
Taken from pg 168 of Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, Third Edition, by J. Philippe Rushton
Blogger Race Realist continues to be skeptical about racial differences in penis size, but the data from the United States, where both whites and blacks are reared with similar nutrition, seems to show quite conclusively that blacks (at least those of West African descent) have longer and thicker penises than whites. From the above chart, assuming a normal distribution, I estimate the average white American man has a penis length of 162 mm (SD = 19) , and the average African American man has a penis length of 170 mm (SD = 19). (since 5% of black men are longer that 200 mm, and 2% of white men are, while 27% of white men have penises shorter than 151 mm, while 15% of black men do).
But small differences is the mean have huge implications at the extremes. Assuming a normal distribution, one in 3.4 million African American men would have a penis length > 264 mm, vs only one in about 30 million white men.
What about penis circumference? Once again, black men come out on top. 9% of African American men are > 150 mm, while only 5% of white American men are. Only 2% of men in either race are < 75 mm. Assuming a normal curve, that implies white American men have a mean penis circumference of 117 mm (SD = 21), while black American men have a mean penis circumference of 121 mm (SD = 23). Note the larger SD in black men; they not only have a higher mean, but more variability. This means that black men will be dramatically over-represented among the thickest penises in America, and among the ten thickest in America, 100% should be black; unless some non-black man has some kind of freak mutation.
Penis Quotient
To put these penis measurements in perspective, one can map them to the IQ scale where the white mean and SD are set at 100 and 15 respectively, but instead of calling them IQs (intelligence quotients), we’d have to call them PQs (penis quotients). And just as IQ tests like the Wechsler yield a verbal IQ, a Performance IQ, and a full-scale IQ, we can calculate length PQ, circumference PQ, and full-scale PQ.
On such a scale, blacks have a mean length PQ of 106 and a circumference PQ of 103 compared to the white mean which by definition is always 100. Estimating their full-scale PQ depends on the correlation between length and circumference, which I don’t know, but assuming it’s about 0.45 (like the correlation between height and weight), then their full-scale PQ should average 105. But it should be noted that U.S. blacks are about 15% white on average, so we might expect full-blooded blacks, raised with First World nutrition, to have a full-scale PQ of 106.
So the black > white PQ difference is only about a third as large as the white > black IQ difference, and similar to the East Asian > white IQ difference. With the difference being relatively small, it will not be found in all studies, and on a global scale, I’d expect the average white to have a larger penis than the average black, since most blacks live in the Third World where their small genetic advantage is dwarfed by the huge nutritional deficit (which occurs even among Third World elites).
The behavior body connection
I got a few emails asking why someone of my sophistication and social class would even entertain such a tawdry topic. The answer is I find J.P. Rushton’s research absolutely fascinating in that just as a bigger brain correlates with more adaptive behavior, a bigger penis correlates with more sexual behavior, and that there was an evolutionary tradeoff between these two body parts, as humans marched up the evolutionary tree from monkey to man. Of course our closest ape relatives don’t have especially large penises but their overall genitalia is huge. I suspect Homo Erectus had a larger penis than any modern human race.
Bring Mamma home a big one
One of the most infamous moments in the history of The Oprah Winfrey Show was when Oprah was interviewing a nerdy female scientist about penis size and sexual satisfaction. Not content with boring facts and figures, big brained Oprah sensed her audience wanted to know about the scientist’s sexual preferences. The scientist didn’t want to get personal and continued to blather on about statistics, at which point Oprah said:
But if you had a choice you’d want a big one, right? Bring Mamma home a big one!
The audience went wild!
Despite Oprah’s superhuman cranial capacity, from the neck down she is still a typical black woman, and the sex drive of the African jungles still raced through her blood.
It was at this point that Phil Donahue, the former reigning monarch of daytime TV, must have felt his empire crumble. For he could never compete with the sassy Oprah on a level that truly connected with America.
Though once Oprah became the richest African American of all time, she replaced the trash talk with higher discussions about new age spirituality, literature, and self-actualization.
But millions miss the original Oprah who the public and even the critics couldn’t get enough of. The one who wasn’t so polished, politically correct, and upper class. As Howard Rosenberg, TV critic of The Los Angeles Times, observed back on Sept. 8, 1986:
She’s roundhouse, a full-course meal, big, brassy, loud, aggressive, hyper, laughable, lovable, soulful, tender, lowdown, earthy, raw, and hungry. And she may know the way to Phil Donahue’s jugular.

Down and dirty Oprah from the 1980s, was not the polished classy woman we know today who would never wear fur
So Jonah Falcon, the largest man in the world, is white. Is he so big because of a “freak” mutation?
I just googled him. His length PQ works out to 243! Definitely sounds like a freak mutant to me.
i’m homozygous for that mutation.
You’re a science denier, Mugabe
Can we consider him a “genius” in his field? So, does genius require extra effort, or is that enough to be born smart?
As you correctly said, I am skeptical on this—I have not ruled out the possibility. I’m definitely willing to change my view from ‘possibly’ to “strong possibility’.
Let’s see.
I would love to see the WHO’s data collection. I showed that the ‘WHO data’ Rushton used was just the Kinsey data with Thailand added to it.
https://books.google.com/books?id=XrWeMc0BwF0C&pg=PT90&lpg=PT90&dq=Rushton+race+differences+in+penis+size&source=bl&ots=Rz9mMGcgny&sig=Mh0cnoG1TtoN2VxOS1Xf5QL1tv0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD18Hb3tXQAhUE0YMKHZZXDLI4ChDoAQgeMAE#v=onepage&q=Rushton%20race%20differences%20in%20penis%20size&f=false
Please attempt to find the original source data. Thank you.
Now, PP, you know what I do for a living and I do read a ton about physiology. There is a hormone called ‘insulin-like growth factor 1’ (IGF1), and men who are given rhIGF1 show increases in testosterone levels, testicular size, and stretched penile length (a lot of these studies use stretched, erect or flaccid. There is a pretty high correlation between stretched flaccid and erect length, so stretched flaccid is a good proxy), indicating the role of IGF 1 on sex hormones and organs in male patients.
https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1479-5876-10-224
Knowing this, read this:
“African-American men have the highest and Asian-American men have the lowest prostate cancer incidence rates in the United States; internationally, rates for the Asian continent are among the lowest. Higher insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1, which participates in the control of cellular growth and differentiation and is modulated by IGF-binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3), was associated with an increased prostate cancer risk in three recent studies. We, therefore, investigated whether plasma levels of IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 vary by race in United States men selected from among members of the Health Professionals Follow-up Study who were 47-78 years old in 1993-1995 when they provided blood (n = 18,000). All of the men who described their major ancestry as African American (n = 63) and a random sample of 75 Asians and 75 Caucasians were invited to provide a second blood sample in 1997, of whom 42, 52, and 55, respectively, did so. IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 concentrations were determined by ELISA. We used nonparametric methods to assess racial variation in age-adjusted levels. Caucasians had the highest median IGF-1 level (224 ng/ml), followed by Asians (208 ng/ml) and African Americans (205 ng/ml). Median IGFBP-3 concentration was similar between Caucasians and Asians but was more than 13% lower in African Americans. Median molar IGF-1:IGFBP-3 ratio was greatest in Caucasians and lowest in Asians. The lower IGF-1 blood levels relative to IGFBP-3 levels among Asian men are consistent with their lower prostate cancer incidence. Although differences in circulating IGF-1 do not seem to account for the greater prostate cancer risk among African-American men, their absolute lower levels of IGFBP-3 may be contributory.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10613344
Things like this are why I say there is a high chance for no difference. I’ve done a lot of reading on IGF 1 and similar hormones due to my job, it’s one of the hormones that causes growth spurts and the like. People may say “No, eating does.” But what drives the eating and what em>drives the growth of the human body? Hormones.
By the way, a commenter on my blog left me two links to order the source material Rushton used from Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Forum-August-International-Journal-Relations/dp/B001U0UMXY/
https://www.amazon.com/Kinsey-Data-Tabulations-1938-1963-Interviews/dp/0253334314
Rushton doesn’t take the time to go into research methods either. I’d like to see the methods.
“The answer is I find J.P. Rushton’s research absolutely fascinating in that just as a bigger brain correlates with more adaptive behavior, a bigger penis correlates with more sexual behavior, and that there was an evolutionary tradeoff between these two body parts, as humans marched up the evolutionary tree from monkey to man.”
lol
Did you not see the research I cited?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4026241
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bju.13010/epdf
http://www.ajol.info/index.php/tjmr/article/view/30465/0
The one thing I will say is that Nigerians are bigger than Koreans, but I won’t say there is a racial difference, the first two show no racial difference.
“Not content with boring facts and figures, big brained Oprah sensed her audience wanted to know about the scientist’s sexual preferences.”
Typical behavior. That’s low IQ behavior, actually. To not what to “not be content with boring facts and figures”.
Why did you go off on a completely unrelated Oprah tangent at the end and not even summarize what you said?
“as humans marched up the evolutionary tree from monkey to man.””
I have to clarify, this is not how this works. Why be so simple and dumbed-down? I thought you understand how evolution works?
I have to clarify, this is not how this works. Why be so simple and dumbed-down? I thought you understand how evolution works?
We already had this debate and you lost.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/11/12/complexity-walls-0-400-hitting-and-evolutionary-progress/
My last reply to you in our previous discussion:
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/11/06/progressive-evolution-part-iii/
Waiting on response.
Organisms get ‘less complex’ all the time. Here’s a conversation between Darwin and Huxley’s descendants (Gould, 1996, 135):
Huxley: I once tried to define evolution in an overall way, somewhat along these lines: a one way process, irreversible in time, producing apparent novelties and greater variety leading and leading to higher degrees of organization.
Explain how a selection process that’s repeated anew every generation is teleological please.
Why don’t you respond in the actual thread so the whole discussion can stay in one place?
Blacks have the most progressive sexual traits. It’s very telling of the differences in selection pressures within each climatic zone. Would you agree that an individual with both high fertility and IQ to be More “useful” at least in within what you define as “progressive” evolution?
Do both traits even have to conflict? Couldn’t someone who adapts and create more children be “superior”. I am specifically talking about direct fertility like twinning rates.
“Would you agree that an individual with both high fertility and IQ to be More “useful” at least in within what you define as “progressive” evolution?”
‘Useful’ in what way? Those two variables are inversely correlated, anyway. How would this imply progress? How would this even occur? Natural selection isn’t a teleological process. How can a selection process that occurs every generation be teleological process repeated anew every generation be teleological?
“Do both traits even have to conflict? Couldn’t someone who adapts and create more children be “superior”. I am specifically talking about direct fertility like twinning rates.”
I’ve pointed out before that the ultimate measure of human success is reproduction, not production. Africans ‘adapt’ to their environment and have more children. So they are ‘superior’ to Eurasian people in that manner. But that is only one variable.
I’m talking about the whole of the evolutionary scale, you’re looking at one extremely small part in time. If the Pikaia, the first chordate, had died in the Cambrian explosion, humans would not be here today. Survival during a mass extinction is strongly predicated by chance. If Pikaia would have died out, then another organism would rule the earth.
Nick Lane (2015: 21), biochemist, writes in his book “The Vital Question”:
And Gould (1989, 323) writes:
And so, if you wish to ask the question of the ages—why do humans exist?—a major part of that answer, touching those aspects of the issue that science can touch at all, must be: because Pikaiasurvived the Burgess decimation. This response does not cite a single law of nature; it embodies no statement about predictable evolutionary pathways, no calculation of probabilities based on general rules of anatomy or ecology. The survival of Pikaia was a contingency of “just history.” I do not think that any “higher” answer can be given, and I cannot imagine that any resolution could be more fascinating.
No ‘progress’ to evolution, just dumb luck.
“‘Useful’ in what way?Those two variables are inversely correlated, anyway. How would this imply progress? How would this even occur? Natural selection isn’t a teleological process.”
It was a question for pumpkin. I guess not in a universal way because all things in evolution give and take to some extent, but if two traits are desirable in their respective environment; specialized for it’s situation, then wouldn’t the predisposition to have both be preferential at least in a sense of our CURRENT needs for adaptation.
Someone with high fertility/big dong/testes, whatever already wins the game of life(assuming all else is equal) by reproducing the most and successfully transferring his/her genes to the next generation, while an individual with a high IQ will tend to be successful at whatever they do(assuming all else is equal) righteously dominating life on a personal level and in turn will be able to contribute more to society than what a”duller” individual would. So, by these definitions and effects having both of these augments your adaptability and is preferable over having only one.
