Interesting discussion about intelligence and aliens with Richard Dawkins and Neil Degrasse Tyson.
Tyson makes a point I used to make as a kid. Why do aliens in movies always look so humanlike? But then he makes a less valid point. If intelligence is such an inevitable consequence of evolution, why are humans the only life on Earth with advanced cognition. Dawkins provides no good answer.
The answer, in my humble opinion, is that the human mind is the most complex known object in the universe, and thus takes billions of years to evolve. Further, to reach our level of intelligence, you almost need a four legged animal with hands to become bipedal, because only then are the hands free to create and use tools. This probably also explains why intelligent life, even if evolved from dinosaurs, would look like us:
Pumpkin Person 
tyson is a just a stupid nigger.
That’s mean.
Tyson made a good argument at the beginning, and he’s just a physicist.
I hope that comment is redacted.
I was going to redact it, but then I thought no, let the World see just what kind of a monster he is, and it’s good for conservatives to see that yes, racism really does exist. Blacks are not hallucinating or merely playing the race card.
I found Videla singing with his hero; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0ZRAmz-NWM
Here’s his family reunion; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlhE3aTk7o0
you’re so utterly brainwashed.
of course the jews also know that whatever comes via mass media will be accepted by most of the gentile masses (and most of the jewish masses) as the way things are in fact…as reality…and as the opinion and the will of the herd to which the gentile viewer/auditor would belong or already assumes he belongs. that is, jews exploit the herd instinct/nationalism of gentiles…even when “the nation” is not their own.
the truth is far different from the caricature, the stereotype which only works in america-stan, a uniquely shitty, evil, and profligate country.
my politics are the mahatma’s. ARE the mahatma’s. i’m a nationalist and a socialist. i’m a national socialist. he was born into a merchant caste. not a brahmin. but not a dalit either.
i want to SMASH the “with respect mr gandhi…my dear sir india is british” bullshit. extend the metaphor retards.
so am i a “racist”…
NO!
how can i prove it?
i think that the raj was a really shitty thing…even if it was good in some ways…and i think that…
colonialism in the new world and africa were better, but…
both were super shitty.
and FDI is super shitty too.
here’s the deal retarded mofos:
global capitalism is a chimo!
imprisonment is no use, it has to be killed or castrated.
by strictest definitions, everyone on here except Afrosapiens is a racist [blacks are intellectual inferior firstly to Gentile (includes shephardic) whites], them to Mongoloids, Mongoloids to Ashkenazis. You seem to be worse, you called respected African-American scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson the N-word.
I suppose, though, if you believe Rushton, it’s just the races have different survival niches (athleticsm in blacks, brains in mongoloids, a mix in whites), but there are varying schools of thought.
”by strictest definitions, everyone on here except Afrosapiens is a racist [blacks are intellectual inferior firstly to Gentile (includes shephardic) whites], them to Mongoloids, Mongoloids to Ashkenazis. You seem to be worse, you called respected African-American scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson the N-word.”
It’s a jokkke is not*
what’s much more interesting is why there is this UFO cult, why the X Files was so popular, why alex jones and art bell can do what they do, etc.
i know why. does peepeetard?
hint: from the anti-hereditist pov the answer also explains why some people become schizo who had they lived at some earlier time would have been perfectly sane.
which reminds me. chomsky and the half jew oliver stone are both guys who have intentionally gone “insane”. that’s something isn’t it? to make yourself “crazy”.
People have a need for mystery and when there is a choice between it happened by accident or it happened on purpose, people evolved to err on the side of the latter, because erring in the opposite direction is much more deadly. Modern society forces us to supress our evolved schizophrenic tendencies and stigmatizes it as mental illness, but conspiracy theories, sci fi, and horror films provide an outlet for that part of ourselves.
And of course religion & spirituality provide an outlet for that too
“mystery” is EXACTLY what most people do NOT want.
the answer is that:
1. in the modern world almost everybody is a nobody. in the prehistoric world, almost everybody was a somebody, because people lived in groups of at most 70 people. most people would rather be VIPs than invisible.
2. the modern world is too complex for anyone to understand however smart he is, yet there is still a desire to understand it, and there are numerous competing worldviews. the prehistoric world was very very simple and there was only one worldview for each band of people.
3. SCZ results in part from the combination of stupidity and the unmet and unmeetable desires to be a VIP and to understand the world.
I now know how the internal map forms producing intelligence. It has to do with growth in the cortex. What goes in, is a stream of stimulus. And the brain grows in accordance. Connections grow in the direction of stimulus on the surface (6 layers). This is the core network of branches. Reinforcement learning is only partially true. What matters is the web (internal map). This structure is the foundation to react to input. If grow is too slow, or in the wrong direction, deeper integration forms an unresponsive network. Restructuring will not be fast enough to form a stable metabolic representations. If stabilization happens then what a person has learned is not overwritten. The base representations allows higher representation. So lower level structures must stabilize first. Reaction time then is faster. I call this the refresh rate. Higher refresh rates allows proper growth. Proper growth creates the integrated structures that work best together. Structure and energy produce (g). In my head there are structures more or less efficient. Aliens would need the same.
