The comment section is littered with comments about scholar Thomas Frank who has been on a media tour promoting his new book Listen Liberal. I was curious what all the discussion was about so I listened to some of his appearances on youtube (see below).
He often begins by asking why President Obama, who was expected to be a heroic true liberal Roosevelt type figure who would take on the big banks, instead became another triangulating Bill Clinton type Democrat, who bailed out Wall Street and failed to prosecute any of the big bankers.
Frank’s explanation is that there are two main hierarchies in America: money and status (this is very similar to what I have been arguing for the last couple years or so, except I argued there are three main hierarchies: money, popular status (fame), and elite status (intelligentsia)).
Now I have argued that liberalism means serving the underdogs while conservatism means serving the powerful, but Frank argues that since the 1970s, and especially since the Bill Clinton 1990s, Republicans have been the party of the rich and the Democrats have been the party of professional status (i.e. the intelligentsia).
Frank goes into a long convoluted explanation of why big labor was purged from the Democratic party. It all started in the 1970s when big labor supported the Vietnam war and were a bunch of Archie Bunker bigoted philistines, and the Democrats decided to get rid of them in favor of yuppies (now days sometimes referred to as bobos or SWPLs)
Thus, Frank argues that President Obama refused to prosecute Wall-street white collar criminals because he sees them as part of the same meritocratic Ivy League brilliant elite that he belongs to. He’s more or less painting Obama as an elitist snob who thinks he and other Ivy Leaguers are above the law. This is a very damning portrait.
However from an HBD perspective, there’s a much simpler explanation of why Wall Street is untouchable. According to The New York Times, Ashkenazi Americans (who are enormously overrepresented in Wall Street) might have a much higher frequency of high IQ genes than other Americans. This gave them the intelligence to acquire great wealth and media influence and to adapt it to their advantage, thus it’s extremely difficult for an American President to go against any issue that especially serves Askenazi financial interests (i.e. Wall Street) or Ashkenazi genetic interests (neoconservatism, multiculturalism).
No matter what political system you endorse, high IQ people, and especially high IQ ethnic groups, will adapt it to their advantage and get a lion’s share of the resources, because that’s why intelligence evolved in the first place! It’s been happening for millions of years and it’s Darwinism 101.
Pumpkin Person 
peepee is once again conflating evil and adaptation.
IQ is only one psychological trait.
there are many…
many others.
and just as many are vices as are virtues.
typical sociopath.
here’s the jews “adapting”:
peepee has no sense of right and wrong. she identifies right with whatever works and wrong with whatever fails. darwinian morality is a contradiction in terms. peepee is too evil to see this.
here’s the jews adapting again:
When I say adapting, I mean advancing your goal.
It can be good goals or evil goals.
But achieving ambitious goals without being evil requires even more adaptability because you are trying to advance both your material goal (i.e. money) and your abstract goal (morality) so it’s the equivalent of solving two sides of a rubik’s cube instead of one
Someone who can become a billionaire while staying morally pristine would have to be especially clever.
I focuso n material goals because those are the ones we can empirically observe
Some monk might be achieving all his internal spiritual moral goals, and in fact be more adaptable than Bill Gates, but we can’t observe his adaptability so it’s less interesting to me as an amateur scientist.
But on an IQ test, all the goals are defined for you, and the playing field is leveled.
I think your observation is strictly a narrow view, as to why Jews succeed in places such as NYC, but they do not, in let’s say in East Asia or Spain, or even your homeland of Canada. For some reason, I have found the Canadian Jews whom I have encountered to be affable. It must be that they are adapting to a less intense, money focused society. Granted, high IQ is a factor, but so is legacy and tribalism, which needs to be taken into account. Jews were one of the largest immigrants groups in NYC, and one of the earliest. Unlike other groups, they weremore educated than let’s say the Irish or the Italians, where they used their skills to established businesses and make up the professional class.
peepee’s definition of “smart”:
person A is “smart”-er than person B to the extent that, ceteris paribus, person A achieves and person B fails.
ceteris paribus = “all else being equal”
and “all else” includes having the same goals.
but what if all else is not equal?
what if there is a relationship between goals and the ability to achieve them?
does everyone have wealth, status, and power as goals?
this is another feature of the jews…their goals are this-world-ly…much more than those of goyim.
for the gentile, ambition is a SIN.
and pushing and striving is disgusting.
the high IQ gentile is much more likely to be content with comfortable anonymity than the pushy striving un-Cynical jew.
un-Cynicism is the contemporary world’s most damaging vice.
what if there is a relationship between goals and the ability to achieve them?
does everyone have wealth, status, and power as goals?
That’s why we have the WISC-R. On the WISC-R, you are explicitly told what your goal is and you are given only enough time to stay motivated: In 2 minutes, your goal is to adapt these blocks to make the above design.