I’m not arguing any kind of teleology. This isn’t a philosophy discussion. Just because two traits are inversely correlated (which is hypocritical because you already claimed to have shown otherwise) doesn’t mean they absolutely have to be, natural selection does not work that way.
To Melo,
“It was a question for pumpkin. I guess not in a universal way because all things in evolution give and take to some extent, but if two traits are desirable in their respective environment; specialized for it’s situation, then wouldn’t the predisposition to have both be preferential at least in a sense of our CURRENT needs for adaptation.”
Well lets look at you definitions on the two and see how the traits would work in our “current environment”.
“Someone with high fertility/big dong/testes, whatever already wins the game of life(assuming all else is equal) by reproducing the most and successfully transferring his/her genes to the next generation, while an individual with a high IQ will tend to be successful at whatever they do(assuming all else is equal) righteously dominating life on a personal level and in turn will be able to contribute more to society than what a”duller” individual would. So, by these definitions and effects having both of these augments your adaptability and is preferable over having only one.”
Well the problem there is considering how those two traits, depending on their environment, would be more favorable based on factors on attaining resources/ reproduction in which both may’ve not be the “best” one based on the circumstances.
This isn’t contradictory to your first note, but in what sense would both be preferential in our current environment?
“I’m not arguing any kind of teleology. This isn’t a philosophy discussion. Just because two traits are inversely correlated (which is hypocritical because you already claimed to have shown otherwise) doesn’t mean they absolutely have to be, natural selection does not work that way.”
True, individuals like such could exist but then you would have to prove that they would be beneficial by current selection or propose a situation where pressures would make them superior.
Another factor is that within an environment, different “Niches” would value different traits so depending where you adapt in an environment ( or better yet, how you adapt) determines your success as well and within that would involve pre-existing conflicting traits and their trade-offs.
With that, your term of “absolute” isn’t necessary because if there is already a trend biologically for a combination of conflicting traits to exist then that already limits such individuals.
To Melo,
To reduce misunderstanding I’m not saying you are wrong hypothetically, rather my reply is explaining why you may not see the combination occurring without intention.
“Well the problem there is considering how those two traits, depending on their environment, would be more favorable based on factors on attaining resources/ reproduction in which both may’ve not be the “best” one based on the circumstances.
This isn’t contradictory to your first note, but in what sense would both be preferential in our current environment?”
Well if IQ is what pumpkin defines as the mental ability to adapt, then it is useful in all situations. All else equal A creature with a higher intelligence should have a better chance of surviving so it should be self evident how that is useful in our current day.
The real challenge is fertility, in our current situation we have successfully set up a eugenic system within our society, maybe not on the magnitude of what some HBDers would like, but eugenic nonetheless. In everyday life a high IQ individual has chance to move up through rank, there is always a new bar to set. It is a constant bombardment of mathematical and verbal information that we translate while at work, school, home etc. In a hunter gatherer society there is barely a hierarchy. A smart hunter makes tools efficiently and gathers food quicker allowing for more free time which allows the opportunity for reproduction. Even though I think 1st world countries produce more rapid than archaic populations within the civilized world the smartest places tend to has the lowest fertility rates. Which means there is cut off for the bottom of the genetic barrel but our average is probably stagnant.
“With that, your term of “absolute” isn’t necessary because if there is already a trend biologically for a combination of conflicting traits to exist then that already limits such individuals.”
Not necessarily it could just be genetic drift.
“Well if IQ is what pumpkin defines as the mental ability to adapt”
It’s not.
How so?
IQ is a great predicter of aptitude in all mental abilities
Intelligence—the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
yaa…the mental ability to adapt. to varying novel situations.
P1: Intelligence is *not* the “ability to adapt” because non-intelligent life ‘adapts’ to their surroundings just as well, if not better, than intelligent life does.
P2: If intelligence were the ability to adapt, only intelligent organisms would be around.
P3: Intelligent organisms are not the only organisms around.
Therefore, intelligence is not the ability to adapt.
“P1: Intelligence is *not* the “ability to adapt” because non-intelligent life ‘adapts’ to their surroundings just as well, if not better, than intelligent life does.”
Oh jeez, stop with the patronizing bullshit. I said MENTAL ability to adapt. Words bud, words. Non intelligent life like single micro organisms and bacteria adapt through rapid genetic change, which is a different kind of adaptation and even then, intelligence still exists on multiple levels of complexity. Depending on the context of a population’s “situations” certain selection pressures will be more cognitively demanding. Secondly, assuming that all life forms would have to be intelligent, is assuming evolution has a purpose. Sometimes it’s much easier on the genes to just evolve more fur than to evolve a big brain to make clothes.
Oh jeez, stop with the patronizing bullshit. I said MENTAL ability to adapt. Words bud, words. Non intelligent life like single micro organisms and bacteria adapt through rapid genetic change, which is a different kind of adaptation and even then, intelligence still exists on multiple levels of complexity. Depending on the context of a population’s “situations” certain selection pressures will be more cognitively demanding. Secondly, assuming that all life forms would have to be intelligent, is assuming evolution has a purpose. Sometimes it’s much easier on the genes to just evolve more fur than to evolve a big brain to make clothes.
Bravo! Well done!
“Oh jeez, stop with the patronizing bullshit. I said MENTAL ability to adapt. Words bud, words. Non intelligent life like single micro organisms and bacteria adapt through rapid genetic change, which is a different kind of adaptation and even then, intelligence still exists on multiple levels of complexity. Depending on the context of a population’s “situations” certain selection pressures will be more cognitively demanding.”
It’s not ‘patronizing bullshit’, it’s true. The “mental ability to adapt” is all about “adapting the situation to the circumstances”, as you say. What happens is selection. Organisms that are less fit die off, those that are fitter survive and pass their genes on. That’s all it is. Simpler organisms multiplying and intelligence being ‘the mental ability to adapt’ are the same thing, as, ultimately, it’s about passing on genes.
Also, me saying mental ability or ability is a non-factor. Humans don’t “adapt” to the environment. Do you think that organisms ‘adapt’ to environments too?
“Secondly, assuming that all life forms would have to be intelligent, is assuming evolution has a purpose. Sometimes it’s much easier on the genes to just evolve more fur than to evolve a big brain to make clothes.””
Stupid. You constantly talk about brain size, but I hardly ever see talk about the amount of kcal that needs to be consumed to sustain such a large, metabolically demanding organ.
“It’s not ‘patronizing bullshit’, it’s true. ”
It’s not what you said it’s how you said it. You presented it in a deductive format like I’m fucking stupid or something. It’s just insulting.
“Also, me saying mental ability or ability is a non-factor. Humans don’t “adapt” to the environment. Do you think that organisms ‘adapt’ to environments too?”
It is a factor. Intelligence like you said is application and acquisition of skills/knowledge, which is used to adapt for novel situations. Intelligence is a cognitive function. That’s why i capitalized the word “mental” I already said intelligence has multiple levels of complexity. You are just confusing mental adaptation with genetic adaptation.
“Stupid. You constantly talk about brain size, but I hardly ever see talk about the amount of kcal that needs to be consumed to sustain such a large, metabolically demanding organ.”
Ya brain size is interesting to me..sorry. I don’t understand how that fact invalidates my points?
“Bravo! Well done!”
I was skeptical of this definition but I find it too hard to falsify, so I have confidence in it now.
“It’s not what you said it’s how you said it. You presented it in a deductive format like I’m fucking stupid or something. It’s just insulting.”
I presented it in the form of an argument. (Which was not refuted.)
“It is a factor. Intelligence like you said is application and acquisition of skills/knowledge, which is used to adapt for novel situations. Intelligence is a cognitive function. That’s why i capitalized the word “mental” I already said intelligence has multiple levels of complexity. You are just confusing mental adaptation with genetic adaptation.”
Mental adaptations have physical consequences. Those physical consequences manifest themselves in genetic adaptations. For one to react to something mentally, something physical must occur in front of them. They must *think* there is imminent danger, which is based on something physical happening around them, then they do what is best to survive to pass on their genes.
“Ya brain size is interesting to me..sorry. I don’t understand how that fact invalidates my points?”
I never said it doesn’t. I said that you guys never talk about how big brains are only possible with large amounts of kcal. Without that, humans wouldn’t have big brains.
“I presented it in the form of an argument. (Which was not refuted.)”
Yea I did, your beginning premise was wrong.
“Mental adaptations have physical consequences. Those physical consequences manifest themselves in genetic adaptations. For one to react to something mentally, something physical must occur in front of them. They must *think* there is imminent danger, which is based on something physical happening around them, then they do what is best to survive to pass on their genes.”
I still don’t think you get what I am saying. What you said is true but intelligence is still cognitive. We think our problems through, bacteria does not think, it just does. It reproduces fast, in this sense it is r-selected.
“I said that you guys never talk about how big brains are only possible with large amounts of kcal. Without that, humans wouldn’t have big brains.”
ok?
““Bravo! Well done!””
“I was skeptical of this definition but I find it too hard to falsify, so I have confidence in it now.”
That looks like a good example of the backfire effect.
RR wanted you to believe intelligence is not the ability to adapt which swayed you to the opposite conclusion.
RR, this is why you can’t insult people. They will never buy your stuff if you do.
Ability to mentally adapt means what? Come up with new ideas? So it’s the ability to innovate? Create? Or does it mean to not be stubborn? In that case, it’s more of an issue of pride than intelligence.
Adapt, in its purest sense, is to become adjusted to new conditions. The operative here is “conditions”.
To test the hypothesis, pluck a smart person out of their comfy environment and plant them in the monkey house at the zoo and see how long it takes them to finish that book they’ve been working on. If PP is right, they should adapt quickly. If RR is right, they will hang themselves.
If you have to define and redefine “adapt” at every turn, then perhaps “adapt” is the wrong choice of word.
Intelligence is the ability to create, innovate, acquire and process knowledge and many other things, but the ability to behaviorally adapt to new conditions is not one.
In fact, it’s opposite. Intelligence is the millstone which necessitates conditions do not change much. Intelligence creates postulates on top of facts on top of theories until it’s a giant structure with foundation blocks that must not be disturbed. Conversely, a dumb person has no structure and therefore doesn’t mind changing the foundational blocks because they’ve built nothing upon it. Intelligence requires that things remain steady, even, sturdy and sound. Not wish-washy and variable… it would drive one mad!
Einstein spent 30 years arguing with Niels Borh and went to his grave before ever changing his mind about materialism. Why couldn’t he take the new idea and run with it? Einstein must have been stupid because he couldn’t adapt to the new paradigm. Smart people are the most behaviorally and mentally stubborn people on the planet.
Unwillingness to change != inability to adapt
By adapt we mean minimize the cost/benefit ratio of your behavior: problem solve
“Unwillingness to change != inability to adapt
By adapt we mean minimize the cost/benefit ratio of your behavior: problem solve”
Can you give an example?
An example here:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/10/11/prehistoric-genocide/
Mental adaptability (intelligence) is the ability to take whatever situation you’re in and turn it around to your advantage.
It’s what separate humans from the beasts. We had every disadvantage (small, weak, slow, clawless, furless, wingless) yet we were able to turn the situation around to our advantage and dominate animals ten times are size, strength and speed, and we’ve been able to adapt to every corner of the globe.
Intelligence is just whatever mental abilities allow for low cost/benefit behavioral plasticity (aka adaptive behavior)
PP, as I said to you in that post, that is not genocide.
And as I keep saying, without proper nutrition big brains wouldn’t be around. H. floresiensis is the perfect example. You never talk about how energy drives evolution, you never talk about how without adequate kcal, we wouldn’t have big brains. That’s a huge factor in our intelligence.
My argument above still stands.
“Yea I did, your beginning premise was wrong.”
It isn’t. Non-intelligent life adapts as well, or even better in some cases (the tardigrade is a great example) than other organisms. Look at the mode of life, it’s bacteria. They survive just as well and are able to adapt to their environment.
“We think our problems through, bacteria does not think, it just does. It reproduces fast, in this sense it is r-selected.”
You aren’t wrong. Humans are one of the most K species. But we are talking about “adapting” here, how you adapt doesn’t matter, what matters is adaptation and spreading genes. Even then, organisms don’t adapt to environments. That’s not how this works.
The point about me bringing up brain size and energy is because you nor PP ever talk about how important that is. Without our large amount of energy consumption we wouldn’t have such large, energy sapping brains.
