.
A better example of anti-science among HBDers would be how adamant they are that anthropogenic climate change doesn’t exist, even though the overwhelming consensus in the science community is that it does. In fact, I think Anatoly Karlin is the only major HBD blogger who’s come out definitively in favor of AGW, although a few others are somewhat sympathetic to the idea.
There’s definitely a strand of paranoid, purposely contrarian thinking among certain segments of the HBD community, that sometimes results in anti-scientific thinking.
“For example I had a professor who said Rushton only put East Asians at the top of his hierarchy to make it look more objective, but his real goal was to put blacks below whites.”
Indeed, and although HBD accept the higher scores of East Asians and Jews, they label them with various degrading epithets (effeminate, geeky, greedy, submissive, manipulators…) that just make look whites as the perfect balance of intelligence, morality and masculinity.
Indeed, and although HBD accept the higher scores of East Asians and Jews, they label them with various degrading epithets (effeminate, geeky, greedy, submissive, manipulators…) that just make look whites as the perfect balance of intelligence, morality and masculinity.
There are many white nationalist HBDers who have a problem with Jews, but there are also so many philosemitic and Jewish HBDers that criticism of Jews is very taboo on some HBD blogs.
There are also Asian supremacist HBDers
There’s definitely a strand of paranoid, purposely contrarian thinking among certain segments of the HBD community, that sometimes results in anti-scientific thinking.
Perhaps HBDers are too diverse a community to be explained by my simple theory. Perhaps we need to subdivide HBDers into different types.
“There are many white nationalist HBDers who have a problem with Jews, but there are also so many philosemitic and Jewish HBDers that criticism of Jews is very taboo on some HBD blogs.
There are also Asian supremacist HBDers”
Anyway, the ideas that the Jews have a vicious type of intelligence and that East Asians have un unperfect type of intelligence while whites have virtuous winner type of intelligence are dominant parts of the HBD discourse.
The pretended flaws of Jewish intelligence are used to support the myth that the Jews control the world and represent a threat to the white race.
The pretended flaws of Asian intelligence are used to explain why East Asia is lagging behind in terms of historical achievements and on various measures of modern development.
Their might be some Jews and Asians in among HBDers or those ready to believe in HBD but they represent a much smaller share of their respective populations than white HBDers. Moreover, HBD is far away from mainstream Jewish and East Asian conceptions of humanity and society. East Asian cultures for instance do not believe in innate abilities at all, they put emphasis on hard-work and self improvment as the sole keys to succes.
”There are many white nationalist HBDers who have a problem with Jews, but there are also so many philosemitic and Jewish HBDers that criticism of Jews is very taboo on some HBD blogs.
There are also Asian supremacist HBDers”
Rightists need humilliate themselves to explain why they think like that or that way.
I’m not a ”hbd’ers”, i’m not close nor distant friend of any hbd-bloggers because i don’t know none (nothing about) them and hbd’ers just appropriates the very known knowledge about racial differences, psychology and anthropology. The quasi-same way leftists appropriates convenient part of moral/objective morality to provide a certain credibility in their satanic-idiotic cult to deceive intellectually lazy people.
No exist a ”hbd knowledge”, just those that they are producing now or improving via old sources, the rest is a very old.
I don’t know personally any jewish person but just a lazy person to justify this as ”so i can’t say nothing about them”.
we have a constellation of confortable materialistic life, abstractions and fantasies to become addicted and tolerant with absurdities derived from lies of all natures.
gifted people, i mean, real ones, are not just quick to identify very obvious patterns but also to internalize them as obviously obvious or real.
everyone seems have basic capacity to know that there are visually notable differences among human populations. Is so obvious like observe differences among rock types.
But the capacity of human being to deny reality is absolutely impressive.
People who need a science to explain everything, include truisms, are stupid.
The pretended flaws of Jewish intelligence are used to support the myth that the Jews control the world and represent a threat to the white race.
And that’s actually a liberal philosophy. The notion that more powerful races are responsible for the problems of less powerful races. So whites who blame Jews for their problems are actually liberals (even though they are labeled conservative) in the same way that blacks who blames whites for their problems are liberal. By contrast conservatives blame the less powerful races for their own problems which is what most HBDers do in most cases (though some make exception for their own kind).
