In his 1998 book The g Factor, scholar Arthur Jensen used an extremely objective method to classify humans in different races: Varimax rotation of principal components applied to the genes of 42 populations studied by scholars Nei & Roychoudhury (1993). What I love about this is Jensen used the eigenvalues > 1 rule for determining the number of components to be retained for rotation.
So based on “genetic similarity”, there are roughly six major races, though in the chart below (which I adapted from Jensen) I prefer to label all six using just three major anthropological types: Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid. Different ethnic groups have strong or weak loadings on the different components (races) and some load on multiple components, which as Jensen noted, reflect, central tendencies, not discrete categories.
| varimax rotation components | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| population | asian mongoloid | caucasoid | hybridized mongoloid | african negroid | american mongoloid | non-african negroid |
| pygmy | 651 | |||||
| nigerian | 734 | |||||
| bantu | 747 | |||||
| san (bushman) | 465 | |||||
| lapp | 500 | |||||
| finn | 988 | |||||
| german | 978 | |||||
| english | 948 | |||||
| italian | 989 | |||||
| iranian | 635 | |||||
| northern indian | 704 | |||||
| japanese | 936 | 214 | ||||
| korean | 959 | 229 | ||||
| tibetan | 855 | |||||
| mongolian | 842 | 357 | ||||
| southern chinese | 331 | 771 | ||||
| thai | 814 | |||||
| filipino | 782 | |||||
| indonesian | 749 | |||||
| polynesian | 526 | 284 | ||||
| micronesian | 521 | 328 | ||||
| australian (aborigines) | 706 | |||||
| papuan (new guineans) | 742 | |||||
| north amerindian | 804 | |||||
| south amerindian | 563 | |||||
| eskimo | 726 |
I find it interesting that Italians are the most Caucasoid of all Caucasoid ethnicities (clocking in at 989). Italians look like a hybrid of what I believe are the three Caucasoid sub-races: whites, dark caucasoids, and Ashkenazim; thus it makes sense that Italians are the essence of the Caucasoid race.
It should be noted that genetic distance is measured using relatively neutral genes, which by definition are relatively insensitive to natural selection. It’s probably for this reason that sub-Saharan and Australoids get divided into different races, despite both being Negroid in appearance and IQ; because neutral genes primarily reflect the genetic clock (time since populations split) and not how truly similar folks are. So if you define race by how recently people shared a common ancestor, then this analysis should please you, but if you define race by how much people preserve the traits of a common ancestor, then an analysis using non-neutral genes is badly needed.
“I find it interesting that Italians are the most Caucasoid of all Caucasoid ethnicities (clocking in at 989). Italians look like a hybrid of what I believe are the three Caucasoid sub-races: whites, dark caucasoids, and Ashkenazim; thus it makes sense that Italians are the essence of the Caucasoid race.”
Interesting.
It also says that South Chinese are not too close to regular mongoloids but are close to “hybridized mongoloids”, I take it that is hybridized with Caucasoid?
Could you explain that?
It’s possible that the South Chinese have traces of Middle Eastern ancestry, coming from Arab/Persian Muslims, who settled in that part of the world, a few centuries ago.
Perhaps also coming from the Anglo Proles and the Portuguese a few hundred years ago.
This is a good example of a Southern Asiatic with Mediterranean-like features.
PP’s fetish for the Ashkenazim, fetish for East Asian reaction speeds, and fetish to entice a black crowd brings us to Bruce Lee.
As we know, Bruce Lee was indeed a fighter of amazing speed. Legend has it that he might have traces of Ashkenazim from his mother’s side, because he was mixed individual of Eurasian ancestry. Also, as we all know, Bruce Lee was very much admired by many black americans.
PP. what the hell is this? Explain in depth please.
she has no idea, but i’ll explain it for y’all if you like.
the problem of many mutually orthogonal sets of factors which “explain” the data equally well has no solution. it’s all just a matter of taste.
the problem of many mutually orthogonal sets of factors which “explain” the data equally well has no solution. it’s all just a matter of taste.
How is varimax rotation of principal components using the eigenvalues > 1 rule a “matter of taste”? The eigenvalues > 1 rule determined there were six races (from the 26 populations) and the similarity matrix of the 26 populations determined which cluster each population belonged to.
It’s a wholly objective procedure that requires no subjective judgements on anyone’s part. That’s the whole point.
it’s a matter of taste that the means of selecting the factors was
1. varimax
2. eigenvalues > 1
an infinity of other criteria might have been used.
duh!
the procedure is objective…
but there are many many…and infinite number of objective procedures one might use…
the subjectivity is in the CHOICE of the objective procedure.
and as i’ve said before…
1. eigenvalue > 1 is trivial. it’s standard.
2. varimax will simply CONFIRM the racial classification used to obtain the genetic data…
UNLESS
the genetic data was really obtained randomly…
THAT IS…
if the data is from black congolese and koreans and italians varimax will identify these as the most black, most mongoloid, and most white…
if that data were from random people…who were NOT the products of the hybridization of colonialism…the factors might be different.
…
there is such a thing as race…
it can be defined in a non-arbitrary manner…
it’s just that it has much less significance than racists think and much more than anti-racists think.
despite the convergent evolution of negroid traits…
from the pov of closest shared ancestor…
abos and melanesians and negritos are much closer to italians and japanese than they are to africans…
AND this is a very important point…
THAT IS…
you have folks who look like black africans in a number of ways and therefore might be grouped with them…based on phenotype…
THAT IS AGAIN…
1. they’re totally unrelated yet have many or all of the characteristics of the defining phenotype.