So if someone does well on the WISC-R, but is failing to solve the real world problem of making money, we might hypothesize that he is motivated by some other goal. Because we know he’s cognitively adaptable enough to advance his goals because the WISC-R has certified the cognitive part of his brain as an efficient problem solver
But because money is so advantageous, it’s tough for many people to imagine how any rational mind could not want wealth, hence the saying “if you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?”.
“For the gentile, ambition is a sin. And pushing and striving is disgusting.” — you’re talking about Christians, not gentiles in general. These thing are not disgusting or sinful in, e.g., China (despite Marxism — which has Christian roots, of course).
You’re also confusing success in personal goals with evolutionary success. The two are not the same — scarcely even related.
Have you seen this, Mugabe: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2016/05/01/the-cards-fall/ ? The anti-HBD world-view is quickly falling apart. Submit to your intellectual superior Greg Cochran.
“You’d have to know a fair amount about genetics to even appreciate the evidence. No matter how sound the result, various bastards will emit a fog of lies about it”
are you really that fucking retarded?
even peepee understands that cockring is a moron.
cue peepee’s denial…
this is what it’s like…
all of the HBDers, including professor shoe (all the others are worse), are like a man trapped under ice in a lake. he may breathe some air bubbles, but he can’t break through the ice or find a hole in the ice.
if he does break through his worldview may not be radically changed, but he will cease to be a racist; he will be a nationalist, a Cynic, and he will understand that psychology is a pseudo-science and that the anglo-american universalist, individualist ideology is false just like the earth is not flat.
even peepee understands that cockring is a moron.
I’ve never said or implied that.
thus far:
the largest GWAS for IQ ever was conducted on the tiny population of white british.
its hits for cognitive ability explained 5% of the variance in IQ in another population of white british.
HOW CAN THIS NOT BE SEEN FOR WHAT IT IS?
ABSURD?
EPIC FAIL?
its hits for cognitive ability explained 5% of the variance in IQ in another population of white british.
HOW CAN THIS NOT BE SEEN FOR WHAT IT IS?
Because that’s only variation explained from genes that have been found. Twin studies and GCTA studies show that IQ is mostly heritable, at least locally.
Not only that, we know that higher IQ can be bred for really quick in humans, cf. Ashkenazi Jews.
here’s a video of asian carp “adapting”.
peepee worships evolution, but doesn’t understand it.
she still thinks the earth is flat.
peepee has posited a trait which is unlike any other.
and because she can’t tell the difference between words and things, she believes that such a trait exists.
it is a trait that is a + irrespective of the environment.
no animal other than man has this trait.
peepee calls this trait “intelligence” and believes that it is measured accurately by IQ tests.
I see intelligence as the pinnacle of evolution because all of evolution is about adapting to changing environments. The difference between humans and beasts is humans adapt by changing our behavior to exploit the environment, where other lifeforms have to change their genes to exploit the environment. When other animals enter the cold, they genetically evolve more fur. When humans enter the cold, we use our behavior to create a fur coat. The latter is intelligence and is what makes us so unique and so dominant. It’s a much more rapid and flexible form of adaptation. And,now humans are reaching the point where we can use our behavior to even change our genes.
I think of the 12 subtests on the WISC-R as 12 different environments you have to adapt to, and the full-scale IQ as a sample of overall adaptability
i’ve always thought the exact opposite of peepee…
that a desire for wealth, status, fame is stupid…
that only people below a certain level of intelligence would want these things enough to make any effort for them…
and this especially in an age of post-scarcity in the developed world.
there are still some people who become very rich, famous, respected etc. without ever having tried for it.
but i think such people are rarer today than ever.
as i’ve detailed before, there is an explanation for these tres un-Cynical wants…
and it’s basically that people confuse social recognition of some kind with survival.
and that this is a DELUSION.
to paraphrase…
steve jobs is dead.
etc.
surely andy rooney wasn’t the first to say that the desire to be POTUS should be a disqualification for the office.
was ike “drafted”?
if so, he’s the last POTUS who wasn’t an egomaniac.
I can understand not wanting to be POTUS or not wanting to be famous. But not wanting to be rich? To me that’s irrational. Now maybe you don’t want to work hard enough to get rich, that I can understand. But not wanting money itself seems like mental illness or mental retardation.
“not wanting money itself seems like mental illness or mental retardation”
To what extent does that apply, if you are provided for, you may not crave more. In fact, it has been theorized that laziness is what is craved most, more than money, actually. Money may be, to a certain extent (this will sound retarded on the surface, but if you think about it makes sense); anti-evolutionary, we have to actively search of money, we don’t automatically, biologically think to crave it, as a social construct.