“And that’s actually a liberal philosophy. The notion that more powerful races are responsible for the problems of less powerful races.”
That’s why HBDers are not mere conservatives, they are bigot conservatives. Or simply racists, to put things frankly.
Invoking the word ‘racism’, really bro? If I’m not mistaken, you’re a Negro, correct? I would classify myself as an ‘ethnocentrist’, which you would call a ‘racist’. I like to be around people who look like myself and hold my values. Oy vey, so racist!!!
Do you know the definition of the word ‘bigot’? Define it for me please. Because I more than understand what I strongly hate about others.
“If I’m not mistaken, you’re a Negro, correct?”
No, I’m a French person of full African-Caribbean ancestry.
Given the fact that almost all Ashkenazi Jews and many East Asians live in White majority countries, where they’ve become successful by capitalizing (or parasitizing negatively speaking) on much of the resources/institutions originally founded by Whites, it would make sense that these 2 groups are viewed negatively by them.
The imperfect intelligence and innate abilities of these 2 groups are proven 1) Jews cannot build great societies, and 2) East Asia is far behind the West in technological achievements, civic engagement and social progress.
“1) Jews cannot build great societies,”
-Israel is not so bad, better than Greece or Portugal
-The west would probably not have been so great without the Jews
“2) East Asia is far behind the West in technological achievements, civic engagement and social progress.”
nothing proves that the historical trajectory of East Asia has anything to do with the biology of its population.
Afrosapiens:
Which, his Trump series?
Pumpkin, can you edit, thank you.
Fixed
Thank you sir.
The tragedy of leftism is that ”he” is very superior than conservatism BUT lack completely in the most important, in their basis, in their contact with natural/biological world.
and leftism, the Graco brothers social justice legacy, is quickly regressing to a stupid cult.
http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/08/white-feminist-with-dreadlocks/
No it doesn’t.
http://wmbriggs.com/post/5118/
Some of the studies might be flawed, but conservative elites tend to have less impressive educational backgrounds than liberal elites, and education is a good proxy for IQ differences at the group level:
Also, a lot of the greatest minds in history were liberal if I’m not mistaken
Darwin?? Nietzsche?? Aristotle?? Newton??? Tesla??
Liberal at American jargon mean “left-communist-leaning”. I really don’t think virtually all great men of genius were liberals based on modern terms.
Real liberal or conservative believer are hard to be a genius.
Stalin was socialist???
“yea”, the same way that Fidel Castro is.
But both aren’t virtuous geniuses or wiser.
Darwin was definitely liberal as I define it (siding with the underdogs). He opposed the church which was a dominant power of his time and he opposed slavery.
But in my opinion he definitely believed in HBD (though liberals try to whitewash that fact)
Guys like Craig Venter pretend to be liberal anti racists because they don’t want to go the way of Watson.
Also, using education as a proxy for group differences between libs and cons is skewed by the fact that universities are ludicrously liberal environments.
coontownuniversity-
because liberals are smarter and can give their own jobs…..
are you not seeing the theme here? THat’s a very unconservative point of view, not taking responsbility for one’s failures, or rather those of other conservatives.
Yes, it is, by definition.
I didn’t see that link was even a formal study, so I don’t see how the author is bashing other formal studies, his diagram referencing another study was about the best he had, which from what I understood just weakened the other study’s point on conservatism (although bashed it on racism), so no…………
Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
by the way, I am going to be a registered Republican soon.
No offense intended, I am an Ideological-IQ median differences realist 🙂
Well my IQ is nothing special (108) but I’m a registered libertarian. I have to change that to Republican. Though I really don’t care for voting. I vote locally. Anything above that doesn’t matter
racerealist- I like most of your posts, but come on.
The intellectual differences between strong conservatives and strong liberals is even more glaring than the differences between whites and blacks. It’s true.
Well, the analysis of that particular study is very good. I’m inclined to believe it. I saw the cite that Pumpkin posted but haven’t read it yet. Do you have any cites?
I have cognitive dissonance on this subject, I’m sure the study is fairly accurate, although pumpkinperson is correct, initial indicators (the far ends of the bell curve) indicate an intellectual dissonance.