2. the identical phenotype may not even be the result of identical genes…
convergent evolution in phenotype may occur without convergence of genotype.
varimax will simply CONFIRM the racial classification used to obtain the genetic data…
Well in this case, the genetic data was obtained using a racial classification that divided people into 26 groups, and this procedure reduced it to six. So how is it confirming the classification used to obtain the data?
looks like black guy.
but is closer to japanese.
the above guy is a FIJIAN…
MELANESIAN.
an infinity of other criteria might have been used.
duh!
This is one of the most frequently used methods in the social sciences.
Many behavioral scientists are VERY familiar with it.
That’s why Jensen chose it.
But I’ve also played around with other objective methods such as common factor analysis, and hierarchical cluster analysis and got essentially the same results as Jensen.
When different methods, using different samples, give similar results, you know you’re doing something right.
yeah right peepee.
you’ve downloaded the data and analyzed it yourself.
whilst making 1 million comments about oprah.
do you even know the difference between lies and the truth?
When I was in university they had software built into the computers for doing factor analysis. Meanwhile the library had massive books on genetics, full of genetic distance matrices. It was simply a matter of entering the data from the book into the computer.
to be taken seriously that genetic data would have be random.
so it might include (ancient) hybrid peoples of the sahara or the horn of africa or the himalaya or the arabian peninsula or burma or central asia or etc.
…
what is race?
what’s the best definition?
here’s my attempt at a definition…
any set may be partitioned using a “similarity” or “identity” relation, an “equivalence relation”.
the set of human beings…or the set of pre-colonialism human beings may also be partitioned with a genetic “similarity” or “identity” relation.
that equivalence relation might be the following…
person x will be said to “=” person y if and only if they have a common ancestor who lived no longer than z years ago.
what’s z?
whatever z actually results in a partition of the set, rather than just every member being equal.
for example an older z would result in identifying ne asians with native americans.
but the “hybrid” people might ruin this.
so another definition which might be used to “color” the map of the world…
i’ll have to think about it.
Well in this case, …
because anything other than random will necessarily re-inforce the bias of the investigators/pseudo-scientists.
it is NOT interesting or surprising that italians would be the “whitest”.
it’s STUPID.
I didn’t say Italians were the whitest. I said they were the most Caucasoid. In order to find out who is the whitest, you would need to do a varimax rotated PC on JUST Caucasoid ethnic groups, ranging from English, to Ashkenazim, to Iranian to South Asian.
It might yield 3 components. One with Ashkenazi Jews, another with Europeans, and a third with Middle Eastern/North Africans/South Asians.
If Italians loaded highest on the European component (which they would not), only then could you say they were whitest
But varimax PC might debunk the very idea of a white race, as defined by European ancestry. For example it might yield just two components. South Asians and all other caucasoids.
peepee,
i’m sure the results will all be pretty much the same.
but varimax and the kaiser criterion are NOT impressive.
1. liberal creationists some of whom still argue “there is no such thing as race” are..
a. LYING
or…
b. fucktards
2. HBDers who try to explain basically everything, every social phenomenon, with race, sub-race, whatever their jive talk is are…
just fucktards.
3. when mlk said, “not by the color of their skin…” he was either LYING or he was a fucktard.
BUT
the evidence that i know of is that that genetic variation which distinguishes the races of man are < 5% of all genetic variation.
so YES. the races can be distinguished. and YES it's a lot more than skin color.
BUT
race as distinguishing person x from person y genetically is still…
almost always…
TRIVIAL.
the evidence that i know of is that that genetic variation which distinguishes the races of man are < 5% of all genetic variation
But 5% is a lot.
the genetic variation that distinguishes the races of man is like the white cap of a whitecap.
PP,
caucasoid and white is basically the same thing,
the only great difference is that white is a ordinary/non-scientific
caucasoid is a quasi-scientific name to the western eurasians
western eurasians = whites = caucasoid, basically the same thing
like butterfly a non-scientific name
”Rhopalocera” a scientific name
to the same ”thing” or existence
MENA (middle eastern + north african), central asians and indians are not QUASI-the same thing than europeans specially because all of this fourth ”groups” are racially mixed in the some but relative-to-significative way.
more near to the european continent, less will be the hybridization with non-caucasoids.
there are phenotypically pure arabs (and probably ”genetically pure” ones too) but on average ”arabs” on saudi peninsula tend to be mixed race, they just look like light skinned mestizos and many them also look like octoroon, quadroon…
”All traits are heritable”
traits express ”genes”**
so the gene to the high stature will be the same for all human groups**
if the answer is yes
so,
a taller african black will share the ”same gene” or ”genes” with a taller norwegian
and a shorter african black will be by this specific perspective genetically distinct than a taller african black
it’s a example
but there are OBVIOUS differences
a population can be characterized epicentrically by high stature, like in Lord of the rings
or by blonde hair with dark skin,
or by great intelligence
even i believe that ”you can” produce a mixed-race race
all phenotypically distinct population was mixed in the past.
what make whites or caucasoids interesting is that they have greater proportion of recessive traits than any other human population.
varimax seeks to minimize hybridization, so to say.
but if one is starting with populations one thinks of as pure examples varimax will merely “confirm” this…
thus in order for such results to me interesting rather than 100% pure bullshit the population would have to be selected at random from around the world.
but that’s not what happened, if anything happened at all.
the above is just reconfirming that jensen was a moron…like peepee.
i’m stll w8ing.