Blacks are stereotyped as lazy, perhaps because the median black has less control of laziness impulses (not searching for money), as compared to Caucasians and Asians.
if i won the lottery i’d give it all away or set up my own charitable trust using all the money.
peepee would spend it on her “transition” and vacations to barbados.
this is the difference.
but i’d never play the lottery.
gambling is immoral and the lottery is a de facto tax on poor people. it’s evil.
You’d give it all away?
You wouldn’t retire early?
A charitable trust to help who?
Although I agree with pumpkin a lot, I will have to humbly say I don’t agree on this subject.
Money/equivalent is actually the opposite of an evolutionary desire, in my humble opinion.
Motivation is key sometimes. Blacks don’t have the motivation to make something, or the spatial ability, so they just do other things to make enough to get by. #Lagos, Nigeria.
What about doing a job you like that doesn’t pay as much as another you could have had?
You provide for yourself, any desire beyond that, is only motivated by the desire to protect offspring, perhaps a blend of social and evolutionary things, it’s not natural, otherwise.
to help whom peepee.
it was said of Diogenes, “his wisdom is in not wanting what he doesn’t need.”
a toyota is fine with me.
a charitable trust to fund science and social programs.
If you’re deciding who and what to help, you’re essentially spending the money on yourself. It’s being used to benefit causes you care about, so you’re getting pleasure out of how it’s spent. Truly not needing or wanting the money would be refusing to accept the winnings in the first place.
american lotteries are sometimes worth 100s of millions.
maybe i wouldn’t be able to resist, but it would by a small % of the total.
st pius x said, “i was born poor. i have lived poor. and i hope to die poor.”
of course there are various kinds of poverty. the roman clergy and religious are not deperately poor. they are secure. they just own very little.
“If you’re deciding who and what to help, you’re essentially spending the money on yourself.”
Of course.
But what about choosing not to have it to begin with? The scenarios I listed above, show what specific cases I am talking about
What about doing a job you like that doesn’t pay as much as another you could have had?
That’s perfectly intelligent.The whole point of money is to bring pleasure and minimize pain, so if you can get a lot more pleasure by taking a job that pays less, then that can be a very brilliant decision.
But that’s not turning down money per se, that’s refusing to sacrifice your quality of life for money. .
*”The whole point of money is to bring pleasure and minimize pain”*
So that’s the evolutionary aspect of it?
The evolutionary aspect of it is that for millions of years, our ancestors, their tribes, and their offspring were more likely to survive and have surviving offspring if they acquired more resources (food, shelter, clothing, all of which today is equivalent to money). That’s what caused the selection for intelligence that caused brain size to triple in 4 million years.
But in modern Western countries, almost everyone survives, so there’s no more natural selection, but the rich are the very people who would be most surviving if natural selection were to return. And indeed if you’re rich, you can use your money to help those who share copies of your genes. So Oprah gives money to build schools in Africa. Jewish billionaires give money to groups that support Israel. Billionaires with cancer give money for cancer research, etc.
Seems so obvious when you put it that way.
“But in modern Western countries, almost everyone survives”
I of course live in the U.S., where that is the case and perhaps that’s why I don’t understand.
Pumpkin person, “That’s what caused the selection for intelligence that caused brain size to triple in 4 million years.” Except that it was social competition that caused it not “food, shelter, clothing, all of which today is equivalent to money” All animals have to gather resources to survive but not all animals have big brains and the intelligence to come with it, so the “harshness” of an environment tends to impact innovation a hell of a lot more than actual brain size. It’s strange how you’re good at math but almost completely ignorant about anthropological/biological concepts.
Pumpkin person, “That’s what caused the selection for intelligence that caused brain size to triple in 4 million years.” Except that it was social competition that caused it not “food, shelter, clothing, all of which today is equivalent to money”
Social competition for food, shelter, and clothing, just as today we compete with other humans for money.
All animals have to gather resources to survive but not all animals have big brains and the intelligence to come with it, so the “harshness” of an environment tends to impact innovation a hell of a lot more than actual brain size.
But other animals have physical advantages that allow them to conquer their environment. They’re bigger, stronger, faster, and deadlier than humans with sharper claws and teeth. By contrast, humans are relatively weak and defenseless.
As others have joked, humans are the geeks of the animal kingdom. We had to be smart to survive against all the “dumb jock” animals who would pick on us:
http://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/5794749_700b.jpg.
We didn’t have any physical advantages, so we evolved the ability to adapt behavior to our advantage: intelligence.
It’s strange how you’re good at math but almost completely ignorant about anthropological/biological concepts.
It’s not that I’m ignorant of them, it’s just that I prefer simple elegant explanations over long convoluted speculation.