“To test the hypothesis, pluck a smart person out of their comfy environment and plant them in the monkey house at the zoo and see how long it takes them to finish that book they’ve been working on. If PP is right, they should adapt quickly. If RR is right, they will hang themselves.”
What would happen is obvious, I don’t even need to say it.
Sophic drippins,
“That looks like a good example of the backfire effect.
RR wanted you to believe intelligence is not the ability to adapt which swayed you to the opposite conclusion. RR, this is why you can’t insult people. They will never buy your stuff if you do.”
Not really, I disagreed before we even began arguing.
He didn’t really insult me, he just talked to me like I was retarded.
“Ability to mentally adapt means what? Come up with new ideas? So it’s the ability to innovate? Create? Or does it mean to not be stubborn? In that case, it’s more of an issue of pride than intelligence.”
Adapting means becoming adjusted to new conditions or in a broader sense “situations” anything from going to a party to, working on a nuclear bomb can fit within this category. If you are using cognitive functions as the way to solve these problems, than it is a mental ability. Intelligence has levels of complexity; Theory of mind, which allows for more efficient application of skills.
“If you have to define and redefine “adapt” at every turn, then perhaps “adapt” is the wrong choice of word.”
We aren’t, we are compartmentalizing it. You and Race realist have simply failed to recognize the distinction we are making.
“blocks that must not be disturbed. Conversely, a dumb person has no structure and therefore doesn’t mind changing the foundational blocks because they’ve built nothing upon it.”
No.
Someone who is more intelligent is more open minded because they realize the arbitrary insistence within absolutism. They are able to handle the falsification of old ideas and shift their perspective to the more current/accurate paradigm.
“Einstein spent 30 years arguing with Niels Borh and went to his grave before ever changing his mind about materialism. Why couldn’t he take the new idea and run with it?”
Because he probably had (at least in his head) a good reason to not agree with it.
“Smart people are the most behaviorally and mentally stubborn people on the planet.”
Maybe behaviorally or even within their personality, but I disagree when it comes to the propagation of the scientific method.
“He didn’t really insult me, he just talked to me like I was retarded.”
No I wasn’t. If that’s how you took it, apologies.
I put my argument in format with the premises and conclusions, I wasn’t talking to you like you were retarded.
“It isn’t. They survive just as well and are able to adapt to their environment.
Yes it is, because you conflated mental ability to adapt with general adaption. I really don’t know how you’re not understanding what I’m saying. It doesn’t fucking matter if they survive or not they aren’t using any intelligence to do it. Jesus christ.
“But we are talking about “adapting” here,”
Holy fuck! No we are not! We are talking about intelligence. Fucking shoot me, someone please.
“how you adapt doesn’t matter, what matters is adaptation and spreading genes.”
Yes it does! if it’s just adaptation with no mental facilities involved then it’s not using intelligence. Macro organisms usually have some level of intelligence. Humans have the most, we use it the most to adapt. It is a mental ability used for adaptation.
“The point about me bringing up brain size and energy is because you nor PP ever talk about how important that is. Without our large amount of energy consumption we wouldn’t have such large, energy sapping brains.”
Sorry? We don’t have to talk about what you want and I do know about it, it just doesn’t interest me as much. What does it have to do with anything?
I typed a rebuttal to PP, but it didn’t post. When I tried to repost, I was notified that it was a duplicate. So, I don’t know if it was moderated or what. I’ll see if this posts.
Melo
“Not really, I disagreed before we even began arguing.”
You indicated you were more on the fence before you began arguing.
“He didn’t really insult me, he just talked to me like I was retarded.”
Whether he intended to offend is irrelevant. You perceived offense and that swayed you to an intellectual conclusion for emotional reasons. The statement I am referencing is this:
“I was skeptical of this definition but I find it too hard to falsify, so I have confidence in it now.”
I’m just saying that’s how it looks. If I’m wrong, that’s cool. We should still be on the lookout for the backfire effect even if this wasn’t an example.
“They are able to handle the falsification of old ideas and shift their perspective to the more current/accurate paradigm.”
That’s more of an issue of pride, not intelligence. If you can’t admit you’re wrong, it doesn’t mean you’re stupid.
What would imply stupidity is not being able to understand the alternate paradigm. Einstein understood quantum mechanics, he just didn’t like it. He called it “spooky”.
“Because he probably had (at least in his head) a good reason to not agree with it.”
Yes, he said it was spooky. That was his reason. He didn’t want to admit the world is not material.
“Maybe behaviorally or even within their personality, but I disagree when it comes to the propagation of the scientific method.”
All the evidence disagreed with Einstein, yet he remained stubborn.
I definitely get your point that it’s an advantage to be pliable and not married to your ideas, but it’s rare to see anyone throw away a life’s work for a new paradigm.
I wouldn’t call that adaptation anyway. It’s more of a revision, correction, reproof. The word “adaptation” does not necessitate intelligence. To adapt by means of intelligence is called “innovation”. Otherwise “adapt” merely means “change”.
Even things that are not alive can adapt. The earth cooled and adapted itself for life. So is the earth intelligent?
The dictionary has three definitions of “adapt”:
1)to change your behavior so that it is easier to live in a particular place or situation
2)to change (something) so that it functions better or is better suited for a purpose
3) to change (a movie, book, play, etc.) so that it can be presented in another form
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adapt
Notice the first definition implies goal directed behavior and the second implies purpose. Earth cooling for life is not adaptation because it wasn’t done for that purpose. When we talk about primitive life adapting, we’re being metaphorical. A bacteria evolving to suit its new environment is not truly adaptation because evolution has no goal and neither does the bacteria, but because it mimics goal directed behavior, we call it adaptive. What makes intelligence the ultimate evolutionary adaptation is that in humans, the metaphor comes true. Human adaptations really are adaptions because we do it on purpose.
So we don’t even need to distinguish between mental adaptation and non-mental adaption, we need only distinguish between literal and metaphoric.
PP, you’re struggling.
That is not the definition for adapt. The definition from the link you supplied is as follows:
Definition of adapt
transitive verb
: to make fit (as for a new use) often by modification
intransitive verb
: to become adapted
You’re struggling to make *your* definition fit, which is why you rejected the top definition.
What you posted is found halfway down the page under “Definition of adapt for English Language Learners”
Farther down they have “Definition of adapt for Students”
Yet farther down they have “Medical Definition of adapt”
Those are not definitions of adapt in the intrinsic sense, but are explanations to help people understand adapt in other contexts.
Oxford has the last word on words, so let’s see what they say:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/adapt
adapt
VERB
[WITH OBJECT]
1Make (something) suitable for a new use or purpose; modify:
[no object] Become adjusted to new conditions:
There is no goal directed behavior. The earth adapted itself or “made suitable for a new purpose” for itself by cooling. The earth “became adjusted to new conditions.”
If you insist on goal-directed behavior, then you must choose “innovate”.
The only distinction between “adapt” and “innovate” is the requirement for intelligence.
The earth can’t innovate because the earth can’t think. However, the earth can adapt.
I typed “most adaptable animals” into google and I got:
About 1,680,000 results (0.68 seconds)
Search Results
These animals can survive situations that few other animals can.
Ants.
Camels.
Cockroaches. …
Planarian Worms. …
Turritopsis Nutriculas. …
Bed Bugs. …
Emperor Penguins. …
Rats.
More items…
Then I typed “most innovative animals” and got:
About 3,650,000 results (0.58 seconds)
Search Results
Check out 10 Most Intelligent Animals below.
08 – Pigs. Pigs. …
07 – Dog. Dog And Cat. …
06 – Parrot. Parrots. …
05 – Rats. Rats. …
04 – Sheep. Sheep. …
03 – Dolphins. Dolphins. …
02 – Elephants. Elephants. …
01 – Gorillas & Chimpanzees (Primates) Chimpanzee. The impressive intellectual abilities of these animals have long fascinated humans.
Try it. What did you get?
The problem isn’t your idea, but your nomenclature.
Your terminology has to respect the understanding of at least 3,650,000 authors who don’t see innovation = adaptation or else you won’t communicate your idea properly.
“You indicated you were more on the fence before you began arguing.”
That’s because i’m always on the fence, evidence can still sway me.
” You perceived offense and that swayed you to an intellectual conclusion for emotional reasons. The statement I am referencing is this:”
Please, lets leave the pseudo-psycho analysis out of this it’s irrelevant and subjective in perspective
“What would imply stupidity is not being able to understand the alternate paradigm. Einstein understood quantum mechanics, he just didn’t like it. He called it “spooky”.”
I doubt quantum mechanics was anywhere near as fleshed out back then, as it is today.
“To adapt by means of intelligence is called “innovation”. Otherwise “adapt” merely means “change”.
Even things that are not alive can adapt. The earth cooled and adapted itself for life. So is the earth intelligent?”
No it’s not. At this point i’d be better off hitting my head against a brick wall. For the last time we are compartmentalizing the definition we aren’t changing anything you just, for some reason cant comprehend what I’m telling you. It doesn’t have to mean innovate I don’t know where you’re getting this from. You’re obfuscating.
“That’s because i’m always on the fence, evidence can still sway me.”
That’s just it… RR presented no evidence to sway you diametrically opposite from his intention. You were swayed by emotions. To wit:
“At this point i’d be better off hitting my head against a brick wall.”
See?
Maybe if you jump up n down really hard it will add credence to your argument.
“Holy fuck! No we are not! We are talking about intelligence. Fucking shoot me, someone please.”
To me, that’s evidence that no amount of evidence could change your mind. Rational people do not request to be shot because they cannot be right.
Since I know you can’t be wrong without self-destructing, then I’ll conclude the conversation. Unless PP can pull a miracle, everything I have to say has already been said. It’s a dead horse requiring no further beating from the point of view of an objective stranger reading this thread. Going in circles trying to convince you or PP is really moot.
“That’s just it… RR presented no evidence to sway you diametrically opposite from his intention. You were swayed by emotions. To wit:”
Wrong. I was swayed long before me and race realists argument. He did not present any evidence supporting his argument and the rationalizations he bore were from misinterpreted analysis of mine, as are yours.
“See?”
See what? The cringe-worthy false confidence you’re exuberating?
“Rational people do not request to be shot because they cannot be right.”
I want to be shot because the ad nauseam you two give me with your repetitive failures at grasping Pumpkin and I’s concept is not worth suffering over.
“It’s a dead horse requiring no further beating from the point of view of an objective stranger reading this thread. Going in circles trying to convince you or PP is really moot.”
Any point you brought up did not falsify my claims.
Innovate:make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products.
Any problem or “situation” solved by mental facililties was resolved through intelligence. Innovation is a subset of this because not every situation involves creating products or is used for engineering/scientific purposes. However it is probably universal for finding solutions in general.
“He did not present any evidence supporting his argument”
The evidence was the argument itself, arguments are evidence.
(Something that PP denies, saying that arguments are ‘opinions’.
http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2010/05/are-logical-arguments-evidence/
https://hashtagapologetics.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/arguments-and-evidence-should-an-argument-be-considered-evidence/
“The evidence was the argument itself, arguments are evidence.
(Something that PP denies, saying that arguments are ‘opinions’.”
Arguments in debates are based upon rational logic AND empirical evidence to support it. Rationalizations ARE opinions(or at least subjective). Something isn’t true just because it sounds good. Examples:
All goblin’s are pink
Fred is a goblin
Fred is pink
Or
All creatures with two legs evolved
all goblins have two legs
all goblins evolved
These are both sound rationalizations, but they aren’t true. Goblins are obviously imaginary, but this is only verifiable through empirical observation.
The same can be said of God and mathematics.
Mathematics is pure rationalization. You can say 1+1=2 and you would be absolutely correct but this sound rationalization is completely lacking in any context so it doesn’t prove anything beyond hypothetical metaphysics.
God is unfalsifiable. You can’t disprove it or prove it because it is not a physical concept you can rationalize god all day: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig#Craig.27s_debates_and_his_5_arguments_for_God.27s.2Fgod.27s_existence
Or you can try to prove it’s absurdity like the question: “if god is a maximal being, then can he create an object so heavy not even he can lift it?”
Now the reason this relates to your argument is because you did not provide any evidence. It just so happens that the major theories of intelligence(executive function, theory of mind, IQ, general ability) coincide with my definition. I have empirical evidence proving my definition, you tried contesting it with noneand even then your compensational rationalization was still faulty.