…to b interesting…
…the population would have to…
that is the study population for which the factors are found.
needless to say peepee i mathematically and statistically retarded and doesn’t understand this.
stll w8ing.
and there’s nothing special about eigenvalue > 1 rule at all.
it’s obvious and standard.
a hypothetical latent variable which explains less than an explicit variable is stupid…
obviously.
in fact the so called kaiser rule tends to pick too many factors.
thus in order for such results to me interesting rather than 100% pure bullshit the population would have to be selected at random from around the world.
but that’s not what happened, if anything happened at all.
the above is just reconfirming that jensen was a moron…like peepee.
Yes, unless the science is done 100% perfectly, it’s 100% bullshit, and the scientists are morons (sarcasm).
Maybe if you actually did some real science yourself you wouldn’t be so quick to condemn the work of others.
obviously you don’t understand varimax.
i didn’t know lesbians were capable of sarcasm.
I asked to myself the same, lol
”Italians look like a hybrid of what I believe are the three Caucasoid sub-races: whites, dark caucasoids, and Ashkenazim”
Ashkenazim, nor white nor dark caucasoids are sub-races but mixed definitions of three different categories
Whites is a general and prole/mundane/common term to ”european-caucasoid”
AshkenaziS is a specific term to the european-jews, specially eastern ones
dark caucasoids is a near scientifically term but generally dark caucasoids are called ”indian and MENA types”.
italians, the few i know, are a combination of mediterranean, alpine, dinaric and armenoid/nordic intrusions.
What differentiates northern to the southern italians is that the second group is more homogeneously alpine and mediterranean…
european sub-races i know/learn are
– nordid and their subtypes
– alpinoid idem
-mediterranoid idem
– dinarid idem
– armen[o]id idem
-”arabid” or some type of mediterranoid
– baltid
Italians may have a great and or balanced combination of all types**
don’t seems so much
But genetically speaking seems Britanic peoples are the most ”purest” of all europeans with less non-european genes or those with phenotypes less racially mixed.
purified is not the same than old…
for example, finnish can be one of the oldest people in Europe or preserve the ancient genetic landscape (or not) of this region, but it doesn’t that they will be more ”racially purified”.
race only can be ”pure” via phenotype (that express the genotype) but populations can be pure via genotype or less genetic diversity, like endogamy.
Pumpkin,
“It’s probably for this reason that sub-Saharan and Australoids get divided into different races, despite both being Negroid in appearance and IQ; because neutral genes primarily reflect the genetic clock (time since populations split) and not how truly similar folks are.”
Jesus your cognitive dissonance is so blatant. Genotype is not phenotype. Australoids are worlds apart from negroids.
Even on phenotype. All they really have in common is dark skin and prognathism.
Exactly, some Australoid groups even have blonde hair. Australoid is one of the phenotypically diverse race groups.
one of the most*
Just because they have blonde hair + dark skin*
Even on phenotype. All they really have in common is dark skin and prognathism.
And wooly hair. And broad nose. And thick lips. In other words, the defining cluster of negroid traits.
you forgot huge cock and the ability to dance.
Asians have ridiculous broad noses too. Many moreso than blacks.
Not even thick lips are remotely unique. Virtually everyone ‘cept Euros and some NA Indians has them.
“Australoid” hair is usually very different PP.
You must be looking at Papuans exclusively.
They’re only sometimes similar, at a very superficial level.
Andaman islanders:
Pumpkin,
that’s what the other guy meant by “prognathism.”
They are still more related to white people than they are to Africans.
More related to whites only perhaps in the sense that they share a more recent ancestor with whites than they do with Africans. But my thesis is that Africans and Australoids have both genetically preserved the ancestral phenotype of all modern humans, while Caucasoids, and especially Mongoloids have evolved into something new.
You’re basically saying that if there are twins and one has blonde hair while the other has black hair that the black haired person would be more related to me even though we don’t share any genes in common.
You’re basically saying that if there are twins and one has blonde hair while the other has black hair that the black haired person would be more related to me even though we don’t share any genes in common.
Not more related to you, but perhaps more genetically similar to you, as measured by non-neutral genes.
If you both have black hair isn’t that some genes you have in common? Or do you not think hair color is caused by genes?
You do realize unrelated people share genes right?
“Not more related to you, but perhaps more genetically similar to you”
That’s the same damn thing though.
“If you both have black hair isn’t that some genes you have in common?”
Well of course, but that’s because we are the same species. him and his twin share their mother and father as their most common ancestor while me and him share…..well I don’t know who but, our common ancestor is much farther back because we definitely do not share parents.
“You do realize unrelated people share genes right?”
Yes i understand I was simplifying my reply because i didn’t feel like typing more than i had to. Sorry it was my own laziness
Jesus your cognitive dissonance is so blatant. Genotype is not phenotype. Australoids are worlds apart from negroids.
Again, that’s because they use NEUTRAL genes, which by DEFINITION, are unrelated to phenotype.
So all you’re saying is Australoids are worlds apart from Negroids in the part of the DNA that DOESN’T MATTER.
do “they” really know they’re neutral?
no.
all the genes for skin color, nose breadth, prognathism, nigger lips, kinky hair are known?
are they?
but even if they were neutral this is 100% irrelevant. that peepee thinks it’s relevant just shows how right misdreavus was.
They’re RELATIVELY neutral (as far as the scientists knew at the time).
Because the whole point was to use genetic difference to determine how long in time two populations have been separated. If they used non-neutral genes, then two populations who had been separated long ago, yet were exposed to similar selection pressures, would wrongly appear to have split only recently.