My IQ as SD,
VCI – (2.13)
PRI – (1.4)
WMI – (-0.33)
PSI – (-0.93)
FSIQ – (0.86)
GAI – (2.0)
Impressive VCI.
Are you Jewish?
You should be a lawyer who writes complex things or something like that.
Are you Jewish?
No
I would not find being a layer life satisfying.
My favorite Jewish person is Ray Kurzweil.
He is about the same as Bill Gates (IQ 170).
There is a master control switch in the brain that determinants the number of ideas you can think at the same time (parallelism). The control switch helps with mental simulations. It controls energy flows between lower level networks. Its influence need not be huge, it just needs to nudge the systems into a desired state. It coordinates everything.
So, in a way it’s a mix between divided attention and processing speed?
Divided attention as in the capacity to hold items in your head (Working Memory) and the capacity to rearrange them without external references (Processing Speed) are together, mental calculation.
Verbal Comprehension and Perceptual Reasoning search out patterns. At the high end, abstraction finds the simplest representation of a pattern. It then can be related / referenced to other patterns.
Verbally I can understand patterns in language.
Concepts gain new meanings even with ambiguity.
The Parietal lobe is associated with mental calculation.
I am not sure about the language centers yet,
but I am sure they work better in me than my parietal lobes.
Once you evolve a more complex structure it almost never unwinds back, so I have always treated these common platitudes that evolution has no directionality with a lot of skepticism.
I don’t think bipedalism is a necessary condition though. For instance, its easy to conceive of tentacle organisms also developing advanced intelligence Kang & Kodos-style (for instance octopuses living in a swamp environment that dries up and goes back to being wet every so often). Likewise, birds, for whom there seems to be no limit at which more intelligence becomes less useful. Come to think of it, the higher parrots and corvids might have even more highly efficient cognition than humans, considering their impressive abilities (Alex the Gray African Parrot was able to operate at the level of a human 3 year old at his peak) and necessarily tiny brain sizes.
Once you evolve a more complex structure it almost never unwinds back, so I have always treated these common platitudes that evolution has no directionality with a lot of skepticism.
I agree 100%. I even did a post about it:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/10/11/is-evolution-progressive/
I don’t think bipedalism is a necessary condition though. For instance, its easy to conceive of tentacle organisms also developing advanced intelligence Kang & Kodos-style (for instance octopuses living in a swamp environment that dries up and goes back to being wet every so often). Likewise, birds, for whom there seems to be no limit at which more intelligence becomes less useful. Come to think of it, the higher parrots and corvids might have even more highly efficient cognition than humans, considering their impressive abilities (Alex the Gray African Parrot was able to operate at the level of a human 3 year old at his peak) and necessarily tiny brain sizes.
Well humans are so much more intelligent than other animals that it’s tempting to think there’s a causal relationship between our unique minds and our unique physical structure. However that could be specious logic.
I think that if humans had developed wings for example, he would not have become so smart (although …) because your brain, more than learning the humanly cognitive functions, would also have to spend energy with their wings . The human being is the least savant-like all animals the more balanced. Almost all animals are brilliant in their own, super-specialized. It is my opinion that may be wrong of course.
The human being is the least savant-like all animals the more balanced.
I agree 100%. I’ve often thought that non-humans were like idiot savants. A bird is brilliant at building a nest and finding its way South, but profoundly retarded at almost everyone else.
Among humans, if you believe in HBD, I think the more primitive populations are more savant like. Brilliant at rhythm music, but not as good at more general abilities.
yes just look for spatial specific intelligence of native australians!!
lube job motel has let me post my own response to shoe and myers.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2016/04/pz-myers-believes-that-genetic.html?m=1
apparently lube job motel has deleted some of my comments which he had previously approved.
but “adapting” to having my comments banned or removed i save almost all of them.
so i can post them here or anywhere they’re allowed.
Post them in the comment section of my recent article on genetic engineering super smart humans. But please edit them to not be so insulting to the scientists you critique as some of them could be reading.
comments formerly seen on lube jop motel’s blog:
what motl, shoe, and gregory cockring of west hunter are too dumb to understand among other things:
1. that chickens or dogs can be bred into giants and that the heritability is additive over one generation does not mean that the path from little to giant is itself linear. that is, breeding super smart people is much more plausible than engineering them.
here is a short paper explaining the phenotype genotype surface. environment is assumed constant. http://www.faculty.biol.ttu.edu/Rice/rice08b.pdf
2. whatever set of genetic variants of small effect are found will be local to whatever environment and population they are found in. comparable h^2 figures from various parts of the world does not imply that it is the same genetic variants at work. so supposing professor shoe has the 1 m (p, g) pairs he claims to need, where will they come from? will they be representative of the population of the world as a whole or of the developed world as a whole? to date no such study has been done even by the psychology profs and psychiatrists in so called “behavior genetics”.
3. despite occasional lip service to norms of reaction it is apparent that shoe does not grasp the concept. the {(p, g, e)} function is a surface, and that surface is NOT a plane, but like all smooth surfaces it can be approximated by a plane locally. the h^2 figure shoe and psychologists are fond of using is just a coefficient for this local planar approximation to the p(g, e), namely:
p = hg + sqrt(1 – h^2)e
AND THAT’S ALL IT IS.
…
then you didn’t understand them.