“Something isn’t true just because it sounds good.”
I know. I took a logic class.
“God is unfalsifiable. You can’t disprove it or prove it because it is not a physical concept you can rationalize god all day”
I know that. I’m just saying, if an argument has a sound conclusion and true premises, it’s a valid argument and premises need to be addressed. That’s how this works (as I’m sure you know). Arguments can only be falsified by showing the conclusion is wrong or the premises are false.
I’m not even into this logic/argumentation/P1/P2/C stuff.I only know the extreme basics of it and it helps me enough.
You know I’m an empiricist anyway. It was just an example.
“Now the reason this relates to your argument is because you did not provide any evidence. It just so happens that the major theories of intelligence(executive function, theory of mind, IQ, general ability) coincide with my definition. I have empirical evidence proving my definition, you tried contesting it with noneand even then your compensational rationalization was still faulty.”
“I was skeptical of this definition but I find it too hard to falsify, so I have confidence in it now.”
Please present in the form of an argument.
Argument 1:
P1: If intelligence is the ‘mental ability to adapt your behavior to your environment, only intelligent people would be around.
P2: Intelligent people aren’t the only people around.
C: Therefore, intelligence is not the ability to adapt.
Argument 2:
P1: If intelligence were the ‘mental ability to adapt your behavior to your environment, then human intelligence is the pinnacle of evolution (I could not type that with a straight face).
P2: Human intelligence is not the ‘pinnacle of evolution’.
C: Therefore, intelligence is not the mental ability to adapt.
Argument 3: (bacteria)
P1: If bacteria are adaptable at the phenotypic level, changes in environment will change the bacterial phenotype.
P2: If bacteria weren’t adaptable at the phenotypic level, changes in environment won’t change the bacterial phenotype.
P3: Bacteria DO switch their phenotype to ‘adapt’ to their changing environment
C: Therefore, bacteria ARE adaptable at the phenotypic level.
Click to access 252-262.pdf
PP says “The only truly adaptable life-form are humans, because we adapt at the phenotype level”
Refuted by Argument 3.
“I know. I took a logic class.”
I didn’t
“You know I’m an empiricist anyway. It was just an example.”
You are probably the biggest empiricist here besides me.
“Argument 1:
P1: If intelligence is the ‘mental ability to adapt your behavior to your environment, only intelligent people would be around.
P2: Intelligent people aren’t the only people around.
C: Therefore, intelligence is not the ability to adapt.”
All humans have intelligence far exceeding any animals so by definition all humans are intelligent. Even if you meant only higher IQ individuals relative to the average, it would still be nonsensical, for obvious reasons.
“Argument 2:
P1: If intelligence were the ‘mental ability to adapt your behavior to your environment, then human intelligence is the pinnacle of evolution (I could not type that with a straight face).
P2: Human intelligence is not the ‘pinnacle of evolution’.
C: Therefore, intelligence is not the mental ability to adapt.”
Well if you define the pinnacle as the highest level of complexity then the human brain would be the pinnacle of evolution. Interestingly our discussions of intelligence have geared me towards the right direction and has helped immensely in my understanding of it. Mental potential to adapt is analogous to computational power. Where individuals with lower amounts are less efficient in any task they complete, personality is simply a side effect of how others perceive you, if you work consistently and with effort you will be labeled a hard worker. Someone who is good with money may be so because of their stinginess but this stinginess is still perceived as being greedy or selfish.
“Argument 3: (bacteria)
P1: If bacteria are adaptable at the phenotypic level, changes in environment will change the bacterial phenotype.
P2: If bacteria weren’t adaptable at the phenotypic level, changes in environment won’t change the bacterial phenotype.
P3: Bacteria DO switch their phenotype to ‘adapt’ to their changing environment
C: Therefore, bacteria ARE adaptable at the phenotypic level.
Click to access 252-262.pdf
PP says “The only truly adaptable life-form are humans, because we adapt at the phenotype level”
Refuted by Argument 3.”
That’s pumpkin’s argument not mine. Plus it seems dubious to assume bacteria don’t have at least some level of plasticity.
“I didn’t”
You should. The basics are useful. It’s great for picking out contradictons, especially falsifying arguments or showing how they’re unsound. Your main points and conclusion put into that format is easy to read and bypasses all the fluff, really.
“You are probably the biggest empiricist here besides me.”
Why do you say that.
“All humans have intelligence far exceeding any animals so by definition all humans are intelligent. Even if you meant only higher IQ individuals relative to the average, it would still be nonsensical, for obvious reasons.”
I was talking about humans relative to other humans. It’s not nonsensical. Is someone with Prader Willi’s Syndrome (https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/05/30/how-to-use-current-knowledge-to-effectively-treat-the-symptoms-of-pws-patients/ average IQ 70) better “able to adapt” than let’s say a crow since they’re pretty smart.
You’re also talking about intelligence as ‘the mental ability to adapt’. So, using your definition, how can mentally retarded person be ‘more intelligent’ than other animals?
“Well if you define the pinnacle as the highest level of complexity then the human brain would be the pinnacle of evolution.”
Fallacies of Progression in Theories of Brain-Size Evolution
The tacit assumption that relative enlargement and differentiation of brains reflect a progressive evolutionary trend toward greater intelligence is a major impediment to the study of brain evolution. Theories that purport to establish a linear scale for this presumed correlation between brain size and intelligence are undermined by the absence of an unbiased allometric baseline for estimating differences in encephalization, by the incompatibility of allometric analyses at different taxonomic levels, by the nonlinearity of the criterion of subtraction used to partition the somatic and cognitive components of encephalization, and by the failure to independently demonstrate any cognitive basis for the regularity of brain/body allometry. Analyzing deviations from brain/body allometric trends in terms of encephalization obfuscates the complementarity between brain and body size and ignores selection on body size, which probably determines most deviations. By failing to analyze the effects of allometry at many levels of structure, comparative anatomists have mistaken methodological artifacts for progressive evolutionary trends. Many structural changes, which are assumed to demonstrate progression of brain structure from primitive to advanced forms, are the results of allometric processes. Increased brain size turns out to have some previously unappreciated functional disadvantages.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227312304_Fallacies_of_Progression_in_Theories_of_Brain-Size_Evolution
Drop the anthropocentric view of evolution, then things will start to make sense. Human intelligence is not the pinnacle of evolution.
“That’s pumpkin’s argument not mine. Plus it seems dubious to assume bacteria don’t have at least some level of plasticity.”
Showing the absurdity.
Bacteria are life’s ‘mode’.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_bacteria.html
So that has been falsified.
By the way, PP admitted that evolution isn’t teleological. PP said on December 6th, 2016 at 6:59 am:
Notice the first definition implies goal directed behavior and the second implies purpose. Earth cooling for life is not adaptation because it wasn’t done for that purpose. When we talk about primitive life adapting, we’re being metaphorical. A bacteria evolving to suit its new environment is not truly adaptation because evolution has no goal and neither does the bacteria, but because it mimics goal directed behavior, we call it adaptive. What makes intelligence the ultimate evolutionary adaptation is that in humans, the metaphor comes true. Human adaptations really are adaptions because we do it on purpose.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/12/03/racial-differences-in-penis-size/#comment-40200
And in admitting that evolution is non-teleological, he’s admitting that evolution isn’t progressive.
And in admitting that evolution is non-teleological, he’s admitting that evolution isn’t progressive.
Non sequitur. Progressive != intentionally progressive.
Peepee can you delete my pics? I deleted them on imgur but to no avail…
me too pp, thanks.
me too pp, thanks.
Done
I think you were successful deleting them, but I redacted them anyway.
Yet you talk about the brain and Man like he was destined to be here, somewhat ‘preordained’ to eventually come to be. Define intentionally for the purpose of this conversation. A guiding hand? Eventually destined to be here? A ‘purpose’ to be here? Or just random acts of mutation, drift, selection and migration along with the biggest factor—dumb luck? If Pikaia (the first chordate) had died out 530mya, we wouldn’t be here today. The cause for most species’ extinction during life on earth is mass extinction—which is strongly predicated on chance.
“You should. The basics are useful. It’s great for picking out contradictions, especially falsifying arguments or showing how they’re unsound. Your main points and conclusion put into that format is easy to read and bypasses all the fluff, really.”
I don’t really need to. Philosophy was a big interest of mine at one point. The only thing a logic class would do for me is flesh out tiny details. All my knowledge is self taught.
“Why do you say that.”
You back your arguments with sources more than anyone here.
“I was talking about humans relative to other humans. It’s not nonsensical. Is someone with Prader Willi’s Syndrome average IQ 70) better “able to adapt” than let’s say a crow since they’re pretty smart.”
Well crows are smart, but a hunter gatherer is still smarter and their IQ’s are around 70
“The tacit assumption that relative enlargement and differentiation of brains reflect a progressive evolutionary trend toward greater intelligence is a major impediment to the study of brain evolution”
Here seems to be the issue, I am not suggesting evolution is progressive, I don’t know where you are getting that from. If by the pinnacle of evolution you mean the highest point of complexity; then yes it is a fact that the human brain is the most complex biological extension. That doesn’t mean all animals will be slowing evolving towards that trend, that’s not how evolution works.
“You’re also talking about intelligence as ‘the mental ability to adapt’. So, using your definition, how can mentally retarded person be ‘more intelligent’ than other animals?”
It’s probably not good to use the word “all”, but even then it’s still nonsensical because evolution is not progressive there is always variation/outliars. The mentally retarded are not smart.
“And in admitting that evolution is non-teleological, he’s admitting that evolution isn’t progressive.”
Hmmm. I think all pumpkin is trying to say is that human intelligence is basically a metaphysical version of genetic adaptation. Which I would probably agree.
“knowledge advances one funeral at a time.”
I began to watch a video about the mennonites and made it as far as “we want electricity, but the elders won’t let us have it”, but got bored and then decided to listen to stefan talk about the resistance of establishments for challenging existing dogmas. Why is it that “society’s elders”, the wise, are unable to change, er, I mean adapt? Is electricity bad or good? Are they wisely rejecting an evil or ignorantly rejecting a good?
A radical idea turns into an orthodox view, stubbornly held until death.
Or maybe it’s better to say a radical idea of youth turns into an orthodox view of the elders, which says that youth is more adaptable than senior and is therefore saying that youth is smarter than elder and makes no sense.
Pliability is an attribute of character independent of intelligence. Reluctance to change can plague dumb and smart alike. Sticking to one’s guns is just as likely to be a smart thing as a blunder. There is no more advantage in being wishy-washy as there is being bone-headed; the real advantage is knowing when to concede and knowing when to fight. “Know when to hold em and know when to fold em”.
Why smart people defend bad ideas: http://scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-smart-people-defend-bad-ideas/
So, the ability to accept new ideas (adapt) is no more advantageous than the ability not to be swayed by bullshit. It would seem that Intelligence is more of the ability to know the difference between shit and shinola. Unfortunately, we label that ability, merely, “common sense”, which is isn’t common at all.
The consequent implication of a universal proclamation that intelligence is the ability to adapt is that people who change often (flakey) and have a random lifestyle (unkempt) are more advanced than those who have a structured and routine environment on which they depend (inherently non-adaptable).
That is the only objection that I care about since someone could say that because they live in an apartment, lease their car, phone and don’t own anything outright (have no equity), that they’re free to adapt to new situations and, because of that, they’re therefore smarter than someone who puts down roots, owns property, and provides a stable life for a family (aka someone who is not adaptable). I think furthering that impression is a disservice to humanity.
Fashionistas should be the most intelligent among us because they’re globally variable and crave variety (adaptable).
Other than that, I have no dog in the fight.
“which says that youth is more adaptable than senior and is therefore saying that youth is smarter than elder and makes no sense.”
Youths are inherently more intelligent then elders. At least potentially. Maybe in crystallized knowledge middle aged folks would take the cake.
“There is no more advantage in being wishy-washy as there is being bone-headed; the real advantage is knowing when to concede and knowing when to fight.”
That’s kind of contradicting for reasons already stated. Intellectual curiosity/ openess to experience is positively correlated with intelligence. Someone who is intelligence would know the proper reaction for certain situations.
“someone could say that because they live in an apartment, lease their car, phone and don’t own anything outright (have no equity), that they’re free to adapt to new situations and, because of that, they’re therefore smarter than someone who puts down roots, owns property, and provides a stable life for a family (aka someone who is not adaptable).”