Pumpkin person, “Social competition for food, shelter, and clothing, just as today we compete with other humans for money.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2621584/The-bird-impersonates-MEERKAT-steal-food-Drongo-catches-quarter-meals-imitating-creatures.html
I have found cases where primates have done the same thing. Unfortunately, I could not find a link.
It’s not always the bread winners that are the most intelligent. In fact when they bring home the resources it could be easily swindled from them. Does paranoia correlate with high IQ?
“But other animals have physical advantages that allow them to conquer their environment. They’re bigger, stronger, faster, and deadlier than humans with sharper claws and teeth. By contrast, humans are relatively weak and defenseless.”
That’s exactly my point though, the need for resources does not automatically select for a larger intelligence, because high intelligence is not always needed.
“It’s not that I’m ignorant of them, it’s just that I prefer simple elegant explanations over long convoluted speculation.”
Nice try but, neither biology or anthropology are mere speculation.
That’s exactly my point though, the need for resources does not automatically select for a larger intelligence, because high intelligence is not always needed.
Intelligence is not needed if you have some other trait like sharp claws & teeth, or enormous strength or speed. Humans didn’t have these physical
advantages so we needed the mental ability to adapt the situation to our advantage: intelligence.
Humans don’t in general but do to a certain degree.
Blacks= greatest physical advantage.
Asians=Least
Whites= Median.
Brains are inverse, it was about competing for resources in Africa, not making stuff, while the opposite in Asia, right?
“Intelligence is not needed if you have some other trait like sharp claws & teeth, or enormous strength or speed. Humans didn’t have these physical
advantages so we needed the mental ability to adapt the situation to our advantage: intelligence.”
Again, this is exactly my point. A need for resources does not automatically lead to a higher intelligence via evolution. Sorry if this sounds a little patronizing but, you should probably slow down when you read my replies and assess them a little more carefully.
Do you have a rebuttal for the link I posted or do you essentially agree with my point that direct resource allocation isn’t entirely or even mostly the root cause of encephalization? I mean cmon, work smarter not harder right?
Now in relation to me lecturing your reading comprehension In my first paragraph I had noticed you had not answered my question. Do you not read all of what I type When I reply to you? Do you just skim over it? If so I’m not sure if I should be even attempting to engage you in intellectual conversation if you’re not even going to thoroughly digest the information I send you. Please inform me If I’m just jumping to conclusions but, I had assumed you would have at least said “I don’t know” if you had indeed read my question and simply just didn’t know the answer. Ill ask again, does paranoia correlate with high IQ in anyway?
Pumpkin person, Why was my comment deleted? I don’t think I was slurring anyone or posting inappropriate content. One of the things I enjoyed about this blog over others was the lack of moderation.
I’m assuming you still saw my question right, can you answer my question?
Sorry I see it now. My bad, please ignore my previous post that were of me complaining of deleted comments.
Again, this is exactly my point. A need for resources does not automatically lead to a higher intelligence via evolution.
But it did in the case of humans since brain size tripled in 4 million years.
Do you have a rebuttal for the link I posted or do you essentially agree with my point that direct resource allocation isn’t entirely or even mostly the root cause of encephalization? I mean cmon, work smarter not harder right?
I think the link you provided makes my point. Intelligent animals get food by tricking less intelligent animals. This is analogous to modern capitalism where high IQ wall street bankers get rich by defrauding the lower IQ general public.
Ill ask again, does paranoia correlate with high IQ in anyway?
Fear is an emotion you are supposed to feel when you sense danger. It takes brains to know there is a threat.
Again, you seem to be missing the point. Social competition does not necessarily develop over resources. There could be social competition over ideals, power, or just pussy.
“I think the link you provided makes my point. Intelligent animals get food by tricking less intelligent animals. This is analogous to modern capitalism where high IQ wall street bankers get rich by defrauding the lower IQ general public.”
So you do agree with me.
“Fear is an emotion you are supposed to feel when you sense danger. It takes brains to know there is a threat.”
Yes but that fear is not always rational. Is having fear itself mean you are an intelligent person? I’ve heard it’s the opposite before because, a less fearful person is more likely to be intellectually curious and adventurous.
Again, you seem to be missing the point. Social competition does not necessarily develop over resources. There could be social competition over ideals, power, or just pussy.
You don’t have a coherent point. Competition over power? Power is primarily control over resources. Competition over pussy? Females tend to be attracted to the male with the most resources or the most ability to acquire resources as we continue to see today with all the gold digging women. And who says selection for intelligence was all about social competition? A lot of it was just about the struggle with nature.
It’s always possible to dream up speculative “just-so” stories about why resource acquisition was not important to our evolution, but it goes against the most basic law of nature: survival is about who gets to eat.
Now I do believe that once we conquered our environment in sub-Saharan Africa and survival became very easy, there was sexual selection for other parts of intelligence that are fairly independent of resource acquisition (i.e. rhythm music), but once we headed North, natural selection dominated sexual selection and it was all about getting resources and technological prowess.