4. furthermore, the fact that milk production and meat-iness can be predicted using SNPs in a linear fashion says nothing about what yet un-reached phenotype can be reached by enriching with the “+” SNPs. the linear fit is only good for the population it’s fit to.
5. and even though this linear fit has been reported to be quite good for the above two phenotypes that does not mean it predicts the freaks at the high end very well.
6. thoroughbreds have quite a small gene pool, but perhaps precisely because they have been bred for so long. perhaps if they were crossed with quarter horses, but i doubt it. millions and millions of USDs are on the line, and in 43 years the records still stand. behold a selection limit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfCMtaNiMDM
this is really becoming a THING in the hbd sphere, or i would that it wert a THING. that is, the phenomenon of SECRETARIAT.
in addition to its being the exemplar of a selection limit, secretariat’s belmont was quite dramatic in another sense.
the belmont is the 3d of the triple crown races, and no horse had won the triple crown since citation in 1948.
look up the record times mofos:
kentucky derby…secretariat 1973
preakness…secretariat 1973
belmont…secretariat 1973 (still the greatest feat in sports history)
beat big red? it can’t be done. he was the Usian Bolt, Shaquille O’Neal, and Hicham El Guerrouj of horses all rolled into one.
maybe…despite all the millions USDs spent on horses over the last 43 years…his records will be broken…but as chick anderson said at the time
…who has today run the most sensational belmont stakes in the history of this race. secretariat has accomplished the unbelievable task of breaking the mile and a half record by 2 and 3/5 s. that is a record which may stand FOREVER. the time of this race 2:24…almost unbelievable. the time of this race, i must tell you again, an almost unbelievable 2:24…
it’s amazing how tolerant i’ve become. it’s amazing even to me.
a very little more an that’ll be 10 fl oz of EtOH this evening, and i’m not dizzy or sick…but i may be tomorrow.
maybe i should switch to mj. not nearly as bad for the IQ. or so i’ve read and heard.
but good news. i got my blood tests back, and no liver damage. none…yet.
what motl, shoe, and gregory cockring of west hunter are too dumb to understand among other things:
Maybe they understand just fine, but just don’t think your criticisms apply to a significant degree.
1. that chickens or dogs can be bred into giants and that the heritability is additive over one generation does not mean that the path from little to giant is itself linear.
But it probably is. And Hsu has equations designed to deal with non-linearity even though linearity tends to dominate for very good evolutionary reasons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEgNjxptipM .
2. whatever set of genetic variants of small effect are found will be local to whatever environment and population they are found in.
What the research seems to show is that most genetic variants have the same effect in most environments here on Earth.
See 31:23 in the following video (which I’ve referred you to before)
comparable h^2 figures from various parts of the world does not imply that it is the same genetic variants at work.
But finding genes that have the same effect in multiple locations (which has been found for most genes) does imply just that, does it not?.
so supposing professor shoe has the 1 m (p, g) pairs he claims to need, where will they come from? will they be representative of the population of the world as a whole or of the developed world as a whole? to date no such study has been done even by the psychology profs and psychiatrists in so called “behavior genetics”.
It doesn’t matter because once the genes are found, other scientists in other countries will test if they replicate in their samples an ocean away.
3. despite occasional lip service to norms of reaction it is apparent that shoe does not grasp the concept. the {(p, g, e)} function is a surface, and that surface is NOT a plane, but like all smooth surfaces it can be approximated by a plane locally. the h^2 figure shoe and psychologists are fond of using is just a coefficient for this local planar approximation to the p(g, e), namely:
p = hg + sqrt(1 – h^2)e
AND THAT’S ALL IT IS
How did human intelligence evolve in the first place if genetic effects are as local as you suspect they might be? We evolved from apes to humans in tropical Africa and yet humans reared on every continent are a quantum leap smarter than apes. This suggests that genetic effects on intelligence are mostly environment independent.
.
4. furthermore, the fact that milk production and meat-iness can be predicted using SNPs in a linear fashion says nothing about what yet un-reached phenotype can be reached by enriching with the “+” SNPs. the linear fit is only good for the population it’s fit to.
We can’t say anything conclusive about unreached phenotypes but in science we sometimes extrapolate, particularly when the model is extremely simple.
6. thoroughbreds have quite a small gene pool, but perhaps precisely because they have been bred for so long. perhaps if they were crossed with quarter horses, but i doubt it. millions and millions of USDs are on the line, and in 43 years the records still stand. behold a selection limit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfCMtaNiMDM
this is really becoming a THING in the hbd sphere, or i would that it wert a THING. that is, the phenomenon of SECRETARIAT.
Secretariat might have been +5 SD in speed. Hard to breed for that without finding it a mate that is also +5 SD, and even then, the kids would likely only average +3 SD. And if you try to breed the kids with the kids you get inbreeding depression.
not one them even understands a single one of these criticisms peepeetard.
evolution is NOT linear EVER you fucking retard.
take for example the giraffe’s neck.
so many genes make a neck longer, but then there need to be other changes to make the whole animal work with such a long neck.
similarly if these + IQ variants produce a head so large that all simply die from SIDS like the elephant man.
shoe and cockring belong to a certain class of people. they aren’t very bright, and they’ve had to work very hard to accomplish what they have accomplished. they resent that they have to change their underwear three times a day, because of the shit streaks.
the evolution of human intelligence wasn’t linear either.
yet you and professor shoe are so utterly fucking retarded you think it has. you think that neaderthals, homoerectus, and chimps could be given a meaningful IQ test. you’ve extended the IQ concept beyond the only population for which it has any meaning at all. you can’t tell the difference between words and things.
the world is NOT flat peepeetard. but since you have a defective memory you still think it is.