In previous discussions other users and I have made the distinction between mental potential and ability. I now define intelligence as the mental potential to adapt. Not the ability. Those two examples face varying problems with likewise solutions.
The source for the data I cited is listed in a note at the bottom of the image I posted.
Why should I take a nonrepresentative, nonrandom sample as gospel? There goes your ‘rhythm IQ’ theory or whatever it was. And my favorite, French Army Surgeon:
And as I’ve been saying, the only real studies we have are of Nigerians, I know of two:
Click to access iq-race-brain-size-r-k-theory-rushton-weizmann-canadian-psychology-1-1990.pdf
So we have comparative data for the following (using Ajmani et al 1985 for Nigerians): Nigerians (3.21 inches) Italians (4.92 inches), Greeks (4.79 inches), Koreans (3.78), British (5.11 inches), and American Caucasians (4.9 inches).
And this, attempting to correlate certain CAG repeats to penis size:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201601/race-differences-in-androgens-do-they-mean-anything
RR, you need to learn to communicate like a human. No one wants to read a long cut and paste job. Figure out what your point is and express it succinctly.
The Kinsey data is nonrepresentative and nonrandom. We have comparative sizes for certain ethnies, and the only statistical difference is between Nigerians and Koreans and Czechs. Rushton and Boegart didn’t mention that blacks danced less than white college students, blacks are more prudish regarding nudity, more likely to have a prostitute as a sexual partner and less likely to want large families. A study on certain CAG repeats shows that Africans cluster with East Asians on two measures, contradicting Lynn’s hypothesis. French Army Surgeon, lol.
I think I’ve shown that there are no “””racial””” differences in size with the Veale et al 2014 study and the Orakwe and Ebuh 2007 study. As far as I see, two statistical differences exist between Nigerians and Koreans and Czechs. But there’s not enough “””quality data””” to say “this race bigger than that race”.
The Kinsey data is nonrepresentative and nonrandom.
Neither was any HBD study you’ve ever cited in your entire life.
We have comparative sizes for certain ethnies, and the only statistical difference is between Nigerians and Koreans and Czechs.
Just because data is not statistically significant does not mean it can be dismissed. Virtually no finding in HBD is truly statistically significant because samples are never representative of entire races. It’s all very approximate and inexact. That’s just the nature of this field.
Rushton and Boegart didn’t mention that blacks danced less than white college students, blacks are more prudish regarding nudity, more likely to have a prostitute as a sexual partner and less likely to want large families.
Having a prostitute is actually a K trait because it implies you’re too nerdy to get a woman on your own. Wanting a large family is also a K trait because r genotypes don’t start families, they have many children by many women.
I think I’ve shown that there are no “””racial””” differences in size with the Veale et al 2014 study and the Orakwe and Ebuh 2007 study. As far as I see, two statistical differences exist between Nigerians and Koreans and Czechs. But there’s not enough “””quality data””” to say “this race bigger than that race”.
The best quality data is from the U.S. where both races are well nourished, and that data shows blacks bigger than whites on BOTH length AND circumference.
“Neither was any HBD study you’ve ever cited in your entire life.”
lol no.
I cited a study of 411 Italians, is that not representative? You made a claim, now provide the evidence.
“Just because data is not statistically significant does not mean it can be dismissed. Virtually no finding in HBD is truly statistically significant because samples are never representative of entire races. It’s all very approximate and inexact. That’s just the nature of this field.”
Bro I just showed you a meta-analysis that showed there is no difference.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bju.13010/epdf
And the Ajmani study you cited in your other post, showed 3.21 inches for Nigerians with a sample of over 300 people.
“Having a prostitute is actually a K trait because it implies you’re too nerdy to get a woman on your own. Wanting a large family is also a K trait because r genotypes don’t start families, they have many children by many women.”
Man…. The fact that a lot of them had to pay for sex tells you what, PP?
They’re ‘less eager’ to start a family, which is a K-trait. “Wanting a large family is also a K trait.” So is K-selection small families with more parental investment or is it now ‘wanting large families’, so you can attempt to explain this away?
“The best quality data is from the U.S. where both races are well nourished, and that data shows blacks bigger than whites on BOTH length AND circumference.”
Nonrepresentative, nonrandom data is the best quality data we have? OK then. The results are inconclusive, all though I’ve shown two citations that have said otherwise.
I don’t believe for a second that “blacks dance less than whites”, unless Kinsey was talking about formal ballroom dancing. Especially considering pretty much all black music revolves around dancing (and is syncopated rhythmically to make it easier to do so), unlike a lot of white music.
Another factor you have to take into account is that culturally/socially, blacks throughout the world are much more conservative in their values than whites. That has nothing to do with actual behavior thought. Blacks are much less likely to approve of out-of-wedlock births, but have much more of them than whites. Blacks are also more likely to claim to hold middle-class values than whites, even though again, they usually don’t adhere to them in real life.
I’m guessing this is having to do with lower openness-to-experience.
Does nutrition affect penis size? If whites have the largest amounts of testosterone the maybe philosopher is right, maybe that’s why they are currently the ‘dominant” race
Peepee you’re such an Oprah nerd. Rofl.
native americans have the smallest peepees.
You’re a sociopath, a virulent misogynist and a racist. You belong in prison.
along with donald trump and all the whites who voted for him, right squaw?
any more “-ist”s you’d like to add squaw?
Deal have little penis…
Haha, check out Katie Hopkins and here -ist prompt cards for interviewers.
“Ok we’re going to play word bingo. I have some cards and when you say the term, let’s knock back a shot, ok?”
Sex-ism
Raci-ism
Homophobia
Islamophobia
Transphobia
Misogynist
Fascist
Marxist
Satanist
White Supremacist
Nazi
Xenophobe
Skinhead
Is the knee jerk invocation of one of the above words without evidence, a sign of low cognitive faculty?
I think Deal With Dildos is down there with that Chigune as a most unsavoury prospect. At least Trumpocalyptic Tempest is making intelligent observations now and then amidst the insults.
Actually, I don’t know if native Americans have the smallest penises… E.g. the North-East coast Indians are(were) actually very, very virile, probably a lot more than your average negro. But no beard growth, e.g. Probably high testosterone levels and yet… Mongoloid (in the broadest sense).
Donald “grab ’em by the pussy” Trump IS a verified misogynist and racist. The -ist terms should be used when appropriate. I was rooting for him though because that’s who Americans deserve.
Btw Obama has no interest in protecting First Nations’ land either. He’s shown nothing but utter indifference towards stopping the DAPL project. It makes sense. Obama doesn’t give a fuck about First Nations peoples. They’re not a large enough voting block in the US. Trampling on their rights doesn’t cost him any political points.
Btw Obama has no interest in protecting First Nations’ land either. He’s shown nothing but utter indifference towards stopping the DAPL project. It makes sense. Obama doesn’t give a fuck about First Nations peoples. They’re not a large enough voting block in the US. Trampling on their rights doesn’t cost him any political points
Very disappointed in Obama here. He’s not the man I thought he was.
But at least he prevented a war with Iran & the best parts of his health care will likely survive. That will be his legacy.
i apologize. i meant to say american abos.
Mugabe
Proof that mugabe is inbred.
that guy looks like he’s more than 1/8th injun.
As a prostitute I can tell you firsthand that Rushton was right about penis size.
actually I think some of most valuable contributors (as commenters) in the HBD-sphere could be scientific literate prostitutes. You would need people who actually have the experience, and at the same time both the intelligence and the education to have an intuitive understanding of basic statistics, test design etc. But of course scientific literate prostitutes are rare, and only few, if any, of this already small group will ever find their way to HBD internet sites.
Other interesting groups of commenters could be bouncers or drug dealers.
Well, blacks have 19% more testosterone than whites, so it makes sense. http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?196428-Racial-Differences-(statistical-data)
Nope, 2.5 to 4.9 percent.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24648111
Nope, 2.5 to 4.9 percent.
A study of California college students found a difference of 19% difference favoring blacks.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455741
….I know that. I showed a meta-analysis. That Ross study is what SophicDrippins cited. The meta-analysis is superior. Even your hero Rushton (1997: 170), while citing that same Ross study, cites a military study showing the difference was 3 percent.
The meta-analysis and the Army study are clearly the better studies.
The meta-analysis and the Army study are clearly the better studies
The Ross study is about testosterone in YOUNG men which is when it most matters from an evolutionary perspective.
Also, it’s 15 percent total, 13 percent free testosterone in that one study. I cited a 23 study meta-analysis of 23 relevant studies, the differences is 2.5 to 4.9 percent in free testosterone. Free testosterone is biologically active, and is able to exert its passing through a cell and activating its receptor.
We have this as well:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17456570
Meta-analysis, 23 studies, 2.5 to 4.9 percent difference in free testosterone, this study shows no notable difference between blacks and whites while Mexicans had higher levels of test.
I know tons about testosterone PP. It’s kinda my job.
One more thing pp. I have to get new CEUs every few months. Hormones in regards to the human body are drilled into me. Especially what testosterone does in the body (I kinda need to know this as I train competitiors). The 2.5 to 4 percent difference in free testosterone isn’t enough to account for disease acquisition, ie prostate cancer. So it’s probably environmental, ie diet.
The Canadian study, to the best of my knowledge, was based on a small convenience sample.
The testosterone studies between blacks and whites finding different differences suggests to me that some are comparing black/white half-breeds to 100% whites and, who knows, maybe even some white/hispanic crosses. My hunch is if a proper comparison were made between populations of more pure-black and pure-white, then differences would be more consistent.
Too many think if it’s published in NCBI, it must be gospel. Some publications I’ve seen have been full of holes and a meta-analysis often doesn’t help. I’d prefer one proper study to an average of 10 bad ones.
RR, didn’t you post this?
“We already have genetic explanations for why blacks are more violent. Fewer CAG repeats & lower tolerance to Cortisol are noted but there are many more, such as 7R allele of DRD4 & MAOA causing aggression, which is more common in blacks.” https://www.scribd.com/doc/102190687/Dogs-wolves-have-a-shorter-genetic-distance-between-each-other-than-Negroids-non-Negroids
If they are more violent, then does it make sense they would have higher testosterone?
Age could skew the data as well, since the link I posted from apricity indicated that blacks mature faster, it would make sense that they decline faster. I’m no expert on this, but I’ve read that Okinawans retain higher testosterone levels into their old age. It could be that asians have less, but retain it longer whereas blacks have more, but lose it sooner. So, the published data would come to all sorts of differing conclusions if not respecting age and ancestry.
I’d tend to agree with the chart PP posted showing a marginal difference between blacks and whites on average, but black penises are probably overblown.
RR, what do you know about the ratio of testosterone to DHT in relation to prostate cancer?
In youth, T and DHT are high; but in old age, T declines (and converted into estrogen) while DHT doesn’t. This results in an overexpression of DHT, baldness, prostate problems, etc. What do you think?
“The testosterone studies between blacks and whites finding different differences suggests to me that some are comparing black/white half-breeds to 100% whites and, who knows, maybe even some white/hispanic crosses. My hunch is if a proper comparison were made between populations of more pure-black and pure-white, then differences would be more consistent.”
Maybe. The study I cited is superior though, as it’s a meta-analysis.
“Too many think if it’s published in NCBI, it must be gospel. Some publications I’ve seen have been full of holes and a meta-analysis often doesn’t help. I’d prefer one proper study to an average of 10 bad ones.”
Anything to back this assertion? Can you prove that the studies Richard et al cite have holes?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4327897/
“RR, didn’t you post this?”
Not me. You know I don’t deny alleles for violence, I’m just saying that testosterone levels aren’t as great between blacks and whites.
“If they are more violent, then does it make sense they would have higher testosterone?”
Yea. I don’t deny that either.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3575604
But it doesn’t tell the whole story.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-testosterone-alone-doesnt-cause-violence/
Please don’t cite ‘roid rage’, as that’s a myth. Steroids magnifies your base personality. For those who believe myths about steroids and roid rage and that steroids are bad for you, watch this great documentary.
“Age could skew the data as well”
Richard et al 2014 control for age.
“I’m no expert on this, but I’ve read that Okinawans retain higher testosterone levels into their old age. It could be that asians have less, but retain it longer whereas blacks have more, but lose it sooner. So, the published data would come to all sorts of differing conclusions if not respecting age and ancestry.”
I’d like to see this.