”
So you do agree with me
No you agree with me.
.
.”Yes but that fear is not always rational. Is having fear itself mean you are an intelligent person? I’ve heard it’s the opposite before because, a less fearful person is more likely to be intellectually curious and adventurous.
Recognizing threats that actually exist requires intelligence. In biologically normal primates, such recognition creates fear.
“You don’t have a coherent point.”
I had multiple points, your failure to recognize them does not invalidate them
“Females tend to be attracted to the male with the most resources or the most ability to acquire resources as we continue to see today with all the gold digging women.”
That is classic speculation. Please provide me with a source of statistics showing that the majority of the female population are in fact “gold diggers”. Oh wait, you CAN’T because resource Allocation is obviously not the major reason a women picks a mate. for someone so obsessed with intelligence you seem to forget how intelligent and adaptable humans really are. We aren’t so bound by our instincts, if this were the case EVERY women would wan’t obama or donald trump in the sack. I was homeless once, but i was still able to get pussy. The females knew that I wasn’t the proper kind of provider but they would still gladly cheat on their husbands with me. Why? Simple, because I had two things: decent looks, and a charismatic personality I wasn’t really endowed and I don’t think I was the best in bed, I just knew how to make them laugh and smile.
“Now I do believe that once we conquered our environment in sub-Saharan Africa and survival became very easy, there was sexual selection for other parts of intelligence that are fairly independent of resource acquisition (i.e. rhythm music), but once we headed North, natural selection dominated sexual selection and it was all about getting resources and technological prowess.”
I doubt it. Northerners are just more intelligent because of their more globular brains and bigger orbital sockets which allow for an increase in spatial IQ. If you understand physics, the reason their brains are bigger is quite easily explainable: The cold, Colder climates are not even harder to live in, they just select for a specific phenotype that allows for cognitively efficient performances.
“No you agree with me”
If that gives you the ego boost to get through your day, then sure.
“Recognizing threats that actually exist requires intelligence. In biologically normal primates, such recognition creates fear.”
So fear= high IQ but paranoia doesn’t?
” And who says selection for intelligence was all about social competition?”
LMAO the majority of primatologists, anthropologists, and biologists do!!!
I had multiple points, your failure to recognize them does not invalidate them
Your point is what? That resource acquisition was not correlated with genetic success during human evolution. That’s not a point, it’s an opinion, and one that goes against the most basic law of nature: survival is about who gets to eat.
Please provide me with a source of statistics showing that the majority of the female population are in fact “gold diggers”.
Is your IQ below 80? If not, you have no excuse to say such dumb things:
According to the poll, 64 per cent said they aspire to find a husband bringing home more money. None wanted to marry a man who earned less.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375720/What-women-really-want–money-Research-finds-women-look-paid-job-partner.html
And proving women want rich guys is not even central to my point. If prosperous guys were the ones who tended to survive during evolution, the ladies didn’t have much choice.
I was homeless once,
Why does that not surprise me. 🙂
I doubt it. Northerners are just more intelligent because of their more globular brains and bigger orbital sockets which allow for an increase in spatial IQ. If you understand physics, the reason their brains are bigger is quite easily explainable: The cold, Colder climates are not even harder to live in, they just select for a specific phenotype that allows for cognitively efficient performances.
You’re only half-right. Big brains heat up like a light bulb in warm climates, so there’s more selection against big brains in warm climates. In cold climates, there’s less selection against big brains (though still quite a bit because they’re metabolically so expensive and physically burdensome, especially during child birth). Nonetheless, the cold really is hard to survive in, so the survival benefits of high IQ select for big brains.
LMAO the majority of primatologists, anthropologists, and biologists do!!!
1) Who cares!
2) We don’t know what the majority of them think unless there’s been a survey, where “social competition” was clearly defined.
“Is your IQ below 80? If not, you have no excuse to say such dumb things:
According to the poll, 64 per cent said they aspire to find a husband bringing home more money. None wanted to marry a man who earned less.”
Key words “wanted to marry”. Women wan’t money when it comes to settling down and planning for a future, that much is just plain obvious but, when looking for a sexual partner money is not sexually attractive. Power is sexually attractive which is only associated with wealth. Muscles, big breasts and buttocks are more sexually attractive than a pile of cash on a coffee table or the numbers you see on a computer screen when you check your bank account. Weak evidence to say the least, if anything your link is just more confirmation that a sexual dimorphism is reoccurring in humans. I have never taken an IQ test but, I would probably score higher than you. Just retaliating.
“And proving women want rich guys is not even central to my point. If prosperous guys were the ones who tended to survive during evolution, the ladies didn’t have much choice.”