Lumping vs splitting. It’s easy.
And you using genes or or social/archaic definitions? Trying to combine the two (while using Linnaean taxonomy and the -oid definitions) is nonsensical.
The method simply takes a bunch of population data and reduces it to a smaller number of components, and tells you how much each population loads on each component.
You don’t have to call the components “races” and give them names like “Negroid, Caucasoid, etc). What you call them is the only subjective part of the exercise.
Phenotypic combinations that are only found in Caucasoids are found in greater proportion among the British people such a zero-prognathism face, very fair skin, red haired hair, etc
The Finns came second and they are the most ‘mongoloid-like’ ‘of Europe.
You need to learn how to better analyze what you are seeing 😉
From what I’ve read, there is a genetic mixture of North African, sub-Saharan blacks, Jews sefardistas between the Iberians Europeans.
genetic mix of Siberian populations of Central Asia, sources ” Turkish ” and Mongolian in Eastern Europe, particularly in Europe genetic Eslava.Mistura mongolica in Scandinavia.
Genetic mixture of the Middle East, probably very old, almost all over Europe, but especially in the Balkans, Italy, Iberia (but seems less prominent).
These mixtures appear to be less common among indigenous British.
Sefarditas = sephardic
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/07/20/with-no-males-these-butterflies-are-evolving-into-separate-species/
if race refers to geographic origin…prior to the age of colonization…
then it is certainly possible to group people.
but the classification above is for the frequencies of alleles…
but for individuals…
a japanese and a pygmy can be more similar than two japanese selected at random.
why?
because human populations have retained their primordial genetic variation for the most part.
it sounds PC, but it’s a FACT…
humans are a very genetically homogeneous species as species of mammals go…even more homogeneous than some domesticated animals.
and the reason is:
1. the human species is a young species as species go.
2. at some point after origin but before the neolithic the human population was in a bottle neck of only about 15,000 individuals. http://phys.org/news/2010-01-humans-endangered-species.html
They remained an endangered species for around one million years.
Modern humans are known to have less genetic variation than other living primates, even though our current population is many orders of magnitude greater.
that is, the genes which determine race are a tiny fraction of human variation.
what fraction?
how tiny?
my guess is < 5%.
there's an answer i just don't know it.
that is, despite the truly striking differences in appearance of the races…95% of the genetic variation has absolutely nothing to do with race.
but those differences in appearance have such psychical punch that people like flushton and densen simply cannot grasp it.
Where would the rest of it go?
Someone from HumanVarieties supposedly found that a significant portion of of non-racial variation was intra-individual. That is, once intra-individual variation was discounted, inter-racial variation made up something like 50% of the remainder.
Details are fuzzy, but I can probably find it again.
the wogs begin at calais…
@william/who i assume is actually peepee
the problem with the
temperature = iq,
sunlight and temperature = fair-ness
regarding the ne asians is…a litany…
1. ne asians tend to be scrawny…even when they’re tall, they’re “gracile”.
2. the biggest ne asians, the manchus and mongolians are NOT the smartest by the standards of flushton and densen.
3. even the biggest ne asians are scrawny in comparison to europeans…and especially nw europeans.
4. many ne asians do have a uniquely neotenic look, but…
5. my own experience with ne asians and the data shows that…
a. their verbal IQ is no greater than that of europeans and the variance is less…that is, very verbally smart ne asians basically do NOT exist.
b. they are conformists, obedient, pushy, striving…
my brother just got back from a tour of ne asia. he confirmed the stereotype.
the japs are the best of the lot…
BY FAR.
“a. their verbal IQ is no greater than that of europeans and the variance is less…that is, very verbally smart ne asians basically do NOT exist.”
what is the variance?
6. why is ne asian scrawni-ness a problem for the theory?
a. bergmann’s rule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann's_rule
…within a broadly distributed taxonomic clade, populations and species of larger size are found in colder environments…
in other words, the greater bulk of europeans and especially nw europeans suggests that they inhabited a climate COLDER than that of even the present day mongols and machus…let alone the han…for thousands of years.
b. allen’s rule which predicts a., because a larger body has less surface area to its volume.
still waiting for the manchu world’s strongest man…
still waiting…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haf%C3%BE%C3%B3r_J%C3%BAl%C3%ADus_Bj%C3%B6rnsson
Yes, that explains why it’s so freezing cold in sub-Saharan Africa:
Bergmann and Allen were Geniuses! LOL!
that guy is TINY.
TINY.
TEENY
TINY.
do you even know who that is?
1. no black has ever won an olympic weightlifting medal.
2. offensive lineman is still the whitest position in the NFL.
no chink has ever competed at super heavy weight in olympic weightlifting.
NOT
ONE
…
the average black american is NOT the average black african.
the average black african is a fucking midget.
was it selection by the slavers?
maybe.
BUT…
the average WHITE american, latinos excluded, is BIGGER and more ROBUST than the average black american.
and it’s not “nutrition”.
…
but chinks are much more ethnocentric than europeans.
i’m still waiting for the black or chink who can do this…
or this…
ya know there’s also the trace of the neanderthals…
iran had lots.
china?
NONE!
Here’s a list of the 15 biggest body builders of all time
http://www.thesportster.com/entertainment/top-15-biggest-bodybuilders-of-all-time/
For apples to apples comparison, I excluded all the non-Americans, to make a list of the biggest AMERICAN body builder’s of all time:
1. Ronnie Coleman (Black)
2. Arnold Schwarzenegger (White)
3. Kai Greene (Black)
4. Phillip Health (Black)
5. Flex Wheeler (Black)
6. Johnnie O. Jackson (Black)
7. Lee Haney (Black)
8. Lou Ferrigno (white)
9. Kevin Levrone (white)
So blacks are only 12.6% of America, but 66% of the biggest body builders in American history.