We can
think of this as a plane that is tangent to the landscape at
the point corresponding to the population mean. These
models also replace the actual distribution of variation
within the population with a multivariate normal distribu-
tion. So long as the landscape is locally smooth, then for a
very small region it will be well approximated by an un-
curved plane. If, in addition, the joint distribution of parent
and offspring phenotypes is close to multivariate normal,
then G-matrix models provide a good approximation of
short term evolution.
Figure 1 also illustrates why G-matrix models are of
little value for the study of long term evolution. As the
population moves over the landscape, the slope and local
geometry changes (i.e., the genetic architecture changes) in
ways that could not be predicted from the initial linear
123
approximation. G-matrix models are thus a useful tool for
addressing some questions in phenotypic evolution, but
they are at best one piece of a much larger puzzle if we are
interested in long term evolution or evolution of develop-
mental processes.
it’s the same for breeding animals.
to get to the summit one cannot walk in a single straight line unless he can walk on air. he may reach the summit by walking in a series of connected straight lines though.
this should be yours and shoe’s theme song:
criticisms peepeetard.
evolution is NOT linear EVER you fucking retard.
take for example the giraffe’s neck.
so many genes make a neck longer, but then there need to be other changes to make the whole animal work with such a long neck.
similarly if these + IQ variants produce a head so large that all simply die from SIDS like the elephant man.
I was talking about gene-gene interactions. My point was they’re less likely to be selected for because of the randomizing effect of reproduction (as Steve has noted), thus linear genetic effects dominate. But yes I agree genetically engineered extreme super-geniuses would die of oversized brains. I made the same point in an earlier post.
shoe and cockring belong to a certain class of people. they aren’t very bright, and they’ve had to work very hard to accomplish what they have accomplished. they resent that they have to change their underwear three times a day, because of the shit streaks.
By your own preferred measure of intelligence (college admission tests) I have little doubt they’re both super smart: 1400+ on the pre-1995 SAT. As an East Asian American it’s unlikely Steve would have even got in to the schools he did without outstanding test scores.
But if you feel they don’t understand your criticisms, rather than calling them dumb, why not just praise yourself as even smarter?
But I suppose you get some psychic thrill from calling IQ experts dumb.
yet you and professor shoe are so utterly fucking retarded you think it has. you think that neaderthals, homoerectus, and chimps could be given a meaningful IQ test. you’ve extended the IQ concept beyond the only population for which it has any meaning at all. you can’t tell the difference between words and things.
Yes and no. I don’t necessarily believe the concept of g can be extended meaningfully to chimps (though there’s a study that claimed it could), but g is only interesting because (in humans) it correlates strongly with what most would consider intelligence and obviously you can rank different animals in terms of the latter: humans > chimps > dogs.
And yes intelligence is just a word, and the definition will always be somewhat arbitrary. but it refers to a real phenomenon: the unique properties of the brain that collectively allow humans to so proficiently use our behavior to advance our goals.
Your argument that these small variants will have different effects in different environments cannot be proved.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v46/n11/full/ng.3097.html 60% of heritability for height captured. IQ is highly polygenic and that’s why we see results like Ashkenazi IQ.
Your argument that these small variants will have different effects in different environments cannot be proved.
Yes it can. Steve Hsu has mentioned that when other researchers in other countries test genetic effects in their samples, in most cases the same gene has the same effect, but it isn’t always the case. Sometimes the same gene will have no effect in a different country, and sometimes it will even have the opposite effect.
The main barrier is having sufficiently large sample sizes in multiple countries. It’s taken forever to get a large sample size just in the West, and even that sample used IQ tests with lowish reliability.
If you engineer some ”people”, their neo-phenotypes will be hereditarily dominant or recessive**
And when they married other people, how their neo-super-traits will mingled with ”archaic” ones**
Is looking like Frankestein.
If you engineer some ”people” = euphemism for ”genetic manipulation”, of course.
peepee’s liver might be delicious with some fava beans and chianti.
and hey mofos, if all y’all want is the smartest,
jus’ clone vos savant or langan.
think about it.
these clones would be smarter than average, but what % would be as smart as their “parent”? the p = g + e model has an answer.
the fraction of clones which would be as smart as their…i don’t know the word…would be MUCH less than 1%.
that’s what the p = g + e model SAYS.
back to the drawing board fucktards.
It depends on how high you think heritability in the U.S. is.
Let’s say broad sense heritability is 0.8 and Langan’s IQ is 189 (sigma 15).
His clones would average IQ 89(0.8) = 71 + 100 = 171 with a standard deviation of 9.
That means 2% of his clones would have IQs as high as his, assuming they were reared in America.