Because, well, I’m from West Virginia… 🙂
intellectual difference in intellectual difference, rather.
*dissonance* ah….
I live among black, mestizos, some east asians and whites and i see greater difference between average black and average white, is lower than among extreme conservatives and extreme leftists but still higher. So, this argumentation no make long term sense or sustainability.
And there are a lot of very poor and very uneducated blacks here, ”uneducated” is a euphemism for arrogant, anti social, extravagant ”happiness”, people who don’t see limits and no have filter to be polite in any way, no limits for respect about others.
racerealist- the guy who wrote that post is the Stephen Jay Gould of ideological intellectual differences. Seriously.
You’re comparing me to Gould!? I’m highly offended. The link provided goes into good detail on the matter.
Whoops, apologies, I thought you were calling me Gould, not Briggs.
I have cognitive dissonance on this subject, I’m sure the study is fairly accurate, although pumpkinperson is correct, initial indicators (the far ends of the bell curve) indicate an intellectual dissonance.
Because, well, I’m from West Virginia…:)
(intellectual difference in intellectual difference, rather.)
He doesn’t seem biased, and his personal opinions shouldn’t matter, anyway, it’s just the study was decent, but not quite something that should set ones opinions in stone…but yes it has made me realize I do have cognitive dissonance on this subject.
One sort of “science” you should be very suspicious of is science that purports to offer a psychological typology of people according to whether they identify as “conservative”, liberal”, etc. Most work in that area is marred by deliberate or unconscious bias. Some of it is outright fraudulent.
Most work in that area is marred by deliberate or unconscious bias. Some of it is outright fraudulent.
I wouldn’t be surprised.
I have a couple of studies here that might be devasting for your theory.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/841710
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2664646/
http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v69/n5-2/full/pr9201190a.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/251890.php
http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1206780
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1005605528309
“Weiser and his team examined extensive databases in Israel and Sweden and found that people with a schizophrenic sibling are 12 times more likely to have autism than those without schizophrenia in the family.”
Though the investigation is still going on, it is highly suspected that schizophrenia and autism walk hand in hand, that they are caused by the same genes and that the risk of developing schizophrenia is higher in autists whereas a family history of schizophrenia increases the risk of autism.
I’m well aware of that. I oversimplified my theory a bit for this post, but my actual theory,is that schizophrenia and autism is the same disability (executive dysfunction?) expressed by people at opposite ends of a neurological continuum.
But it’s the shared disability that causes the genetic similarity.
Very speculative theory I admit.
You said not so long ago that autism and schizophrenia were the opposite ends of a genetic spectrum. That schizophrenia indicated low-IQ genetics whereas autism was linked to high-IQ genetics. You said their were some races/classes that had schizophrenic genetics whereas others had autistic genetics. Evidence however make researchers believe that the two disorders share the same genetic basis.
What I proposed was that people from tropical or lower class backgrounds were at risk for schizophrenia if they had executive dysfunction, and that people from cold climate and higher class backgrounds were at risk for autism if they had executive dysfunction. So I argued both conditions share a genetic link: executive dysfunction.
But the truth is that no specialist even considers autism and schizophrenia to be opposite conditions. People can be both autistic and schizophrenic whereas families with cases of schizophrenia are at higher risk of having autism. So you may call autism “temperate climate executive dysfunction” and schizophrenia “tropical climate executive dysfunction” but how do you call a schizophrenic autist ?
Furthermore, autism and schizophrenia are quite different in their development. Autism appears from childhood and seems to have a larger genetic component in it, mental retardation is higher among autists, recovery is almost impossible and the condition is much more debilitating, often leading to the inability to sustain an independant living. Schizophrenia on the other hand appears to be much more environementally influenced, some recovery and symptom management are possible and it rather appears in adulthood.
But the truth is that no specialist even considers autism and schizophrenia to be opposite conditions
Actually some do:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18226-autism-and-schizophrenia-could-be-genetic-opposites/
That’s what inspired my speculative theory in the first place.
A useful analogy might be fat people and muscular people have the same trait (high weight), but are at opposite ends of the exercise continuum.