Do you think diet doesn’t have an effect on testosterone?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6538617
Testosterone begins to decline at age 30 at a rate of about 1 percent per year.
http://www.healthline.com/health/low-testosterone/testosterone-levels-by-age
I’ve read numerous other sources that have stated it begins to decrease at age 25 at 2 percent per year. I trust that one more.
“I’d tend to agree with the chart PP posted showing a marginal difference between blacks and whites on average, but black penises are probably overblown.”
Which chart, the one from Rushton? Or the testosterone? Both are wrong.
“RR, what do you know about the ratio of testosterone to DHT in relation to prostate cancer?”
DHT may not affect prostate growth.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/732585
DHT signals the pituitary to decrease the production of gonadotropins. This decrease in gonadotropins causes less testosterone production which causes estrogen levels to drop.
“In youth, T and DHT are high; but in old age, T declines (and converted into estrogen) while DHT doesn’t. This results in an overexpression of DHT, baldness, prostate problems, etc. What do you think?”
DHT may not affect prostate growth. It is related to baldness, but genes affect going bald more than DHT.
DHT does shrink the hair follicle, but the amount of shrinkage that occurs is due primarily to the follicles’ sensitivity to DHT.
http://tctmed.com/low-t-faq-testosterone-reason-balding/
Hair genes come from the X chromosome. To get a good reading on whether or not you’ll go bald, look at your maternal grandfather.
http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/hair-loss/news/20050527/blame-male-pattern-baldness-on-mom
Prostate problems have to do with other hormones not named testosterone.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10613344
Estradiol looks like a culprit. Richard et al said that the moderate levels of free testosterone found in blacks (2.5 to 4.9 percent) wasn’t high enough to explain prostate cancer acquisition.
“Maybe. The study I cited is superior though, as it’s a meta-analysis.”
Meta doesn’t = superior. Mix 9 parts crap to 1 part truth and you get crap on average 😉
“Anything to back this assertion? Can you prove that the studies Richard et al cite have holes?”
I have no clue about Richard et al, just that I’ve seen bad studies too many times and you should know where I’m coming from on that. The fact that we are getting conflicting results from the studies posted here indicates that at least 1 are wrong. As I said, probably the “blacks” in the study are not 100% black, like Obama isn’t and probably most blacks in the US… especially on college campuses. Including half-blacks in a study comparing blacks to whites is bad science.
“https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4327897/”
It says “If races/ethnicities included in the study were referred to as ‘black’, ‘African-American’, ‘Non-Hispanic black’, ‘white’, ‘non-Hispanic white’ or ‘Caucasian’. We did not include men of Hispanic or Asian origin.”
I have no idea what that means because it’s a meta. If the study said “black”, then they assumed “black”. Who knows if the person was half-black.
“Not me.”
It’s says “posted by Race-Realist”. I just assumed…
“https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-testosterone-alone-doesnt-cause-violence/”
Is higher test associated with higher violence? Do they correlate?
I have no biases against roids.
“Richard et al 2014 control for age.”
Did he control for the hypothesis that black men’s T falls quicker than the asian’s? Just because you control for age doesn’t mean that you’ve controlled for an 80yr old black man having less T than an 80yr old asian or that a 20 yr old black man would have more T than a 20 yr old asian.
“I’d like to see this.”
“the Okinawans have been extensively studied and it has been found that the typical Okinawan male has testosterone levels of someone 20-30 years younger than him. For example, the average 70 year old Okinawan has testosterone of 439 ng/dl versus 314 ng/dl for the typical 70-year old American. [1] In fact, the typical Okinawan 100-year old has testosterone of 298, which is above the hypogonadal level!” http://www.peaktestosterone.com/How_To_Avoid_Andropause.aspx
“Do you think diet doesn’t have an effect on testosterone?”
I think winning a chess game has more effect. The Okinawans eat all the wrong stuff.
“Our results indicate that in men a decrease in dietary fat content and an increase in the degree of unsaturation of fatty acids reduces the serum concentrations of androstenedione, testosterone and free testosterone.”
I can see that. Africans are a long-line of meat-eaters, right? Not too much into farming, etc like the whites and asians.
“http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/732585”
I can’t view that study.
“DHT may not affect prostate growth. Prostate problems have to do with other hormones not named testosterone.”
An example illustrating the significance of DHT for the development of secondary sex characteristics is congenital 5α-reductase type II deficiency. This genetic mutation can result in pseudohermaphroditism.[8] The condition typically presents with underdeveloped male genitalia and prostate. Males with this condition are often raised as girls due to their lack of conspicuous male genitalia.[8] At the onset of puberty, although their DHT levels remain very low, their testosterone levels elevate normally. Their musculature develops like that of other male adults. After puberty, men with this condition have a large deficiency of pubic and body hair and reportedly no incidence of androgenic alopecia (pattern hair loss).[9] They also reportedly have no incidence of prostate cancer.[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrotestosterone#Sexual_development
Is it possible to develop prostate cancer in the absence of DHT?
“Estradiol looks like a culprit. Richard et al said that the moderate levels of free testosterone found in blacks (2.5 to 4.9 percent) wasn’t high enough to explain prostate cancer acquisition.”
Probably more associated with vitamin D then. Prostate overrgrowth maybe is associated with DHT, but the cancer could be from lack of vitamin D… or maybe estrogen… or both.
“Meta doesn’t = superior. Mix 9 parts crap to 1 part truth and you get crap on average😉”
Prove they were crap studies. =^)
“The fact that we are getting conflicting results from the studies posted here indicates that at least 1 are wrong. As I said, probably the “blacks” in the study are not 100% black, like Obama isn’t and probably most blacks in the US… especially on college campuses. Including half-blacks in a study comparing blacks to whites is bad science.”
Of course one is wrong. The one study is wrong while the meta-analysis is more likely to be right. Self-identified race is good enough, see Risch et al 2002 and Tang et al 2004.
“I have no idea what that means because it’s a meta. If the study said “black”, then they assumed “black”. Who knows if the person was half-black.”
So the onus is on you to prove this. The names for the races used in the study is good enough for me since racial/ethnic self-identification is almost a perfect proxy.
From the discussion.
“It’s says “posted by Race-Realist”. I just assumed…”
Never assume.
“Is higher test associated with higher violence? Do they correlate?”
Duh. But testosterone also rises in group/violent situations. Whenever you see a big group and there’s a protest, something bad will happen. In violent situations, testosterone, adrenaline, noradrenaline, cortisol, insulin, all increase. Fight or flight. It’s not specifically on testosterone.
“Did he control for the hypothesis that black men’s T falls quicker than the asian’s? ”
Source? As far as I know, there are no racial differences and the age that test begins to decrease is between 25 and 30 at a rate of 1 to 2 percent per year.
Should reiterate that this is free testosterone we are talking about here.
“I think winning a chess game has more effect. The Okinawans eat all the wrong stuff.”
Okinawans mainly eat pork
http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/food-in-china-variety-and-monotony/
Price’s research is good, just most of what the WAPF puts out is garbage. Even then, they eat a whole bunch of natural carbs. Natural carbs have more fiber, so along with the higher fat diet that helps satiate people. No coincidence that ever since the introduction of the American diet their life expectancy has fallen below the Japanese average.
“I can see that. Africans are a long-line of meat-eaters, right? Not too much into farming, etc like the whites and asians.”
Which Africans? It’s a big place. Of course they farmed.
“I can’t view that study.”
http://annals.org/aim/article/746416/long-term-effects-dihydrotestosterone-treatment-prostate-growth-healthy-middle-aged
“Is it possible to develop prostate cancer in the absence of DHT?”
The inhibitors talked about in the quote is called finisteride made by Merk that’s an anti-balding agent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finasteride
It also helps with BHP, but doesn’t shrink the prostate.
“Probably more associated with vitamin D then. Prostate overrgrowth maybe is associated with DHT, but the cancer could be from lack of vitamin D… or maybe estrogen… or both.”
There is a link between vitamin D and prostate cancer.
https://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/prostate-cancer/
Black Americans have lower rates of vitamin D.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/136/4/1126.full
A lot has to do with diet:
And the biggest change in the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency was seen in young blacks, with their skin color playing a role. (pg. 18)
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1038&context=honors
Moreover, a 1 percent increase in BMI is associated with a 5 percent decrease in serum vitamin D levels. Body fat inhibits the bioavailabilty of vitamin D.
Black women are the most likely to be obese.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2015/12/20/ethnicity-and-obesity-rates/
But black American men with more African ancestry are less likely to be obese.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/06/12/black-american-men-with-more-african-ancestry-less-likely-to-be-obese/
Vitamin D would explain prostate cancer disparities more in my (professional) opinion. BMI, food intake and poverty have an effect on that. Impoverished people can’t afford good food, and it affects minorities the most.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/1/6.full
“Prove they were crap studies. =^)”
You admitted it in your quote below lol
“Of course one is wrong. The one study is wrong while the meta-analysis is more likely to be right.”
You’ve just conceded the meta averaged a “wrong” study. So, would you rather have 1 good study or a meta containing at least one wrong one?
If you ask your bank how much money you have and you get 3 different answers, are you going to average the 3 and be good with that? One good study should trump the average of bad ones.
Now, I have no clue which study is the good one and which is the wrong one. You’re the expert, so you decide. It’s not that important to me to sift through each one. I’m just bringing an inconsistency to your attention. You should say thanks 😉
“So the onus is on you to prove this.”
You’re funny 🙂 The onus isn’t on me. I did you a favor by pointing out something you didn’t see. If you don’t want to accept that, then throw it away. I’ll just say that it doesn’t reflect well on your objectivity.
“The names for the races used in the study is good enough for me since racial/ethnic self-identification is almost a perfect proxy.”
So, you think Obama is black because he says he is? So, blacks are that smart? Do you REALLY want that data point in your set? If I were you, I’d listen to me and only include blacks, not half-blacks with genius iqs 😉
Maybe that means you have to throw the blacks a bone and admit they have bigger boners and more T, or maybe not, but which is more important? Brains, brawn, or boners? Being smarter and stronger isn’t enough, we have to have bigger schlongs too? Your next blog should be about greed lol
____
I don’t know if racial differences in T vary with respect to age. It’s a theory of mine. Maybe asians retain T longer while blacks do not. I can’t prove it, but someone should look into it.
“Okinawans mainly eat pork”
I have no experience, but generally concede to this:
“First of all, they eat a relatively low fat, high fiber diet. The common wisdom is that this type of diet will lower testosterone when compared to the typical high fat, low fiber Western diet. Okinawans eat relatively little meat and saturated fat, so, according to the school of thought, should have low testosterone.
Even worse according to some is the fact that the Okinawans eat boat loads of soy. Some studes have shown that soy may lower testosterone somewhat and it is a well-known source of phytoestrogens. Again, this would seem to be the antithesis of a pro-testosterone, anti-andropause lifestyle.
Finally, the typical Okinawan male eats a relatively low calorie level, less than 2,000 per day on average. Limiting calories is also a known testosterone-reducer.” http://www.peaktestosterone.com/How_To_Avoid_Andropause.aspx
And this study backs it:
“Research suggests that diets associated with a reduced risk of chronic diseases are similar to the traditional Okinawan diet, that is, vegetable and fruit heavy (therefore phytonutrient and antioxidant rich) but reduced in meat, refined grains, saturated fat, sugar, salt, and full-fat dairy products.” http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07315724.2009.10718117
“Price’s research is good”
Yep, I like Price.
“Which Africans? It’s a big place. Of course they farmed.”
Their dirt looks like crap to me. It’s either desert or jungle. Contrast to the plains of the US and Europe with abundance of glacial till and just the right amount of rain.
Click to access NtP-Africa’s-Indigenous-Crops.pdf
Potato is the only one I recognize and that’s not indigenous to Africa (another “wrong” study). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato
Indigenous crops are the only ones that count because we’re talking about evolution. Africans probably ate a good deal of meat, which is what Price observed. A high meat diet *should* produce more T, except in the case of the Okinawans, who don’t eat that much (red meat anyway).
“You admitted it in your quote below lol”
How?
“You’ve just conceded the meta averaged a “wrong” study. So, would you rather have 1 good study or a meta containing at least one wrong one?”
That’s not what I said. I said that one is right and one is wrong, meaning that either the meta-analysis is right (more likely) or the single study is wrong (more likely, due to it being a sample of 50 people).
“Now, I have no clue which study is the good one and which is the wrong one. You’re the expert, so you decide. It’s not that important to me to sift through each one. I’m just bringing an inconsistency to your attention. You should say thanks”
I’m more inclined to believe Richard et al over Ross et al. Richard et al uses 14 studies, including the Ross et al study. The meta-analysis is superior. Free testosterone (what matters) differs between 2.5 to 4.9 percent.