This genetically manipulated people ”should” marry one each other because their genes will be very recent and generally most of all fresh&demographically rare variants tend to be ”recessive”, but how they will react in the stupid world like these**
I’m not talking about just ”iq”, we are talking about humans. Generally ”smarter’/evolved” species tend to treat ”inferior/contextual disadvantageous” species very badly.
Look like a human skynet now, lol
Just look for ashkenazi, the smartest (cleverest) ones tend to be very cold pushing all this conflicts between gentiles.
But the key point is that well over 99% of his clones would be smarter than 99.9% of Americans.
”jus’ clone vos savant or langan.
think about it.”
Smartest**
to do iq tests is not*
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CfeoddWXIAEaloe.jpg:large
I found this, it’s a perfect concept for intelligence.
And
look very similar with my ideas about it, 😉
Raven quote’s, 😉
what can cure peepee’s degenerate un-Cynicism?
possible solutions:
1. rectal rape
2. one month every day of which peepee is forced to be drunk.
3. one month on a desert island, all by herself. no mass media, no rape, no EtOH.
i’m sure i can think of more when i’m sober leroy.
I already do try to force myself to get drunk at least once a month.
Not sure what cynicism has to do with this discussion. Should I be questioning the motives of HBDers? The HBD critics have their own motives.
hbders are such utter pussies.
professor shoe is a chinese supremacist who wants the US to be conquered by overseas chinese just like thailand, indonesia, the philippines, and oceania.
cockring wants america to be run by white trash scots like himself.
it’s all just vicarious bullshit.
grow up already hbd-tards.
Always barbarians *
What do you mean?
That was a great speech on Monica’s part.
I for one, am voting for a Jew who does not support Netanyahu’s apartheid-type state,
Ben Bernie Sanders
(means “the honorable” or roundabouts in Hebrew)
Screw Cruz, I’ve changed my mind!!!!!!!!!
If she was sincere. But remember, the Jews are the kind of people who are able to do anything to get what they want. They tend to have a kind of mentality that is completely different from goy mentality, in the moral sense. They are capable of anything, including self-humiliation. Note that in the end she began to make political connections, it turned into a progressive propagandist. But it’s hard for most goy understand this because you need to have the same kind of mind to notice. Most people do not think ‘I could have done it too.’ ‘ They tend to react emotionally and instantly the situation without thinking about the sequence of events and possibilities, if there is not much honesty between rulling class and the rest, so to speculate and always looking for logic, is not only a possibility but a necessity for those who really want to be more informed and prepared.
But I have to agree that was a great speech.
Just asking; did you forget about Merkel?
No I’ve started it, just been too busy with work to post anything other than a few peripheral ideas.
Okay, I just wondered. It seems to me like there is a positive correlation between the time gap between posts and vitriol in the comments section, in general. 🙂
Regarding blog readership around here:
There’s one thing I would agree with Mr. Videla, and that is, Lion’s blog is prole. His followers are all proles and anyone who’s pro-American like many of his comment posters, are no doubt proles. The American flag is both very prole and extinct, unlike the Canadian one, which has more class and simplicity.
I would find your blog more interesting, if you could talk about IQ of nations and cities, and how it affects quality of life.
a problem for spain and spanish america is how un-prole most spanish people are.
who’s going to do the work?
that is, all of them aspire to a life a leisure on a latifundium that’s been in the family for 500 years.
amy chua re-iterated this impression. so did my parents’ experience in brazil…
latin america’s ruling class is lazy by the standards of the anglo-sphere.
but “lazy” is pejorative. it’s better to call them “content”. or maybe just roman catholic.
there really is such a thing as the “protestant work ethic”, except it’s not protestant, it’s germanic. that is, protestantism and germanic language speaking countries are congruent/coterminous in europe and its diaspora.
and IN FACT the catholic part of germany is its most prosperous. even though now it’s just the “once was” catholic part of germany.
of course the russians are even lazier.
Videla is right.
Spain’s laid back work ethic stems from its history of inheriting the Islamic agrarian tradition. When you grow enough food because you can, and have enough to eat, English limeys never had this privilege, hence the protestant work ethic.
The lust for money, became out of fashion in Spain, centuries ago, when Jews were hoarders of wealth. Jews taught Catholics that a free pioneering spirit was more noble than a greedy banker. Spaniards brushed off the Jewish bug, while the Anglo-Sphere was bitten by it.
So why is much of the Middle East a barren wasteland? The same reason why Anglo proles turn everything to dust, when they set their foot upon it. As with Ashkenazi Jews, now the same!
Israelis are prolier than their Arab neighbors.
interesting.
i was reading goncharov recently.
he described the english of the mid 19th c in the same way some americans once described the japs.
soul-less worker bees. or ants. and this soul-less-ness was the secret of their great wealth, claimed goncharov.
but oblomov is one of my heroes.
it’s funny,
has borjas missed borjas? the harvard economist who’s pro trump? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_J._Borjas
dude. if you’re white you’re white.
i had a cuban teacher in middle school. he had blue eyes and was going to become principle iirc. his dad had been a newspaper publisher in cuba too, at least according to my teacher. i won’t give his name.
NO!
COME ON!