No, fat and lean people are at the opposite ends of a fat-burning metabolism continuum.
No, fat and lean people are at the opposite ends of a fat-burning metabolism continuum.
I didn’t say fat-burning metabolism continuum, I said exercise continuum. And you know that.
“I didn’t say fat-burning metabolism continuum, I said exercise continuum. And you know that.”
I know what you wrote and I corrected you. Fat-burning metabolism is more relevant since people with the same level of physical activity and diet have different responses in terms of fat burning and muscle building.
I know what you wrote and I corrected you. Fat-burning metabolism is more relevant since people with the same level of physical activity and diet have different responses in terms of fat burning and muscle building.
My only point is that you can have two conditions that are opposites on one variable, but identical on another.
“A useful analogy might be fat people and muscular people have the same trait (high weight), but are at opposite ends of the exercise continuum.”
A fat person can go to the gym without dropping weight, and build muscle in the process. Just because one is fat doesn’t mean they don’t exercise. Exercise doesn’t induce weight loss.
*sigh* another oversimplification from another over enthusiastic HBD blogger
Afro’s rolling out the Gish Gallop.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
Or at least the online version of it.
Yes I see that tedious technique all the time. Glad to see it has a name so we can call out and expose these Gish Gallopers. I don’t think that techniques is especially persuasive. Much better to have nice, simple, brief, clear arguments, but that’s hard to do when you’re wrong. 🙂
🙂
“Glad to see it has a name so we can call out and expose these Gish Gallopers.”
I used to call that argumentary flooding. This is HBD’s speciality, listing tons of speculative, distorted and sometimes contradictory pseudo-evidences so that the reader finds himself overwhelmed by the argumentary. I told you on one recent conversation that it didn’t work on me. You’ll never leave me speachless, for your position is wrong from the core.
By the way, here is what the source thinks of HBD:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism
I love when I get Gish Gallop. Especially if it’s really long, because if someone is using that technique on you, they more than likely have no idea what they’re talking about, so when you rail them with the knowledge, they most likely will not respond, or give a half-assed response.
I also love really long and drawn out discussions. My forte.
Also, Afrosapiens,
>citing rationalwiki
Hilarious! Hey why don’t you get the article on hbd chick next!!
The funny thing is that whereas HBDers list tons of pseudo-evidence, the refutal of HBD can be summarized in one sentence:
There is no evidence nor realistic reason for natural selection to have resulted in the emergence of continental behavioral/intellectual phenotypes.
“>citing rationalwiki”
Well, this is where Stetind found the definition of Gish Gallop. I’m simply using his own source to provide a definition of HBD.
Afro:
I’m not an HBDer. And I’m not particularly fond of RationalWiki, which is run by self-righteous, Fedora-sporting secular saints. *Tipping intensifies*
But I am fond of Pumpkin, so your pummeling him with too-subtle arguments, red herrings, nit-picks, and word games causes me to gag.
There’s teh truth.
There is no evidence nor realistic reason for natural selection to have resulted in the emergence of continental behavioral/intellectual phenotypes.
Sure there is. Continents differ in average climate. Different climates require different behaviors.
“Sure there is. Continents differ in average climate. Different climates require different behaviors.”
Then how does your behavior changes between summer and winter ? And how does it threaten your life to have season-inappropriate behavior ? Who actually ever died of climate-inappropriate personality ?
“But I am fond of Pumpkin, so your pummeling him with too-subtle arguments, red herrings, nit-picks, and word games causes me to gag.”
Man, I’m a lawyer, I know more than everyone here that words have precise meanings and meanings have implications. If you call it dishonesty, you’d better check your verbal IQ.
Then how does your behavior changes between summer and winter ? And how does it threaten your life to have season-inappropriate behavior ? Who actually ever died of climate-inappropriate personality ?
These are incredibly silly questions. You don’t think people died from season inappropriate behaviors tens of thousands of years ago? Seriously?
Man, I’m a lawyer, I know more than everyone here that words have precise meanings and meanings have implications.
Then you have no excuse to say such silly things.
Afro said:
“Man, I’m a lawyer, I know more than everyone here that words have precise meanings and meanings have implications. If you call it dishonesty, you’d better check your verbal IQ.”