So what is stopping me from sneaking in while a guy is at work, fucking his wife, eating his food, using the toilet and then dipping out? I didn’t have to collect any resources. Why would I have to work if a dumbass will just do it for me? Again, work smarter not harder.
“Why does that not surprise me.:-)”
Probably because you assume you’re right so anybody who disagrees with you in your mind must be stupid or something. I see a lot of white nationalists with this mindset it’s where the “jewsdidit” comes from. Not saying your a white nationalist or anything, you have probably transcended that mindset long ago but I still expect there to be psychological remnants of it.
“You’re only half-right. Big brains heat up like a light bulb in warm climates, so there’s more selection against big brains in warm climates. In cold climates, there’s less selection against big brains (though still quite a bit because they’re metabolically so expensive and physically burdensome, especially during child birth). Nonetheless, the cold really is hard to survive in, so the survival benefits of high IQ select for big brains.”
How am I half-right? I didn’t say cold climates weren’t harsh I just think tropical ones and cold ones are harder than each other in different ways. I don’t believe either is objectively harder to survive in.
“1) Who cares!”
…….Do you not understand how the scientific community works?
“2) We don’t know what the majority of them think unless there’s been a survey, where “social competition” was clearly defined.”
Except we do. The majority of scientists subscribe to the social brain hypothesis at least in humans and primates. Try again.
Sorry I forgot to address one of your replies
“Your point is what? That resource acquisition was not correlated with genetic success during human evolution. That’s not a point, it’s an opinion, and one that goes against the most basic law of nature: survival is about who gets to eat.”
That was not my point thank you for further proving your ignorance. Please read again and then come back to me Do I really have to spell this out for you it should be:
That resource acquisition is not the only or possibly even the most important factor in human encephalization.
So what is stopping me from sneaking in while a guy is at work, fucking his wife, eating his food, using the toilet and then dipping out? I didn’t have to collect any resources. Why would I have to work if a dumbass will just do it for me? Again, work smarter not harder.
There’s nothing stopping you from doing that now, but in prehistoric times, low IQ people would have frozen to death in the winter before you had a chance to charm a rich man’s wife.
Probably because you assume you’re right so anybody who disagrees with you in your mind must be stupid or something. I see a lot of white nationalists with this mindset it’s where the “jewsdidit” comes from. Not saying your a white nationalist or anything, you have probably transcended that mindset long ago but I still expect there to be psychological remnants of it.
I’ve never been a white nationalist and I don’t think that’s even relevant to this discussion..
How am I half-right? I didn’t say cold climates weren’t harsh I just think tropical ones and cold ones are harder than each other in different ways. I don’t believe either is objectively harder to survive in.
HBD argues cold climates required more IQ to survive.
Except we do. The majority of scientists subscribe to the social brain hypothesis at least in humans and primates. Try again.
Even if they do, and even if they’re right, the social brain hypothesis is still wholly consistent with resource acquisition being a major driver of evolution. Those who were shrewd enough to acquire social status ultimately acquired the most resources for themselves and their kids, and thus replicated the most genes.
That resource acquisition is not the only or possibly even the most important factor in human encephalization.
My point is that it is a major factor in the evolution of our large brains. You’ve failed to suggest an alternative that was significantly more important..
“There’s nothing stopping you from doing that now, but in prehistoric times, low IQ people would have frozen to death in the winter before you had a chance to charm a rich man’s wife.”
How exactly do you know that is true? You seriously believe that people were getting married in those days?
“HBD argues cold climates required more IQ to survive.”
Maybe spatial IQ.
“Even if they do, and even if they’re right, the social brain hypothesis is still wholly consistent with resource acquisition being a major driver of evolution. Those who were shrewd enough to acquire social status ultimately acquired the most resources for themselves and their kids, and thus replicated the most genes.”
So you’re just stating the obvious?
“My point is that it is a major factor in the evolution of our large brains. You’ve failed to suggest an alternative that was significantly more important..”
Except that I did….Again, just because you failed to recognize my points doesn’t invalidate them.
“
How exactly do you know that is true? You seriously believe that people were getting married in those days?
Not literally, but there was pair bonding. And I know low IQ people froze to death in the winter because after millions of years of living in Africa, adapting to cold climates was a new challenge of enormous difficulty that required lots of novel problem solving.
So you’re just stating the obvious?
Apparently it’s not obvious to you because you think resource acquisition was not the major cause for brain size selection
Except that I did….Again, just because you failed to recognize my points doesn’t invalidate them.
So it’s my fault you can’t articulate your points? What specifically was the selection pressure that caused the tripling of brain size in 4 million years? You obviously don’t think the cognitive abilities needed to acquire resources were primary,so what was? Is your argument is that bigger brains evolved primarily because men had to be super smart to secretly have sex with other men’s women and that this required more brains than getting food, water, shelter, fire, and clothing?