WHITE CUBAN?
they’re the equal or better of any white american…and white americans, including trump boosters, know this!!!
greatest chess player of all time…
jose raul capablanca, better than all the jews
and the americas’ 2d greatest chess player was also of spanish descent, paul morphy
that is, with the sort of exception of ireland.
english was the language of the conquerors, and some irish still speak irish…even if they’re all over 90.
all speakers of cornish are now dead.
but there are still some whose first language is scottish, not scots english, but the gaelic language scottish.
they lived and likely still live on the outer hebrides.
noteworthy that the one nationality of the UK which is most likely to speak its ancestral language is also the LEAST nationalist/secessionist.
that is, the welsh.
but from what i’ve heard they’re Deliverance on steroids, subhuman.
but it’s interesting how many senses “white” has come to have.
in order of restrictiveness:
1. NW european
2. european
3. caucasian
a. including north africans (like zizou) and near easterners
b. including “a.” AND including south asians.
from the pre-genomics world,
skeletal remains could be identified by “facial skeleton” much more dispositively than by the rest of the skeleton.
many south asians have a european facial skeleton, including many who are as dark as the darkest africans.
this is one thing ne asians seem oblivious too.
s asians are, for the most part, “honorary whites” in the US and canada.
whereas ne asians are always “weird”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_whites
“that is, the welsh.
but from what i’ve heard they’re Deliverance on steroids, subhuman.”
How does a Welshman find a sheep in tall grass?
Irresistible.
badum-ching
What about Ashkenazi Jews? Would you consider them European or merely Caucasoid?
It would be interesting to rank all Caucasoids in order of Whiteness.
One of the reasons I became fan of Rushton’s theory is I find the three-race model very aesthetically pleasing, even though it’s a bit too simple.
Some have argued that even Australian aboriginals are Caucasoid, but based on HBD, they are a better fit in the Negroid race, even though genetic distance puts that far from Africans (though genetic distance can be misleading)
and another thing…
few americans and candians know how RICH argentina used to be.
100 y ago argentina. chile, uruguay, and brazil were among the “developed countries”. argentina was one of the ten richest countries in the world.
and it’s not just me. prof shoe’s friend at GS, paul young (his real name), has expressed the same wonder.
that is,
WTF happened to argentina?
and even this randian who may make > 10 m per year afaik, agreed that Eike Batista’s explanation of “populism” was not even close to an explanation.
batista ALSO said on charlie rose:
argentina is a rolls royce driven by an egyptian chauffeur (egyptians are notoriously bad drivers)
and btw, i have spanish ancestry on both sides of my family. just not much. mostly colonial american with some more british, irish, and switzerdeutsch. that’s one reason why i favor affirmative action based on american-ness of ancestry. and that would include native americans and the descendants of slaves. so called “african-americans” are IN FACT among the most american people there are.
indeed.
abos, new guniea-ans, and melanesians — aka “australoids” are much closer to europeans than they are to sub-saharan/black africans as far as the mitochondrial DNA goes. https://naturalishistoria.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/mtdna-dna-tree-neanderthal-humans.png
an abo under a rock in arnhem land may actually be more like a swede, than he is like another abo under a nearby rock.
and…i’ve i posted before…the most pre-historic looking people are the abos…yet…they’re really just as human as a swede.
ya see..
i’m a moron…
i meant principal.
but i did buy a bottle of rum for only 7 USD tonight.
it was on sale, normally 14 USD.
abos, new guniea-ans, and melanesians — aka “australoids” are much closer to europeans than they are to sub-saharan/black africans as far as the mitochondrial DNA goes.
But long before DNA tests, there was a theory that they were (archaic) Caucasoids. I read about it in an old encyclopedia my Dad won as a young man.
we are alike peepee.
the world book encyclopedia my dad got from his parents…when i was very young…i read the section on RACE…so “politically incorrect” today…it classed polynesians as caucasoids/caucasians.
and…
as i’ve said, my only real times of “mental illness” have involved girls. and i was genuinely crazy.
i wish that…i was born a 1000 years ago…
when i was 13 i “fell in love” with a half hawaiian/half white girl. every other guy loved her, jacked off to her. including the black guy whose dad was a former NFLer.
she liked me, i mean really really like me…she was “rich”. i was “poor”. i’ve been a cynic ever since.
my dad was a loser lawyer who’d graduated harvard. her dad hadn’t even gone to college but sold cars for big money. she was ashamed of that…believe it or not…she told me so.
oh and i guess that i just don’t know.
One of the most prolific commentators of Aristotle, who happened to be a Muslim in the Middle Ages, known as Averroes in Europe, called the Spaniards, a very courageous people, on par with Aristotle’s wisdom.
Interestingly, Spaniards are the only ethnic group from the old world, who’ve shunned Prole Merica Stan.
And now a bunch of low-IQ prole American Neanderthals are going to try to kill them all. I hope that this year’s GOP convention beats them down into their place, like the inferiors that they are.
As I’ve said before they have an average IQ of 90. Treat them just as bad as blacks are treated in this country, after all, it’s what they deserve. They can’t ruin what the smart people have created, they have to be taught their place.
that last comment came across as mean and a rant, but screw it, it’s all true.
They’re the only low-IQ people who actively try to destroy civilisation, and they need to be stopped.
Dilma Roussef too, the presidentA.