“You’re funny The onus isn’t on me. I did you a favor by pointing out something you didn’t see. If you don’t want to accept that, then throw it away. I’ll just say that it doesn’t reflect well on your objectivity.”
And I said that self-identified race is almost a perfect proxy so that’s good enough. It’s not like they genotyped them.
“So, you think Obama is black because he says he is? So, blacks are that smart? Do you REALLY want that data point in your set? If I were you, I’d listen to me and only include blacks, not half-blacks with genius iqs”
Obama is a mullato.
“Maybe that means you have to throw the blacks a bone and admit they have bigger boners and more T, or maybe not, but which is more important? Brains, brawn, or boners? Being smarter and stronger isn’t enough, we have to have bigger schlongs too? Your next blog should be about greed lol”
There is evidence that blacks have higher levels of free testosterone, though it’s a moderate difference, 2.5 to 4.9 percent. I’m skeptical leaning towards no that there are racial differences in penis size. I’m arguing that there are no racial differences in penis size. Because there is no sufficient evidence and I will not accept self-reports. Would you accept self-reported weight loss from a diet study? I wouldn’t.
“Even worse according to some is the fact that the Okinawans eat boat loads of soy. Some studes have shown that soy may lower testosterone somewhat and it is a well-known source of phytoestrogens. Again, this would seem to be the antithesis of a pro-testosterone, anti-andropause lifestyle.”
http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/soy-alert/how-much-soy-do-okinawans-eat/
Limiting kcal is the key to living longer, and intermittent fasting has these benefits plus more and it’s easier and a much simpler lifestyle to follow.
“Yep, I like Price.”
The WAPF puts out garbage claims. But they are on the right track.
“Their dirt looks like crap to me. It’s either desert or jungle. Contrast to the plains of the US and Europe with abundance of glacial till and just the right amount of rain.”
The Maya had bad soil and were still able to farm.
“Indigenous crops are the only ones that count because we’re talking about evolution. Africans probably ate a good deal of meat, which is what Price observed. A high meat diet *should* produce more T, except in the case of the Okinawans, who don’t eat that much (red meat anyway).
Okinawans eat red meat on their festival days, and they hold quite a few. Read this (on their diet).
http://stan-heretic.blogspot.com/2009/10/beware-of-okinawa-diet-scam.html
High meat diets do increase testosterone.
“I’m more inclined to believe Richard et al over Ross et al. Richard et al uses 14 studies, including the Ross et al study. The meta-analysis is superior.”
So, Ross is wrong. Richard includes Ross’ study and is therefore right? You say “because it’s a meta”. So, because he included a “wrong study”, he is therefore correct.
Let’s assume the meta is correct. Therefore, any study that doesn’t agree with the meta is wrong. Therefore, any study that doesn’t agree with the meta should not have been included in the meta.
If 19% is wrong and 5% is correct, then why include 19% in the meta? And since 19% is wrong, then that necessarily means that 5% is wrong and perhaps the real difference is closer to zero. But that can’t be right because other studies are greater than zero.
The correct way to do it is to do it correctly and not average a bunch of outliers. That’s my only point.
I found this:
“The 1986 Ross et al. study is the only one I’ve ever seen claiming to find black-white T differences of that magnitude and direction. It’s based on a small convenience sample and the authors explicitly set out to look for large black-white differences in testosterone, motivated by the idea that the existence of such differences might explain black-white differences in prostate cancer. They were not alone. This was a very common (though we now know almost certainly wrong) idea and numerous other cancer researchers looked and have continued looking for similar evidence. Decades later, nothing like the result claimed by Ross et al. has been replicated, suggesting it was a false positive.” http://racehist.blogspot.com/2013/04/no-evidence-for-higher-testosterone-in.html
So there you go.
“And I said that self-identified race is almost a perfect proxy so that’s good enough. It’s not like they genotyped them.”
Do you have evidence that it’s a perfect proxy? If it’s going to be published and relied upon to make theories about cancer, they should have been genotyped. How is a 50% black = to a 100% black?
“Obama is a mullato.”
You know what I mean.
“Limiting kcal is the key to living longer, and intermittent fasting has these benefits plus more and it’s easier and a much simpler lifestyle to follow.”
What does starving yourself do for T? So why do Okinawans have more T?
“The Maya had bad soil and were still able to farm.”
Just potatoes. Maybe some tomatoes. Nothing like corn and wheat. Anyway, the mayans had decent soil and today we grow vidalia onions there (in Peru). Also, probably a better climate than africa.
Check this out around 14:00
South Americans had potatoes, tomatoes.
North Americans had corn, beans, buffalo and turkey.
Europeans had about everything including horses, pigs, and diary cows.
Africans had shit. Probably why the smart ones left “out of africa” :p
“So, Ross is wrong. Richard includes Ross’ study and is therefore right? You say “because it’s a meta”. So, because he included a “wrong study”, he is therefore correct.”
Pretty much. Ross et al was a sample of 50 people. That’s not enough to draw any conclusions.
“Let’s assume the meta is correct. Therefore, any study that doesn’t agree with the meta is wrong. Therefore, any study that doesn’t agree with the meta should not have been included in the meta.
If 19% is wrong and 5% is correct, then why include 19% in the meta? And since 19% is wrong, then that necessarily means that 5% is wrong and perhaps the real difference is closer to zero. But that can’t be right because other studies are greater than zero.
The correct way to do it is to do it correctly and not average a bunch of outliers. That’s my only point.”
Ross et al was included because it fit the criteria specified in the paper, one of which stating race, testosterone, free testosterone, etc. You don’t know if a bunch of outliers were used, even then, the average from the meta study is more likely to be correct than one study.
“This was a very common (though we now know almost certainly wrong) idea and numerous other cancer researchers looked and have continued looking for similar evidence. Decades later, nothing like the result claimed by Ross et al. has been replicated, suggesting it was a false positive.”
My point. Which is why it shouldn’t be used to say blacks have substantially higher free testosterone. They don’t.
“Do you have evidence that it’s a perfect proxy? If it’s going to be published and relied upon to make theories about cancer, they should have been genotyped. How is a 50% black = to a 100% black?”
Yes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
We are talking about American blacks. American blacks are, one average, 23 percent white.
“What does starving yourself do for T? So why do Okinawans have more T?”
It’s not “starving yourself”, but decreased kcal does lower test levels. I have no answer off the top of my head so I’ll get back to you on that. There is conflicting information on their diet so I’ll look deeper into that as well. I assume it has to do with diet and genetics, obviously.
“Just potatoes. Maybe some tomatoes. Nothing like corn and wheat. Anyway, the mayans had decent soil and today we grow vidalia onions there (in Peru). Also, probably a better climate than africa.”
Wheat is garbage nutrition wise. The Maya soil was horrible. They still got things done. They were pretty damn smart. Africa farmed as well, contrary to popular belief.
“South Americans had potatoes, tomatoes.
North Americans had corn, beans, buffalo and turkey.
Europeans had about everything including horses, pigs, and diary cows.
Africans had shit. Probably why the smart ones left “out of africa” :p”
That’s part of Jared Diamonds thesis. But Africans still did farm. But farming is bad, nutrition wise, for a population as a whole.
“You don’t know if a bunch of outliers were used, even then, the average from the meta study is more likely to be correct than one study.”
I think you just happen to be right in this instance, but generally, I think one good study would be more accurate than a bunch of mediocre ones. I’m guessing that the reason for the existence of a meta is because studies don’t agree. If studies don’t agree, then a few are wrong. If a few are wrong, then the meta which is derived from them, is wrong.
The meta seems to be a lazy way of avoiding doing it right, which would be to take samples in accordance with all objections that had come to light previously. But I guess that costs more.
“My point. Which is why it shouldn’t be used to say blacks have substantially higher free testosterone. They don’t.”
It doesn’t bother me to say you’re right. Good job! I’m just trying to be sure that you are right. And it very much looks like you are at this point.
Most of my life I had it in my head that blacks were stronger, better hung, and more T. Now you come along and blow all that out of the water. How did I get those ideas if they were so wrong? Is it the propaganda or is it just intuitive to come to those conclusions?
“50% blacks = 100% blacks”
That was a good study, but I think what it means is that anyone identifying as black forms their own group, which isn’t 100% african because of admixture.
So, saying that mixed blacks form their own group doesn’t answer the question of how close they are to being pure african. Maybe pure africans have more T while mixed africans do not.
If american blacks are 23% white, then maybe they have 23% less T than they otherwise would have had.
3 quotes from the study:
– “What our results do show is that the (admixed) groups included have approximated within-group random mating sufficiently long enough to give rise to distinct genetic clusters.”
-“However, this topic merits additional scrutiny—in particular, for the admixed subjects (Hispanics and African Americans)—to determine whether cases and controls have differential levels of admixture, which is likely to be the greatest source of confounding for these populations.”
-“In summary, from a very large study of four major racial/ethnic groups within the United States and Taiwan, we found extraordinary correspondence between SIRE and genetic cluster categories but only modest geographic differentiation within each race/ethnicity group. This result indicates that studies using genetic clusters instead of racial/ethnic labels are likely to simply reproduce racial/ethnic differences, which may or may not be genetic.”
My guess is the Okinawans have a genetic propensity for longevity, which requires longer production of adequate hormones.
“Wheat is garbage nutrition wise.”
It’s more nutrient-dense than corn. Easier on the soil too since it’s less waste. Wheat will only grow in places where the soil is extremely fertile. Corn is more of a sugar crop and will grow in sandy/acid soil better than wheat.
“The Maya soil was horrible.”
Since potatoes grow there, I’m guessing a ph of 5.5 and a high amount of potassium. That means rainfall must be over 30 in per yr and the ground is fairly leeched. Definitely not optimal soil for health, but decent enough and they get rain. Could never grow wheat there or grasses to support large herds of animals.
“Africa farmed as well, contrary to popular belief.”
Probably what they “farmed” were what I call sugar crops. Those are crops containing a high amount of sugar and vitamin C, but low amounts of B and protein.
The advantage the europeans and native americans had were the grazing animals harvesting the nutrition from the extremely fertile soil. The buffalo and the cow were put to work taking nutrition from the ground and converted to better forms for humans (K1 to K2, B-carotene to A, etc). Letting the animals graze and then eating the animals is the better strategy.
The africans had grazing animals too, but they’re always on the move and following them made farming impossible. If they farmed, then they didn’t hunt. The europeans had the advantage of being able to domesticate the animals so that they could remain in one place to also farm. That’s the magic combination that neither the native americans nor the africans had.
The europeans not only had an abundance of calories, but also fat-soluble vitamins and Bs.
“That’s part of Jared Diamonds thesis.”
Funny, I never heard of him until someone said my arguments were similar. I never heard of simulation theory unto you mentioned it. I feel like I’m reinventing wheels that already exist lol.
“But farming is bad, nutrition wise, for a population as a whole.”
You’ll have to explain that one. I don’t see it.
“I think you just happen to be right in this instance, but generally, I think one good study would be more accurate than a bunch of mediocre ones. I’m guessing that the reason for the existence of a meta is because studies don’t agree. If studies don’t agree, then a few are wrong. If a few are wrong, then the meta which is derived from them, is wrong.
The meta seems to be a lazy way of avoiding doing it right, which would be to take samples in accordance with all objections that had come to light previously. But I guess that costs more.”
I used to emphatically believe that it was 15/13 percent higher (circulating and free testosterone). A few years ago I’d debate people on testosterone being a main cause for the crime gap citing Ross et al 1986. Then the person I was debating with showed me that study. I really had nothing to say.
But yea, the purpose was to resolve the dispute because of the disagreeing studies. Age was controlled for so this pretty much seals the deal.
“It doesn’t bother me to say you’re right. Good job! I’m just trying to be sure that you are right. And it very much looks like you are at this point.”
Thanks. I used to believe it was that much higher too. But as I got a better understanding of testosterone along with this meta-analysis, I had to change my view.
“Most of my life I had it in my head that blacks were stronger, better hung, and more T. Now you come along and blow all that out of the water. How did I get those ideas if they were so wrong? Is it the propaganda or is it just intuitive to come to those conclusions?”