I’m not saying you’re lying. I just think you’re being tendentious.
Look at the above excerpt, for example. It features an ad hominem attack, even though you must be familiar with such a rhetorical trick.
Anyway, I’m not gonna start a pissing contest. I never attempted to belittle either your intellect or your professional accomplishments. Good day.
Even in the 21st century, roughly 100,000 people freeze to death every year in just one country.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513719/Number-deaths-linked-freezing-winter-increases-30-31-000-temperatures-fell-record-lows.html
“These are incredibly silly questions. You don’t think people died from season inappropriate behaviors tens of thousands of years ago? Seriously?”
Yes, I’m 100% sure that if a contemporary African hunter-gather community on a depopulated earth with pre-historic fauna decided to migrate on foot to Sweden within a lifetime, they would reach their destination without increased mortality.
It doesn’t even have to be increased mortality to get a selection effect. Just differently behaved people surviving than those who would have survived in Africa.
How can behavioral changes be genetically embeded if they are not caused by differentials in survival and reproductive success ?
“Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype.[1] It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in heritable traits of a population over time.[2] Charles Darwin popularised the term “natural selection”; he compared it with artificial selection (selective breeding).”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
As for your 30,000 British dying from cold in 2013. You need to recognize that their “cold-adapted genetics” were of little help for them.
But don’t worry, far more people die each year from dehydratation.
How can behavioral changes be genetically embeded if they are not caused by differentials in survival and reproductive success ?
You misunderstood. I said the mortality rate doesn’t even need to increase for there to be differential selection, it simply needs to affect different people. If people with behavior X died from dehydration in Africa but people with behavior Y died from freezing outside Africa, then there’d be selection for different behaviors.
To argue that traveling from the burning heat to the freezing cold is not going to select for different behaviors is silly.
“You misunderstood. I said the mortality rate doesn’t even need to increase for there to be differential selection, it simply needs to affect different people. If people with behavior X died from dehydration in Africa but people with behavior Y died from freezing outside Africa, then there’d be selection for different behaviors.”
That can only work if the behavior that makes people able to put some mammoth fur on their back is significantly different from the behavior that makes people able to find in keep water in the desert/dry savanna. Moreover, the behavioral variation among pre-modern populations is low, the group prevails over the individual. Efforts are collectively performed and rewards are collectively shared.
What makes humans human is their ability to adapt to new situations without losing in survival chances and reproductive power. That’s how African homospiens overwhelmed Eurasian Neanderthal, he was not physically adapted, but he was smarter.
But why don’t you tell me what type of behavior is deadly in cold climates (besides of going naked) and what type of behavior is deadly in warm climates ?
I can’t believe that you’re implying that humans can’t change their behavior if their survival is at stake.
We’re never going to agree on the specific behaviors, and I don’t know enough about prehistoric Africa to know all the behaviors that were required, I just know they would have had to have been different than Northern Europe. Any two places that selected for such radical physical differences would have also had to select for behavioral differences, though admittedly to a lesser degree because cultural evolution began replacing biological evolution once we developed language.
But we should at least be able to agree that radically different environments select for different behaviors.
We even see racial differences in infant behavior. Do you honestly believe all those are caused by environment?
Do you honestly believe that not a single genetic behavior differs on average between any two races or ethnic groups on Earth?
Of course they’d have had to be different than Northern Europe. Due to the climate, more cooperation, and therefore, more altruism had to evolve in order to proliferate the genes. Conversely, Africans didn’t have the climate of Europe and due to this, with readily available food, they then evolved a lack of ability to delay gratification, which is seen today. See this Mischel study:
In one study done in the 60s on East Indians and Negroes on the island of Trinidad, a major personality difference was expressed between the 2 groups. Many people said that the difference was that negroes are impulsive and would settle for next to nothing if they could get it right away, as well as not working or preferring to work and they preferred to accept smaller things immediately. But the Indians were able to deprive themselves and able to postpone immediate gain for a bigger gain in the future. The black took the smaller reward if they could get it right away whereas the Indian waited if they could get a bigger reward in the future.