Casual references;
http://www.forbes.com/power-women/gallery/dilma-rousseff
https://pumpkinperson.com//?s=Highest+IQ+in+each+race&search=Go
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx
Average world wide IQ is about 88 on U.S. White Norms.
Dilma Rousseff is the 7th most influential woman, so she is the most influntial among 500,000,000 people.
So she is 5.8667 Standard Deviations more influential than the average world citizen, and since apparently that correlates 0.40 with IQ, her IQ is 5.8667(0.40)(15) above the average global citizen (IQ 88), so 88+35.2= 123.2 on U.S. white Norms so crudely, on Greenwhich Norms, perhaps most well known, it would be about 3 points higher, based on many web sources, at 126 (see comments on that article for more detail on how to convert).
So about an IQ of 126 on Greenwich Norms.
Such estimates seem low, however.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/08/07/the-iq-of-dr-ben-carson/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson
About as smart as this guy, obviously she could not perform surgery, and he could not run Brazil, so obviously there are different types of intelligence!
Yes, i already knew that…
one of the abundant examples of the negative correlation between higher iq and intelligence.
brazil is the country of the future…
and it always will be.
Okay, I just wondered. It seems to me like there is a positive correlation between the time gap between posts and vitriol in the comments section, in general. 🙂
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/us/politics/hillary-clinton-mothers.html
Of course
a very ”spontaneous” event
moms of killer voting in a bitchkiller, oh!!
my last comment on lube job motel’s blog which i didn’t post before:
“there’s a very simple distinction economists use all the time which professor shoe has also yet to grasp. in sample vs out of sample.
given so many SNPs and only one phenotypic variable it would be surprising if a linear model couldn’t be fit to the data. but to prove it’s not just a fit, one would need to show that it still worked out of sample. and that means on another population.
so in this most recent paper claiming to find hits for IQ, the authors boast that they can use this data to predict 5% of IQ variance in another sample, but still a sample from the white british population.
and notice that 5%! milk production and meat-iness could be predicted MUCH better, and using far fewer SNPs and far fewer cows. The results showed that using GBLUP, the rGEBV,EBV and theoretical accuracy of genomic prediction in Chinese Holstein ranged from 0.59 to 0.76 and 0.70 to 0.80, respectively.http://www.journalofdairyscien….
Steve does understand the difference between in-sample/out-sample. That’s the whole point of getting a sample of super high IQ people in both China and the U.S. which is precisely what the BGI study is doing: replicating results in both populations
Duh!
if that were his intention then he could theoretically find genetic variants in each group and “confirm” those which were also in the disjunction of the two sets. but my understanding was he intended to pool the data and that the data is from all over the world not just les etats unis merdeux and china.
and as i have said i expect such a disjunction from mulitple local GWASs to be non-empty, but i do expect that the disjunction will be a much smaller than any of the local GWASs.
and when one has multiple sets of SNPs, local hits, some may lie in all sets or most sets or just two sets merely by chance, not because they are in fact hits. and this is 100% going to happen if as shoe claims there are 10,000 SNPs behind the phenotype. if you have a dozen sets all with 10,000 SNPs their disjunction is going to “confirm” some just by chance.
in the case of a truly representative GWAS, the “out of sample” could be yet another representative sample or a merely a local sample. but in the latter case the hits for the human population as a whole would have to be a subset of the local hits in order to be confirmed.
that is, if one has the results of several large local GWASs, sets of hits: G1,…, Gn, then their disjunction ∩Gi ≠ ∅ = Γ, but it is also the case that for every i Γ ⊆ Gi.
wrong. there are no results in either sample.
stop eating ass and ride cock peepee the dyke.
But I would be surprised if we couldn’t do better than all historical geniuses. That only requires a small extrapolation of linearity.
professor shoe says in the comments. but he either has a defective memory or he’s lying.
1. the recent and largest GWAS ever had ca 150 k (g, p) pairs and could predict only 5% at the most (and that was for vocabulary). shoe claimed 1/4 m would be enough, but then he increased this to 1 m. so his idea is that with 1 m from a sample representative of the developed world (unlike this most recent study) he could predict >= 50% of the variance in IQ. whereas a sample of 3500 cows with 50k SNPs was enough to predict 75% of their “breeding value”. ’cause cows and chickes is jus’ like IQ y’all.
DEE
LIEU
ZHUN
AL!
2. he doesn’t understand that the linear fit is just a fit and that with so many SNPs finding one good fit is almost assured. that is, he doesn’t get that the linearity isn’t real, it’s just a fit.
what GCTA is exactly idk, but essentially it’s looking at genetic distance and phenotypic distance and seeing if one predicts the other where genetic distance is calculated as something like the inner product of two genotype vectors. it mat also be there is an extrapolation to a genetic distance of 0, and then solving for h^2 is easy.
the genotype vectors are n-tuples of SNPs.
the big data problem which shoe claims to require 1 m (p, g) pairs for is something of the form:
find the effects vector x (the vector of effect sized of each SNP) such that the inner product of Ax and p is minimized, where p is the vector of phenotypes for each of the N pairs, and A is a matrix with 100s of thousands of columns, and N rows, one column for each SNP and one row for each subject.
i believe that finding an x which “predicts” p fairly well may be easy even when there’s really no relationship at all, simply because there are so many SNPs available for the fit. for one thing with these huge numbers it may be that the statistical significance of a fit may be very sensitive to the assumed distributions. but idk.
the navy mechanics school“1. the recent and largest GWAS ever had ca 150 k (g, p) pairs and could predict only 5% at the most (and that was for vocabulary).”