Rushton’s rule trumps Bergmann’s rule.
As for Africans being small, they’re severely malnourished on average. Duh. You have to look at blacks in developed countries (assuming the data’s not biased by selective migration i.e. selection during slavery)
and your picture has been doctored.
it’s pretty common.
his arms are not that big.
according to wikipedia a chinese did surpass alexeev’s total by 2.5 kg.
alexeev’s records were set in 1977.
the chink’s were set in 2002…
at the chinese national championships…
so maybe never.
despite 25 years.
and that guy in peepee’s pic is ronnie coleman…
he’s 5’11” supposedly.
so more likely only 5’9″.
PP, are you fucking serious? That’s a photoshop.
God PP…. I follow bodybuiliding.
Kevin Levrone isn’t white, he’s a mullato.
Kevin Levrone isn’t white, he’s a mullato.
I stand corrected. So blacks are actually 78% of the biggest body builders in American history!
Jorge, selection by slavers has never been proven,
the biggest?
or those who have won the most titles?
two different things peepee.
very different.
the BIGGEST bodybuilder ever is a GERMAN.
markus ruhl.
and robustness isn’t about muscle only.
it’s about skeleton.
that fact REMAINS
1. NW EUROPEANS ARE MORE ROBUST THAN NE ASIANS AND SS AFRICANS AND…
EVERYONE EXCEPT…
THE POLYNESIANS…
BUT…
THE POLYNESIANS TEND TO BE SHORT.
…
BERGMANN’S RULE IMPLIES THAT…
EUROPEANS AND NW EUROPEANS IN PARTICULAR…
DEVELOPED AND DIFFERENTIATED FROM THE REST OF MANKIND…
IN…
A…
UNIQUELY…
COLD…
CLIMATE!
the biggest?
or those who have won the most titles?
I don’t know how they defined “biggest” but by whatever criteria they’re using, blacks are nearly 80% of the top body builders in American history, despite being only 12.6% of America.
How does that square with whites being genetically stronger or more robust?
You are correct. I know a thing or two about nutrition, since my career revolves around it.
Whites are genetically stronger, as well as Asians. Look at all of the Olympic and power lifters. They’re all mostly white and Asian. You have freaks of nature like Phil Heath, Kai Greene, and Ronnie Coleman, but they are freaks of nature and don’t represent the average.
A white man has won the WSM every year since 1974. That’s not nutrition differences, that’s genetic differences.
West Africans and their descendants have fast twitch (Type I) muscle fibers, which allow for explosive power but tire quickly. Conversely, East Africans, Europeans, and Asians have slow twitch (Type II) fibers, which allow for strength and endurance. This is why Kenyans are good distance runners, West Africans (re Usian Bolt) are good sprinters, and Europeans and Asians are good powerlifters and Strongmen,
Also, along with the fast twitch muscle fibers comes a gene variant that 70 percent of West Africans have, and is, of course, present in Usian Bolt.
A white man has won the WSM every year since 1974. That’s not nutrition differences, that’s genetic differences.
No it’s a nutrition difference, at least in part. The vast majority of blacks worldwide live in third world poverty. Virtually all whites live in the developed world. Whites have a much larger nourished population pool from which to recruit the WSM
PP, you are correct. It has to do with blacks’ lower fat-free mass. African Americans with MORE African ancestry have lower body fat.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/06/12/black-american-men-with-more-african-ancestry-less-likely-to-be-obese/
I’m going to make a post on HBD and bodybuilding soon, so thanks for the stat.
No one is better than Arnold though. Though I do like Jay Cutler and Dennis Wolfe surprised me a few years ago with his placing, and Shawn Roden, Flexatron, is another beast as well.
Blacks DOMINATE bodybuilding.
Even in everyday life I see more muscular blacks on the street and in bars, per capita, than whites. The stereotype is that blacks are tough, East Asians are nerds, and whites are in the middle, so I would expect blacks to be the most muscular race.
Yes whites dominate the WSM competition, but those are international competitions, and cultural and nutritional differences between countries and continents make them a poor measure of race differences.
Much better to compare whites and blacks living in the same country.
And African countries still dominate in sprinting, distance and jumping events.
A white man winning every year since 1974 is a genetic difference; not an environmental one. Muscle fiber typing, etc.
Blacks are so genetically superior at sprinting that they win even while severely malnourished.
However they are only slightly superior at weight lifting, so a huge nutrition advantage gives whites the edge.
But when you compare blacks and whites in America (where the playing field is level), I see little evidence whites are stronger, and blacks totally dominate elite body building
It makes sense because of muscle fiber typing.
Blacks are not ‘superior’ in weight lifting.
One, they use so much juice, HGH and other hormones and compounds that they go way beyond the genetic limit for skeletal muscle mass and strength, Two, body proportions have to do with how strong you get in certain lifts. Longer armed people are bad pushers (bench press, overhead press), and better pullers (deadlifts, chinups) with the reverse being true for those with short arms.
Blacks are not stronger, on average. I go to a bodybuilding/powerlifting gym and trust me, the whites are stronger, way stronger. I also know that muscle fiber typing shows that whites are genetically stronger. With the fast twitch muscle fibers for American blacks (descended from West Africans), that doesn’t allow for strength.