“Not literally, but there was pair bonding. And I know low IQ people froze to death in the winter because after millions of years of living in Africa, adapting to cold climates was a new challenge of enormous difficulty that required lots of novel problem solving.”
Again, this is speculation. How do you know Low IQ people were freezing? Are you suggesting that people in Ice age europe lacked any kind of empathy towards those less fortunate? Does it take high IQ to be a hunter gatherer?
“Apparently it’s not obvious to you because you think resource acquisition was not the major cause for brain size selection””
I never said that.
“So it’s my fault you can’t articulate your points? What specifically was the selection pressure that caused the tripling of brain size in 4 million years? You obviously don’t think the cognitive abilities needed to acquire resources were primary,so what was? Is your argument is that bigger brains evolved primarily because men had to be super smart to secretly have sex with other men’s women and that this required more brains than getting food, water, shelter, fire, and clothing?”
No you idiot, I”m saying the need to constantly “out trick” your opponent, remember everyone’s name, their ideals, who they like, what they like, who they hate what they hate, what kind of food they eat is what caused it. Should that guy really be being ostracized?, should the chief of our tribe really deserve all of the food and the women? Should I tell todd that my friend tedd told me to tell kyle that his mother is dead? These are all thoughts of hunter gatherers and social groups similar in nature. In fact, this is just regular thought for anyone really. The simple fact that you failed to see how “social” competition” could mean something else other than food, water, and shelter shows how stupid you can really be. Next time you come at me with some obviously ignorant bullshit you better do your actual homework on the subject you jackass. Instead of claiming how I’m not “articulate” maybe you should learn some reading comprehension.
Again, this is speculation.
This whole discussion is speculation, fool. None of us were around tens of thousands of years ago
How do you know Low IQ people were freezing? Are you suggesting that people in Ice age europe lacked any kind of empathy towards those less fortunate?
They often lacked sympathy for others, especially competitors or people from rival tribes. Further, sometimes there are simply not enough resources to share with everyone, and sometimes you venture out on your own and can’t get help from the tribe, and sometimes entire low IQ tribes froze to death.
Does it take high IQ to be a hunter gatherer?
High IQ is relative. It takes relatively high IQ to adapt to the novel challenges of the freezing cold after millions of years becoming adapted to the tropics.
I never said that.
Then what the hell are you arguing for? If you think that resource acquisition was a major driver of encephalization, then we agree. If you don’t, then suggest an alternative. But this “maybe, maybe not” argument is inane.
No you idiot, I”m saying the need to constantly “out trick” your opponent, remember everyone’s name, their ideals, who they like, what they like, who they hate what they hate, what kind of food they eat is what caused it. Should that guy really be being ostracized?, should the chief of our tribe really deserve all of the food and the women? Should I tell todd that my friend tedd told me to tell kyle that his mother is dead? These are all thoughts of hunter gatherers and social groups similar in nature. In fact, this is just regular thought for anyone really. The simple fact that you failed to see how “social” competition” could mean something else other than food, water, and shelter shows how stupid you can really be.
No, it shows how stupid you can really be, because you still don’t get that social competition is entirely compatible with my resource competition model. Indeed navigating our complex social networks is the primary way humans get money and power even today,.
The mistake you made was assuming that because I was arguing that resource acquisition drove intelligence evolution, that therefore I was arguing that selection was primarily about conquering the natural environment instead of the social environment.
What you failed to grasp is that the resource acquisition model is compatible with BOTH scenarios: The smartest social groups often get the most resources by manipulating the natural environment, and then those who can best manipulate the group, often keep the lion’s share of those resources.
“This whole discussion is speculation, fool. None of us were around tens of thousands of years ago”
You don’t necessarily have to be. The reason you’re speculating is because you’re using your common sense, not because you weren’t there, which honestly has no real place in a scientific discussion.
“They often lacked sympathy for others, especially competitors or people from rival tribes. Further, sometimes there are simply not enough resources to share with everyone, and sometimes you venture out on your own and can’t get help from the tribe, and sometimes entire low IQ tribes froze to death.”
My point still stands. On another note, how do you know that low IQ is what caused tribes to freeze to death?
“Then what the hell are you arguing for? If you think that resource acquisition was a major driver of encephalization, then we agree. If you don’t, then suggest an alternative. But this “maybe, maybe not” argument is inane.”
I disagree because the majority of our evolution was in africa not europe where there is less resources available. Therefore, our encephalization wasn’t centered around resources but instead social complexity.
“No, it shows how stupid you can really be, because you still don’t get that social competition is entirely compatible with my resource competition model. Indeed navigating our complex social networks is the primary way humans get money and power even today,.What you failed to grasp is that the resource acquisition model is compatible with BOTH scenarios: The smartest social groups often get the most resources by manipulating the natural environment, and then those who can best manipulate the group, often keep the lion’s share of those resources.”