They also say at the end of the paper that this has implications not only for the 2 ethnicities in the study but for further research for studies on relationships between personality variables and this type of behavior in our own culture.
On top of those testosterone differences, African men who stay and raise children have, on average, lower testosterone. This was noted in the West, but non-Western samples gave differing numbers. The study was conducted in two East African populations from Tanzania, Hadza foragers, and Datoga pastoralists. They predicted that high levels of paternal care by the Hadza fathers would be associated with lower testosterone and that no difference would be found in non-fathers and fathers of Datoga men, who provide direct paternal care. The measurements in both populations confirmed the hypothesis, as well as adding further support that decreased testosterone leads to more paternal care.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1655/347
We know that there are differing levels of testosterone between groups. Higher testosterone was needed in Africa.
Basically, ability to delay gratification has a genetic component (re Marshmallow Experiment), but Mischel said that not having a father around may be a cause as well. The citation showing the Hadza fathers and Datoga fathers shows how differing levels of testosterone affect if a father stays around. Due to higher average testosterone, they leave their kids. Leaving their kids, as Mischel says, may be a reason they lack the ability to delay gratification.
These are evolutionary behaviors. Evolved due to the climate in Africa in comparison to that of Northern Europe and Siberia.
“Any two places that selected for such radical physical differences would have also had to select for behavioral differences, though admittedly to a lesser degree because cultural evolution began replacing biological evolution once we developed language.”
Language evolved in Africa, so cultural evolution started there.
“But we should at least be able to agree that radically different environments select for different behaviors.”
No way.
“We even see racial differences in infant behavior. Do you honestly believe all those are caused by environment?”
You see them, I don’t. If they exist, their genetic and evolutionary basis has to be proved. We must agree to disagree on it.
“Do you honestly believe that not a single genetic behavior differs on average between any two races or ethnic groups on Earth?”
Yes, see the Islam, it created greater lifestyle similarity between Albanians, Persians, Malians, Indonesians and some Han Chinese minorities than between each group and Non-Muslims of their respective “race”.
Why is race in quotations? Are you denying the biological reality of race?
“Biological reality of race” lmao race Is a semantics game. Race is supposed to mean subspecies, which there are no subspecies of humans. This why it has been cut, dryed, wrinkled and pasted on Continental averages. Without averages race has no real meaning that is why I believe it’s more useful to use ethnic groups. On another note, the cold winter theory is right and wrong in its own way. The tropics selects intelligence through sexual selection while the cold uses natural selecton. More cognitively blessed individuals were producing more than the dumber ones but the dumb werent dying off much in Africa meaning their encephalization was caused more by sexual selection while in Europe the smarter ones survived while the less genetically gifted would simply die, meaning natural selection was the root cause. If this is true blacks should have a higher variation in intelligence then whites but I don’t think this is the case. Don’t Africans have a SD of 10 or 12? This could just be because of limited data or maybe whites just have more phenotypic variation?
Biological reality of race” lmao race Is a semantics game. Race is supposed to mean subspecies, which there are no subspecies of humans.
Based on what?
On another note, the cold winter theory is right and wrong in its own way. The tropics selects intelligence through sexual selection while the cold uses natural selecton. More cognitively blessed individuals were producing more than the dumber ones but the dumb werent dying off much in Africa meaning their encephalization was caused more by sexual selection while in Europe the smarter ones survived while the less genetically gifted would simply die, meaning natural selection was the root cause.
I’ve previously argued that Africa selected for social IQ and rhythm IQ via sexual selection while Northern climates selected for technological IQ via natural selection. But because technological IQ is much more useful in more environments, it is my humble opinion that colder climates selected for more overall IQ
How is it “semantics”. You’re talking about what we call them? It doesn’t matter; that doesn’t change the biological reality of races. We can call them whatever we’d like, there would remain genetic differences.
Where Do We Come From?: The Molecular Evidence for Human Descent By Jan Klein, Naoyuki Takahata pg 389 and 390:
It’s clear that racial classification does exist. The creator of Fst, Sewall Wright, says that a Fst distance of .15 is more than enough for speciation (differing racial classifications). It directly refutes Lewontin, who put his political ideology of Marxism over science. Those cichlids in Lake Victoria are a perfect example though the definition of ‘species’ does change depending on which researcher you speak to, it doesn’t discount that there are real and physical genetic differences between races and ethnicities.