A bigger muscle is a stronger muscle, BUT again, muscle fiber typing dictates strength output.
I agree with you that blacks are the most muscular, but they are not the strongest in Olympic or powerlifting.
blacks from ss africa don’t win medals peepee.
blacks who moved (at a young age) to or were born in
the US
Canada
Jamaica
Europe…
win sprints.
Jamaica is a poor country…
but it make SS africa look like trump tower.
…
but the sprint advantage is also totally exaggerated.
an italian…
a very scrawny italian…
pietro mennea.
held the 200 m world record from 1979 to 1996.
it was the oldest record in track & field when michael johnson broke it at the olympic trials.
if he’d had muscles?
he’d’ve beaten bolt.
…
valery borzov won the 100
AND
the 200
in 1972.
and his 200 time was, for 1972, VERY respectable…20.00.
in 1924 the white american, the “california cannonball”, charlie paddock set a record in the 100 that would last until 1960…
after a bunch of black sprinters…
did NOT beat it.
it was beaten in zurich by the german armin hary.
i know it’s hard to believe…
but armin hary is STILL
TO THIS DAY
the fastest starter
EVER!
of course peepee knows that chinese women
LOVE
white men.
because…
white men look like men.
chinese men usually look like girls.
but…
“soul brother too beaucoup.”
i was wrong…
paddock set his record in 1921.
so it was 39 years.
…
AGAIN!
my theory:
there are GENUINE differences…
but they are ONLY seen at the bleeding edge…
at the extremes.
i mean for God’s sake there’s already a black world chess champion…
of a sort…
iirc it was in something called “advanced chess”…where computers are allowed.
which reminds me…
peepee and i should play chess. she claims to have such a high non-verbal IQ.
3/0 is my preferred time control, but whatever she wants.
and i suck at chess…
but i’m pretty sure peepee sucks even more.
chess.com is amazing.
you can lose to nigerians and peruvians and then beat a norwegian 5 times in a row.
let’s apply HBD to chess.
today best player in the world is a norwegian.
but why would any one play, the best human sucks compared to software.
but why would a human lift a lot of weight, he’d suck compared to a bulldozer.
or HBD and boxing.
who cares about boxing anymore?
but the heavy weight championship is now held by an irish “traveler”.
and he beat a ukrainian who’d held it for ca 10 years.
for all the talk of HBD and sport, just remember…”the greatest right hand ever thrown”…marciano walcott i.
There is a difference between muscular and bulky Pumpkin. Whites have more body fat and upper body strength. Blacks are tall and skinny. I’m pretty sure there are more east asian body builders than African ones. Their scrawniness may be do to higher metabolisms or something. Also north american blacks live in coder environments they may have developed bulkier bodies in response.
“I’m pretty sure there are more east asian body builders than African ones.”
Correct. I follow BBing, physique competitions and the like.
Blacks are NOT tall and skinny.
The average male American white age 20-39 is 70.4 inches tall and 193.5 lbs.
The average male American black age 20-39 is 70.1 inches tall and 202.4 lbs.
See table 6 and table 12:
It’s whites who are tall and skinny. Blacks are shorter, stockier and more robust, which is why they totally dominate body building in the U.S.
Whites and East Asians can only compete with blacks on a worldwide level, because the majority of blacks are in malnourished Africa, but when you compare blacks and whites within the United States, blacks DOMINATE body building.
“Blacks are NOT tall and skinny.”
uh…yes they are.
“It’s whites who are tall and skinny. Blacks are shorter, stockier and more robust, which is why they totally dominate body building in the U.S.”
First of all your study is using american blacks, who live in colder environments their bodies probably become more bulky and shorter as a response. Second, blacks have around 18% european dna, making them even more shorter and stronger. third, slavery may have even caused a selection for stronger blacks. Finally, whites and blacks probably got through differing sexual selection processes, black females prefer more masculine men.
Also, did that study only use non mixed american blacks? besides the default 18% they get.
First of all your study is using american blacks, who live in colder environments their bodies probably become more bulky and shorter as a response.
You think blacks have evolved a cold adapted body build in just the several hundred years they’ve been in North America?
Second, blacks have around 18% european dna, making them even more shorter and stronger.
And American whites have 99% European dna, yet are taller and skinnier than American blacks.
third, slavery may have even caused a selection for stronger blacks.
Or it may have caused selection for weaker blacks since they’re the ones who might have got caught. You can always come up with a just-so story
Finally, whites and blacks probably got through differing sexual selection processes, black females prefer more masculine men.
Different from sexual selection in Africa? Short men are more masculine than tall men? Next you’ll try to argue women are more masculine than men. LOL
“Different from sexual selection in Africa? Short men are more masculine than tall men? Next you’ll try to argue women are more masculine than men. LOL”
Melo is right. African women did the gathering in Africa (which they still do to this day), selecting them for higher intelligence while negro males were selected for physical attractiveness. The reverse was seen in Eurasia where men had to be more intelligent to get food while women had to take care of the children. Eurasian men selected women for physical attractiveness and African women selected African men for physical attractiveness. African men selected African women for intelligence and Eurasian men selected Eurasian women for beauty.
Check out “Erectus Walks Amongst Us” by Richard Fuerle, the section on sexual selection. Melo is correct.
Pumpkin, anger make you silly.