I never said it wasn’t compatible, in fact I had thought YOU were implying that it wasn’t compatible as well. Have me and you just been arguing the same points this entire time?
“The mistake you made was assuming that because I was arguing that resource acquisition drove intelligence evolution, that therefore I was arguing that selection was primarily about conquering the natural environment instead of the social environment.”
How is it my mistake that you failed to make this distinction?
obama’s cabinet:
John Kerry YALE
Jack Lew HARVARD
treasury.gov
Ashton Carter YALE, RHODES SCHOLAR, HARVARD PROFESSOR
defense.gov
Loretta E. Lynch HARVARD
usdoj.gov
Sally Jewell U OF WASHINGTON
doi.gov
Thomas J. Vilsack SOME SCHOOL I’VE NEVER HEARD OF
usda.gov
Penny Pritzker HARVARD, STANFORD
commerce.gov
Thomas E. Perez HARVARD
dol.gov
Sylvia Mathews Burwell HARVARD, OXFORD
hhs.gov
Julián Castro HARVARD, STANFORD
hud.gov
Anthony Foxx NYU
dot.gov
Ernest Moniz STANFORD
energy.gov
Secretary John King HARVARD, YALE, COLUMBIA
ed.gov
Robert McDonald NO NAME MILITARY SCHOOL
va.gov
Denis McDonough GEORGETOWN
Gina McCarthy TUFTS
epa.gov
Shaun L.S. Donovan HARVARD
whitehouse.gov/omb
Michael Froman HARVARD, PRINCETON, OXFORD
ustr.gov
Samantha Power YALE, HARVARD
usun.state.gov
Jason Furman HARVARD, LSE
whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea
Maria Contreras-Sweet CAL STATE LOS ANGELES
sba.gov
note the ABSURD over-representation of harvard.
The overrepresentation is embarrassing. I’m so disappointed in Obama.
Of course the more charitable explanation is that he just wants the most qualified educated people doing the most important jobs, and Harvard has that reputation.
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/10/episcopalians-v-jews-on-iq.html
peepee’s belief in a flat earth is exemplified by her diagnosing most of her commenters with some form of “mental illness”. she’s diagnosed me with everything except trichotillomania. all human behavior, like all politics, is local. even genuine “mental illness” is specific to a given social context.
it’s pearls to swine in the case of peepee, but perhaps one other person will read it.
peepee should read The Razor’s Edge. its author was a homo, but he did have a fairly long life, especially for his cohort of 1874. he died at age 91.
the last lines are the most Cynical lines in english (language) literature, and they’re true.
i tried to copy them from my quora comment…
but i couldn’t find it…
i found a fellow traveler who’d posted it under “Which books have the best ending lines?” here it is:
“I looked back with my mind’s eye on my long narrative to see if there was any way in which I could devise a more satisfactory ending; and to my intense surprise it dawned upon me that without in the least intending to I had written nothing more nor less than a success story. For all the persons with whom I have been concerned got what they wanted: Elliott social eminence; Isabel an assured position backed by a substantial fortune in an active and cultured community; Gray a steady and lucrative job, with an office to go to from nine till six every day; Suzanne Rouvier security; Sophie death; and Larry happiness. And however superciliously the highbrows carp, we the public in our heart of hearts all like a success story; so perhaps my ending is not so unsatisfactory after all.”
if peepee does read it, she’ll still be quite confused…
unless and until she “gets” WW I.
the most significant (historical) event since the resurrection.
the most significant (historical) event since the resurrection
Is this an attempt at humor or are you a Christian fundamentalist now?
and, obviously, these last lines are intended as ridicule.
ridicule of everyone except Larry Darrell.
so everyone achieves his goal. everyone is a success. everyone has proved how smart he is in peepee’s terms.
but in all cases save one, the goals are STUPID and RIDICULOUS.
and Larry knows what he knows only because of his experience in “The War to End All Wars”.
Chomsky’s definition of intelligence…
Look up “Noam Chomsky – lethal mutation”. Then scroll to 2:50.
I hope pumpkin’s is more accurate.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/masters-of-manipulation-psychopaths-rule-the-world/5383706
http://www.globalresearch.ca/old-world-order-vs-new-world-order-the-geopolitics-of-chaos-and-change/5378447
Without, Whites, one can make a very strong assertion that Ashkenazim cannot adapt well. The reason behind their success is because Whites in America have allowed them to get away with their motives repeatedly. Their is a grain of truth that Jews are pushier than non-Jews, when they want something.
Furthermore, they aren’t too keen in living among non-Whites, yet the ideologies of their elites in America have been everything of this sort.