I think that looking selective samples for additive effects would mean comparing top IQ with bottom IQ. Would be untestable without knowing how a gene effects metabolism. Every cell has a metabolism and hormones are different at each stage of development. I have thyroid problems (hypothyroidism). The reason we have five fingers is genetic but we know the hand has a structure. The brain has structure. Spect Scans of the brain have shown that mental illness has patterns of low and high activities. Conservatives and Liberals in the USA have brain activity that predicts political stance greater than 86 percent. So I remember Pumpkin Person made a post about brain scans predicting IQ as good as real IQ tests in the future.
I think that the phenotype must correlate with structure which is metabolic and takes into account of more than paper tests. It needs to measureable, like hand structure genes (if those have been found?). When I took my test last november I had to quit the last ten minutes because I felt like fainting. So miss a problem and no more are given. The same can be said of 7 types of ADD, 7 types of depression, 7 types of anxiety and PTSD. Brain scans will be necessary to discover phenotype. The marshmallow test for adults. I think that gamma waves and soma density correlate. Speed of perception measured with chronometry are in frames per second. Speed of neuron communication changes how the brain network performs. Brain structures would be optimal for fast neurons. Or fast neurons would be localized in language structure.
I am not like other people I know.
They create simulations in their head.
I focus more on the external than the internal.
I have a good semantic memory but
I have no way to introspect life events.
To prove epigenetics influence (also and specially as genetic changes caused during in life by ‘environmental/psycho-somatic causes) ”we” need analyse if adult specific genes, for example, that correlates with depression, were the same than when they were newborns and without mistake with normal developmental changes.
for example, people who born with certain vulnerability to become depressed…
they have the same genes when they born and during their lifes**
(probably a dumb question)
and depending of their path-life they can become really depressed, but
SEEMS, there are people that not become depressed because their positive path-life,
or even when they have intrinsic vulnerability and environmental problems.
why**
many of this mental disorders become worst when people
– don’t try understand what is causing it
– feel they are guilty (don’t understand…), it’s a very important
– feel that no have hope for them
it’s like a dead end path-life, dead-end street.
I think sometimes that people are relatively intended to live certain path-life, not because any exoteric conspiracy, but because their intrinsic nature (vulnerability/neutrality/potential) and because the interaction with very probable social/people environment where they will live.
people who born that (quasi-)way and when environment don’t help,
like, a hyper sensitive boy born in a bad familial environment,
school environment also is bad for him,
he have a vulnerability to become psychotic
and in the end he become like that…
people tend to react with you in a macro- or long term patterns of similarities.
or other examples, a hyper-sensitive boy born in a very good familial environment,
but school environment is not good for him.
Would be interesting analyse the life-path interpersonal interactions of this people to know if there are common and macro pattern of long term bad interpersonal interactions.
but i think that indeed, some psychosis is basically inborn, analogous with type I diabetes, and there is a broader spectrum of potential reactions, and classical schizophrenia, look like quasi-exactly as a type II diabetes,
a weak and potentially wrong suggestion….
were the same tha(t) when they were newborns and without mistake with normal developmental changes.
=(
=(
=(
for example. in excel i created a random 25×25 matrix, A, where each entry was 1 or 0 with 50% probability.
then i created a random phenotype vector p where the entries had a normal distribution with stdev 1 and mean 0.
then i found an effect size vector x which minimized the inner product between Ax and p.
guess what the minimum was?
0!
that is there was an effect size vector which perfectly matched the randomly generated matrix and phenotype vector. furthermore the maximum effect size was only 1.73 and the minimum effect size was only -1.56.
this means an h^2 of 1 even though there is no relationship AT ALL.
ooooo and it makes me wonder.
and this will always be the case provided the matrix is invertible.
i wonder what fraction of the time the matrix of the sort i generated is invertible?
it’s not 100%. but even if it is a singular matrix can there still be perfect solutions? if so when? i forget.
Its awesome to see to great minds exchange ideas
“The answer, in my humble opinion, is that the human mind is the most complex known object in the universe, and thus takes billions of years to evolve. Further, to reach our level of intelligence, you almost need a four legged animal with hands to become bipedal, because only then are the hands free to create and use tools. This probably also explains why intelligent life, even if evolved from dinosaurs, would look like us:”
Wait…. You think a humanoid-like lifeform would evolve from anything given enough time? That’s a bold claim. Even then, as we have discussed in the past PP, evolution is not linear, contrary to your belief. Evolution is, like Gould said (ugh can’t believe I’m using him as a source) a branching tree. Evolution is NOT progressive.
Moreover, as explained in my article the other day, we became bipedal due to the climate change occurring around the time Man and chimps split so we could better forage for food, Tools came millions of years AFTER bipedalism.
Evolution is NOT progressive.
I don’t know; if we forced all extant life forms to compete against their ancestors from 2 million years ago, something tells me the extant life would win most of the time.