Please let your emotions aside and come back to reality.
so peepee’s theory is that bergmann’s rule doesn’t apply to the magical ne asians.
except it DOES!
mongols and manchus are BIGGER than the han, BIGGER than the koreans, BIGGER than the japs…
but strangely they have lower IQs.
sometimes A LOT lower.
the kirghiz scored 60 something according to one of prof shoe’s posts.
i remember saying, “steve’s mom was kirghiz.”
of course his chinese supremacism, like peepee’s, didn’t register the ridicule/criticism.
and the han, koreans, and japs are like the malaysians, vietnamese, filipinos, indonesians, thai, burmese, etc….
just jungle people…
scrawny…
swarthy…
…
TIME TO FLUSH FLUSHTON!
ONCE…
AND…
FOR ALL!
Maybe east asian’s higher intelligence compensated for their lack of body size?
Martial fights*
Only briefly read through the comments, but I wanted to point out that at least one reason blacks don’t do well in weightlifting compared to some other sports is their longer limb length, which requires one to exert more strength to move objects a certain distance.
And the evolutionarily conservative fast-twitch fibers predominate in both west and east Africans, not just west Africans. This is according to the book Sports Gene. East Africans have other mechanisms by which they dominate in long distance running.
Africans (and their descendants) have the best combination of speed, size and strength I would guess. They dominate in basketball, certain positions in American football. They used to do well in boxing and baseball. they only do ok in soccer and MMA.
Damn it’s hard typing on this phone…
“I wanted to point out that at least one reason blacks don’t do well in weightlifting compared to some other sports is their longer limb length, which requires one to exert more strength to move objects a certain distance.”
Correct. NW Euros have long limb length as well, but have more slow twitch fibers.
“And the evolutionarily conservative fast-twitch fibers predominate in both west and east Africans, not just west Africans. This is according to the book Sports Gene. East Africans have other mechanisms by which they dominate in long distance running.”
Check out Entine’s book.
“Africans (and their descendants) have the best combination of speed, size and strength I would guess. They dominate in basketball, certain positions in American football. They used to do well in boxing and baseball. they only do ok in soccer and MMA.”
Blacks dominate most positions in football.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/02/07/hbd-and-sports-football/
Whites dominate baseball.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/20/hbd-and-sports-baseball/
Blacks can’t swim due to their skeleton, low fat-free body mass and narrower chest.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/05/30/white-men-cant-jump-thats-ok-black-men-cant-swim/
I think it’s cool pumpkin is starting to look at more advanced statistical tools like factor analysis and PCA. I have some books on factor analysis but Ive been to lazy to really dig in.
I’m glad you find it interesting.
The success of the spanish multicultural integration in the new world…
What the hell…what does “Diogenic” mean other being an asshole? In that case, this guy is the ultimate modern day Diogenes:
This understanding, though, overlooks the centrality of reason in Diogenes’[sc. s] practice.
Diogenes’[sc. s] sense of shamelessness is best seen in the context of Cynicism in general. Specifically, though, it stems from a repositioning of convention below nature and reason. One guiding principle is that if an act is not shameful in private, that same act is not made shameful by being performed in public. For example, it was contrary to Athenian convention to eat in the marketplace, and yet there he would eat for, as he explained when reproached, it was in the marketplace that he felt hungry. The most scandalous of these sorts of activities involves his indecent behavior in the marketplace [sc. masturbating], to which he responded “he wished it were as easy to relieve hunger by rubbing an empty stomach” (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Book 6, Chapter 46).
He is labeled mad for acting against convention, but Diogenes points out that it is the conventions which lack reason: “Most people, he would say, are so nearly mad that a finger makes all the difference. For if you go along with your middle finger stretched out, some one will think you mad [sc a greek convention apparently], but, if it’s the little finger, he will not think so” (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Book 6, Chapter 35). In these philosophical fragments, reason clearly has a role to play. There is a report that Diogenes “would continually say that for the conduct of life we need right reason or a halter” (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Book 6, Chapter 24). For Diogenes, each individual should either allow reason to guide her [sic] conduct, or, like an animal, she [sic] will need to be lead by a leash; reason guides one away from mistakes and toward the best way in which to live life. Diogenes, then, does not despise knowledge as such, but despises pretensions to knowledge that serve no purpose.
YES!
diogenes was the first comedian.
or the first recorded.
“social intelligence” is often confused with “obeying convention”…
but, in fact, to recognize convention as convention and thus recognize its irrationality and thus violate it intentionally…
this requires social intelligence.
the only white guy in the race.
do you really think the others weren’t ‘roiding too?
it’s only at the bleeding edge that racial differences are genuine.
note also here how the winning time of 20.09 in 2000 was greater than the winning time in 1972 run by borzov…without ‘roids!
he was probably coked to the hilt, but look how scrawny mennea was!
imagine how fast he would’ve been with ‘roids.
and in the 1980 olympic 200m final there weren’t any americans,
but there were jamaicans…
and everyone else.
gold and silver went to europeans.
Flynn Effect
the universalization of the elite-way-of-life with maximization of the whealth distribution during XX century, when finally the capitalism start to ”work”….
diabetes was in the past a ”rich-disease”, why**
because just the rich that could eat excessively.
today, most people eat like the elites in the past,
result: worldwide increase of diabetes
The same for Flynn Effect
in the ”past” and specially in antiguity, just a tiny fraction of the people who had formal education.
today most people have.
human brain start 100% with ”genetic memory” and finish strongly mixed with ”environmental memories”.
human brain in their early life is like a zero-kilometer car, fresh out of factory, ”but”’ with pre-existent model/inborn acquired traits.
kid brain is not ”creative’ itself, but plastic BECAUSE ALSO is fresh, out of any environmental memory.