Sure, tell that to the mixed-race child who has to search much harder to find a proper match for bone marrow.
I forgot about sexual selection; that’s how IQ developed in Africa. Women had the selection power due to gathering food, which is still seen in Africa today. The African men were then selected for attractiveness. The opposite was seen in Eurasia, where men were selected for intelligence due to being the food providers whereas women were selected for beauty. But my point with bringing up the Cold Winter Hypothesis was that’s what the racial differences come down to; differing climates over tens of thousands of years of genetic separation.
Different types of rocks, mountains or plants don’t exist, period.
EVERY animal, plant, living being and non-being that we see, can be classified differently if they have different trait-combination.
Races within a specie is like planets within a solar system. We have the common biology that make all human races fundamentally human (sun) at first and the different path-life of them that make them exponentially specialized and different one each other (planets).
yes, when people deny the existence of existence (differences, contrasts), they are playing a semantic game and as ALWAYS happen with on the left, accusing others to do what they are doing.
dirty and very old fashioned game.
”Imagine all the people”’
Leftism is a neo-religion, a evolution of ignorance, because now the religion is using modern science, real philosophy and technology (television, new medias) to create a atmosphere (fear) of scientific validation.
UN declare ”human race don’t exist” to the new period of globalization.
They must need use corrupted ”scientists” to prove it for the masses and academic masses.
So immigration throughout the world, specially in first world countries, caucasians are dangerous because they are indeed the most evolved of all human races. The first danger need to be implicitly eliminated.
But ”we” need say for them that they are not more evolved or smarter.
weaken the psychological.
Read= caucasians (ashkenazi and white european and american elites) are eliminating ”their own” people because they want reign absolute and with all elites around the world.
But some country in Caribe tell me that this plan have a historical of mistakes.
Now with older and weak Europe, the second period of globalization is begining.
the christianism is not dying, this shit is changing their skin as a good snake.
christianism evolved eugenically and start to eliminate their fairy tale with other, but much more sofisticated.
Leftism give a shit for science of truth, this is a political strategy to have total power.
Just try deny the existence of Jesus Christ for some devote christian, he will try to manipulate you semantically. I already try.
“How is it “semantics”. You’re talking about what we call them? It doesn’t matter; that doesn’t change the biological reality of races. We can call them whatever we’d like, there would remain genetic differences.”
That’s exactly my point, you’re just agreeing with me. The other point that I was making was that I feel race is a little too broad, but that doesn’t mean you can’t use it. You should calm down with the quote spamming and next time you read a post from me you should take your time and not rush your brain.
“Sure, tell that to the mixed-race child who has to search much harder to find a proper match for bone marrow.”
That was a sneaky little misquote you did there. I never said race was meaningless.
“Based on what?”
….On the tiny amount of genetic variation between the human species, what else?????
“I’ve previously argued that Africa selected for social IQ and rhythm IQ via sexual selection while Northern climates selected for technological IQ via natural selection. But because technological IQ is much more useful in more environments, it is my humble opinion that colder climates selected for more overall IQ”
The idea of a rhythm IQ seems…retarded to say the least. If by “social IQ and rhythm IQ” and “technological IQ” you mean verbal and spatial then yes I agree, please inform me if I’m mistaken.
Yes, see the Islam, it created greater lifestyle similarity between Albanians, Persians, Malians, Indonesians and some Han Chinese minorities than between each group and Non-Muslims of their respective “race”.
And it’s entirely possible that there could be genetic behavioral differences between Muslims and non-Muslims, of the same race.
That’s probably less likely than racial differences given the latter have had more time and genetic isolation to emerge, but it’s plausible nonetheless.
Anyways, in about ten years they’ll have discovered many of the genes for IQ, and they may find that races don’t differ in them. I think that’s unlikely, but stranger things have happened.
I’d be more than happy to be proven wrong about race & IQ. In fact it would be nice to have the racial controversy removed from the field of psychometrics.
How plausible do you think that is? I have some cites showing how blacks and whites differ in some genes that affect IQ. I’ll link this afternoon.
I highly, highly doubt that there are no race differences in intelligence. It makes no logical sense to believe all races have the same capacity for intellectualism.
How plausible do you think that is?
I’d say maybe there’s 10% chance that there are no significant genetic IQ differences between blacks and whites.
I have some cites showing how blacks and whites differ in some genes that affect IQ. I’ll link this afternoon.
As far as I know, very few genes that affect IQ have been consistently discovered. They’re found in one study but they turn out to be false positives. Because there are so many genes, it’s easy to find a correlation by chance, but they almost never get replicated in other studies.
I highly, highly doubt that there are no race differences in intelligence. It makes no logical sense to believe all races have the same capacity for intellectualism.
It makes no sense that no two races on Earth would differ, because there are so many different races (including ethnic groups), that odds are against equality occurring in every single case. Just by mere genetic drift you’d expect a difference in some cases.
But it is possible that there are virtually no genetic IQ differences between blacks and whites. Unlikely in my humble opinion, but plausible.
There are virtually no difference in height between black Americans and white Americans. So that’s an example of a complex polygenetic trait that is virtually identical between blacks and whites.
“So if you’re really conservative, you’re going to love rich and powerful groups (i.e Ashkenazi Jews) and have contempt for the poor and powerless groups (i.e. blacks)”
in my opinion having power means being able to do and actually do physical violence to others. Following this understanding blacks are clearly the most powerful group. Eurasians are only successful in surrogates, like having money.
The idea about everybody falling into a spectrum from schizophrenic to autistic is interesting. But of course it is quite a bold generalization. For example I would put myself rather on the schizophrenic than the autistic side of the blue curve, yet I am atheist, pro western medicine, pro science, pro vaccine (at least for me an my family, not sure about forcing anybody to do it who doesn´t want).
Could one also say that autistic types tend to think in terms of specific, local causal mechanisms while schizophrenic tend to think in terms of a general “sense” lying behind the material world? Which means that the autistic way of thinking is the foundation of modern science…Also I think the schizophrenic type tends to perceive everything like a social situation, which means that he ascribes an agenda and a personalty to everything whether it actually lives or not. An autistic type instead perceives everything like a non-living thing, thus he also sees humans as things.
”But it is possible that there are virtually no genetic IQ differences between blacks and whites. Unlikely in my humble opinion, but plausible.”
why*
Mugabe
I have been reading this blog for some time and you allways respond to others with how smarter you are.
Take the following IQ test designed by a French IQ expert, and then post a screenshot of your results.
http://www.cerebrals.org/jcti/index.html
No more B.S
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/01/27/scientists-open-the-black-box-of-schizophrenia-with-dramatic-genetic-finding/
The researchers, chiefly from the Broad Institute, Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, found that a person’s risk of schizophrenia is dramatically increased if they inherit variants of a gene important to “synaptic pruning” — the healthy reduction during adolescence of brain cell connections that are no longer needed.
In patients with schizophrenia, a variation in a single position in the DNA sequence marks too many synapses for removal and that pruning goes out of control. The result is an abnormal loss of gray matter.
[Schizophrenic patients have different oral bacteria than non-mentally ill individuals]
The genes involved coat the neurons with “eat-me signals,” said study co-author Beth Stevens, a neuroscientist at Children’s Hospital and Broad. “They are tagging too many synapses. And they’re gobbled up.”
Schizophrenia seems very important in the past, i mean, the genetic variants that correlates with schizo-spectrum, were important to produce human modern behavior. Faith, believe in something that anyone proved their existence, and schizophrenia traits seems particular similar.
The faith were the first human abstract thinking.
Autism spectrum seems more important now because society evolved to engage in ”scientific thinking”.
But a very positivistic society will not be completely better than a very metaphorical-fantasy society, the current human societies, but qualitatively worst in their own way.
Probably conflicts will be reduced but humans will become even colder than they usually are. Just look for technology today changing young people to the zombie-mode**
There is something that is deeply wrong about humankind, this binary thinking, be or not, 8 or 80.
interesting that it is the elimination of brain cells and activity versus too much…..
Nice and important considerations for these times. Thanks.