So the older people is, less ”space” in the brain to be ”colonized” by new learnings/environmental memories he will have.
this may explain why is easy learn new things when we are children than when we are older.
so, today most people in the modern/”perfect’ environment can develop their brains at maximum level with the basics of the functional life in the civilization, formal education (learn vocabulary and maths, at least)
this also can explain why people in cities are more prone to be psychotic and with higher iqs, or not, just speculating…
Elites tend to have
– less kids
– eat ”more” (today: eat ”better”)
– be sedentary
– to be promiscuous
– have a formal education
the social development of the civilization consists in the universalization of the ”elite trends” such as ”genetic engineering” today. Genetic engineering, read: biological free market, in the first will be insulated among ”higher social circles”, such as happen with most of products. first, just the rich that have money to buy, so the product is becoming cheap and most people will can buy it.
Flynn effect, better nutrition, not on g, etc.
yes, it was a supposedly good hypothesis, but not at all.
I still don’t understand why a iq scores can ”increase” whatever 20, 30 since half of XX century!!!
the idea that people in the 40’s were mentally ”handicapped” — by current standard– is very stupid and worst, is obviously fool. It’s impossible, if iq is really some thing.
No there such thing ”current standard” only if really happened some strong eugenic processes between the 40’s and today,
but not
”people in the 40’s is stupid compared with people today”
no!!!
the idea that civilization is the universalization of the elite lifestyle, at least part of it, is not wrong, don’t seems wrong.
and the idea that we born zero-kilometer and we go increasing progressively our ”environmental memories” (and ”reducing” our genetic memories) is, althought little obvious, correct too.
I still don’t understand why a iq scores can ”increase” whatever 20, 30 since half of XX century!!!
Because IQ tests are not perfect measures of intelligence. They also measure knowledge and skills acquired in school and culture. They’ve tried to make culture free IQ tests but this is impossible to do completely.
Cultural changes like more schooling have caused people to do better on IQ tests today than they did 100 years ago, so when people take old IQ tests, they average score is closer to 130, when the average (for whites) is supposed to be 100.
That’s why every decade or so, they have to make the tests harder to keep the average at only 100 because people are getting too test-wise.
At the same time, better nutrition has increased brain size and complexity, so there has been some REAL increase in intelligence over the century, but most of the gains are just caused by people learning skills and attitudes in the modern culture that help on the test.
For example, many IQ tests require you to look at drawings and figure out what’s wrong with them. 100 years ago many people had never seen drawings; today we are bombarded with them on TV, cartoons, comics, the internet, so this gives us practice on the test.
Thank you,
I never understand also ( 😉 ) why iq tests need to be actualized. I think this actualizations were in the true ”improvements”. but not so much, it’s politically incorrect real or at least complete intelligence.
they want clever sillies or imoral clevers in the ””’right””’ side
a usual way to create a hierarchical/social super-structures of ”information flow”…
”At the same time, better nutrition has increased brain size and complexity, so there has been some REAL increase in intelligence over the century, but most of the gains are just caused by people learning skills and attitudes in the modern culture that help on the test.”
I don’t know, it was already proved*
Seems very difficult to prove what already happened, the past-event and specially because this subject is very complex.
PP,
Yesterday i watched a documentary about Monty Python success in America. Seems there is great difference between english/british and american humor. In America as well worldwide Monty Python is a kind of show that tend to attrack specially smart people, read: smart-er ones.
This show had difficulty in the early to be well succesfull in ”America”. The first apresentation of the Monty Python comedians to the big public american tv was a great failure, the audience simply did not laugh during the entire twenty minutes in which they performed.
I wonder if the humor that most of the British public likes is much more sophisticated, for example, than the American humor, especially before the 70’s and tends to attract many of the most ”intelligent”, even around the world, precisely because it is an classical intelligent humor, then this means that the average English is much more intelligent than the average American * i mean, to understand the ”intelligent humor”** (a lot of historical, scientifical, psychological/philosophical inferences, satires, etc)
Or will these differences are larger on average personality and culture *
“Anthropologists (such as C. Loring Brace),[38] philosopher Jonathan Kaplan and geneticist Joseph Graves[39] have argued that while it is possible to find biological and genetic variation roughly corresponding to race, this is true for almost all geographically distinct populations: the cluster structure of genetic data is dependent on the initial hypotheses of the researcher and the populations sampled. When one samples continental groups, the clusters become continental; with other sampling patterns, the clusters would be different. Weiss and Fullerton note that if one sampled only Icelanders, Mayans and Maoris, three distinct clusters would form; all other populations would be composed of genetic admixtures of Maori, Icelandic and Mayan material.[40] Kaplan therefore concludes that, while differences in particular allele frequencies can be used to identify populations that loosely correspond to the racial categories common in Western social discourse, the differences are of no more biological significance than the differences found between any human populations (e.g., the Spanish and Portuguese.”
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article91718662.html
oh boy!!!!!!!
http://www.thelocal.de/20160714/germany-will-be-rooting-for-hillary-in-us-elections-trump-usa
”Germs” cannot accuses french people to be superficial or frivolous, 😉
at least french people have that ‘charm’
https://scontent.ftxl1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/12809559_10209297009845967_5676968630547625112_n.jpg?oh=a7bf5a7403621bee9fbb74f5495c4cd3&oe=5811A637
Melonia is white
period, 😉
and near to the whitest of the whites in the whiteland )))) italians((((
and Slavoj Zizek cousin…
Pingback: Race Is A Social Construct of a Biological Reality « NotPoliticallyCorrect
None. There is no such thing as race, and there is no biological reality to race either.