I’m sure all of us have heard the these myths (or had these intuitive misconceptions based on appearance/extrovertedness). But self-reports mean nothing (scientifically). Of course it’s propaganda, by you-know-who:
I’d say it’s the propaganda mixed with the intuition. Media has a huge effect on our lives, whether we watch TV or not.
These myths need to be put to bed though, if not for the average person who believes old wives tales, then people like us who trust empiricism.
“That was a good study, but I think what it means is that anyone identifying as black forms their own group, which isn’t 100% african because of admixture.”
It’s the best we have and I am talking in the context of American blacks. (Do you think self-identified race as said by any African would be wrong more than 1 percent of the time?) I can’t find any studies or any metas on African testosterone. The only thing I know well about it is the Hadza foragers and the Datoga pastoralists. The researchers predicted that high levels of paternal care by the Hadza fathers would be associated with lower testosterone and that no difference would be found in non-fathers and fathers of Datoga men, who provide direct paternal care. The measurements in both populations confirmed the hypothesis, as well as adding further support that decreased testosterone leads to more paternal care.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1655/347
One sample, not generalizable, etc.
““What our results do show is that the (admixed) groups included have approximated within-group random mating sufficiently long enough to give rise to distinct genetic clusters.””
In the context of the debate in regards to whether or not *black American men have more testosterone* it is acceptable. I showed self-identified race is a good predictor of genetic ancestry. A meta-analysis showed that there’s a moderate difference in free testosterone between blacks and whites. Richard et al used studies that said ‘black, non-Hispanic black, white, non-Hispanic white”, so I proved my point—both studies were done on American whites and American blacks.
““In summary, from a very large study of four major racial/ethnic groups within the United States and Taiwan, we found extraordinary correspondence between SIRE and genetic cluster categories but only modest geographic differentiation within each race/ethnicity group. This result indicates that studies using genetic clusters instead of racial/ethnic labels are likely to simply reproduce racial/ethnic differences, which may or may not be genetic.””
‘There is more variation within racial groups than between them.’
One other thing that proves my point:
The identical diagram has since been derived by others, using a similar or greater number of microsatellite markers and individuals [8,9]. More recently, a survey of 3,899 SNPs in 313 genes based on US populations (Caucasians, African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics) once again provided distinct and non-overlapping clustering of the Caucasian, African-American and Asian samples [12]: “The results confirmed the integrity of the self-described ancestry of these individuals”. Hispanics, who represent a recently admixed group between Native American, Caucasian and African, did not form a distinct subgroup, but clustered variously with the other groups.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC139378/
Black Americans supposedly have more testosterone. A black American saying he’s a black American is almost a perfect proxy for genetic ancestry. Study shows 14 studies specifically showing how the ethnies self-identified. Another study shows that self-identified ancestry is a great, almost perfect proxy for genetic ancestry.
American blacks don’t have substantially higher testosterone.
“My guess is the Okinawans have a genetic propensity for longevity, which requires longer production of adequate hormones.”
Most likely. There are conflicting reports of their diet, though. High pork or high natural carbs. Dr. Jasono Fung, intermittent fasting, diabetes and obesity expert (nephrologist by trade) says it’s high in natural carbs:
The Okinawans for instance eat a diet high in sweet potato. Approximately 80% of their diet is carbohydrate. However, they are also eating copious amounts of fibre which provides protection. Until recently, they were one of the longest lived peoples on earth – one of the Blue Zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone) populations.
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/the-role-of-fibre-2-hormonal-obesity-xvii/
“It’s more nutrient-dense than corn. Easier on the soil too since it’s less waste. Wheat will only grow in places where the soil is extremely fertile. Corn is more of a sugar crop and will grow in sandy/acid soil better than wheat.”
http://www.livestrong.com/article/443552-nutritional-value-of-wheat-vs-corn/
Corn offers a wider array of vitamins than wheat, with moderate-to-high amounts of vitamin C and B-vitamins and small amounts of vitamins A, E and K. Wheat is high in most of the B-vitamin complex but does not contain any other vitamins, according to the USDA database.
In my opinion, wheat and the industrial revolution is the clear fall of the West. Farming screwed us. We aren’t evolved for our current diets.
“Since potatoes grow there, I’m guessing a ph of 5.5 and a high amount of potassium. That means rainfall must be over 30 in per yr and the ground is fairly leeched. Definitely not optimal soil for health, but decent enough and they get rain. Could never grow wheat there or grasses to support large herds of animals.”
And there weren’t beasts of burden there anyway.
“Probably what they “farmed” were what I call sugar crops. Those are crops containing a high amount of sugar and vitamin C, but low amounts of B and protein.”
I’ve no idea what was farmed. Do you?
“The advantage the europeans and native americans had were the grazing animals harvesting the nutrition from the extremely fertile soil. The buffalo and the cow were put to work taking nutrition from the ground and converted to better forms for humans (K1 to K2, B-carotene to A, etc). Letting the animals graze and then eating the animals is the better strategy.
The africans had grazing animals too, but they’re always on the move and following them made farming impossible. If they farmed, then they didn’t hunt. The europeans had the advantage of being able to domesticate the animals so that they could remain in one place to also farm. That’s the magic combination that neither the native americans nor the africans had.”
You make great points. Populations are suited for their environments. A more temperate/tropical environment is suitable for a different lifestyle than a colder one (obviously). That selects for certain personalities that are suited for that environment.
“Funny, I never heard of him until someone said my arguments were similar. I never heard of simulation theory unto you mentioned it. I feel like I’m reinventing wheels that already exist lol.”
Not a fan of GGS. Don’t know about his other books but I’ll get around to them and maybe change my opinion on him but I don’t like GGS.
“You’ll have to explain that one. I don’t see it.”
Higher disease acquisition, diabetes, pretty much every type of thing that came as a result of civilization. Better called ‘diseases of civilization’, these diseases only arise in people who eat high carb, insulin-spiking foods. This leads to all types of negative things. I’ll explain more later.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-agriculture-ruined-your-health-and-what-to-do-about-it/
“Do you think self-identified race as said by any African would be wrong more than 1 percent of the time?”
I don’t understand how someone who says they are african, but really are mixed, can be equal to someone who really is 100% african. That’s like saying black paint, mixed with some white, is still black paint.
“‘There is more variation within racial groups than between them.’”
So a black has more in common with a white than another black? That doesn’t make sense.
I’m not sure how much more assault my last molecule of faith in science can take before I write the entire NCBI off as garbage awaiting debunking (but only when it’s profitable to do so)…. much like every drug released has a lawsuit following within a few years.
“Call now to learn your legal options” https://www.drugwatch.com/lawsuits/
The modern-day equivalent of leeches and mercury.
“Corn offers a wider array of vitamins than wheat,”
To bad I couldn’t make a sandwich out of that baloney lol. Do your own research and don’t depend on those blogs. Bookmark this site https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list
Wheat trumps corn in every category except carbs. Maybe if you compare a “soft” variety of wheat and then only the germ to the very best corn you may see some equivalence, but corn is effectively a dessert-item.
B vitamins are harder to manufacture than C vitamins and even carotenes. B’s contain more elements (C,H,N,O) than C (C,H,O) and carotenes (C,H). B12 has Cobalt (something not even plants can do). Sugar is C6 H12 O6 while vitamin C is C6 H8 O6. So remove 4H from sugar and you have vitamin C. Big deal, any plant can do that. Show me a plant that can include an N and produce some riboflavin.
You should read the works of Dr. William Albretch. It’s really fascinating. Rainfall determines the soil which determines the plants which determines the animals. If you know there are thundering herds of bison, then you know there is B vitamin rich grass and you know for certain that area can’t get over 30 inches of rain annually nor under 20 inches.
But it’s not really an argument about wheat vs corn, but more to illustrate the point that if wheat will grow, then other grasses will grow and those grasses feed the herds which feeds the people. If only corn will grow and not wheat, then the animals will be small and the people malnourished or of a small population.
Okinawa gets 80 inches of rain, so anything they grow will be sugary, low in protein and vitamin B. They must have some type of population control and eat lots of fish or else they would be dumb as rocks.
Albrecht dug through military records to find that 7 out of 10 midwestern men were accepted for service compared to 7 out of 10 southeastern men rejected. http://designerecosystems.com/2014/10/16/food-is-fabricated-soil-fertility-by-william-a-albrecht/
Rainfall determines fitness and most probably intelligence. It’s becoming clear why the europeans dominated… they had the good soil and good weather.
Albrecht and Price also researched what happened to farming which caused the decline in health. People favored soft wheat instead of hard wheat for its sweetness. People favored sugar for its sweetness rather than crops for nutrition. It isn’t the fault of farming, but bad customers of farmers. If you grow good stuff, then growing it on a farm can’t make it bad.
People also decided to feed corn to cows to fatten them, so even the cows were less nutrient dense. They’d raise the cattle in the midwest for growth and then bring to the east to fatten them and market them. Price attributed these things to the rise in tooth decay.
Btw I fucked over the guys who raped me. I told their wives. I told their kids. I told their moms. I told their bosses. I told their clients. They’re FUCKED.
In the end they did me a favour. I’m getting too old to be a prostitute. Getting raped was a sign that it’s time to move on.
I don’t understand the point of your jokes. They’re just disturbing.
The only thing you don’t understand is that they’re not jokes. Sorry dude, but it’s my actual life that’s disturbing, at least lately. I wouldn’t joke about that shit. I’m not autistic like some of the other commenters here.
Everything fine in this post at least OPRAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Avg penis is the ideal. Bigger penis can be aesthetically enjoyable than avg and little penises but what really matter in the bed is
– creativity
– sex drive/ sexual motivation
– perfect connection, literally speaking, between penis size and shape with vagina or any size and shape.
And for people who like anal sex bigger penis is even worse than those who are predominantly engaged in vaginatioua intercourse.
And I have a pet theory that bigger penises among Africans + aggressive sexual behavior is partial or predominantly responsible to increase STD cases among them. We know about anal intercourse need care .
Well, its obvious that blacks have bigger dongs owing purely to testosterone levels/height. I can’t find the article, but while blacks have similar free test to whites and asians, its the androgen receptors which are more sensitive leading to muscular growth and of course, aggression/crime.
This is where deduction is a better epistemology strategy than induction. The sampling is going to be notoriously difficult here.
Rushton was never disproved in anything. I happen to believe R/K theory is probably the most useful and informative theory of world politics, economics, social change, culture and prognosis this side of Saturn.
The Kinshasa Problem is defined as:
1. Sailer’s observation that the black R selected population is exploding this century
2. Open borders
3. Murray’s observation that blacks lean towards psychopathy as per DSM 4 guidelines and Hare’s checklist
4. Heartiste’s observation that the only people with no approach anxiety are psychopaths and blacks (I don’t think heartiste has read Murray!)
5. The economic results of black migration in Europe, South America, the Carribbean and North America are largely similar
6. Zion’s promotion of the lowest form of human civilisation, Magic Negro, to the masses of Westerns, the pinnacle of civilisation.
7. Sailer’s Hi-Lo tag team of Zion+Negro defeats white+asian tag team.
8. Kinshasa’s takeover of culture
9. The inability of the public, and elected officials to now even close borders due to it being ‘racist’.
10.Howard Stern espousing a common view of Jews/low IQ SJWs, that white women that don’t sleep with blacks are racist.
The only way to defeat the Kinshasa problem is to go ball’s deep in the real talk. Keep sharing crime statistics. And spread the images, stories and decrepit tales of Kinshasa’s degeneracy.
Only masculine behaviour will do. Most races hate blacks the most instinctively…but they have no data or basis to do so under Zion’s Illusion.
One Oprah is not worth 100,000 rapists, serial killers and most likely array of psychopaths Pumpers. I’m sowwweee.
Maybe 1 Randall McOprah.
Skin heads as problems.
I see them as antibodies.
Should I be a super antibody/
Cos talking heads on tv are problems.
Men are responsible for almost of human disgrace.
Almost of leftist noise was created by men and of course by “alpha” ones.
Yes only masculine behavior can “fight” against other masculine prole and primitive behavior.
Racism
Invented and Going Strong since the 1940s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
You people didn’t even consider that racism is a moral social construction.
MUCH LIKE ALL MORALITY IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION
What do Zeus, transubstantiation and racism have in common:
(a) the make people happy
(b) they make some people more marginally happy and others less marginally happy
(c) they are make belief
(d) for YOUR ENSLAVEMENT
That’s right. They’re all correct.
Everything’ is a social construction via biological impulse.
Hey pump, do a post on how big Oprah’s junk is.
That’s a funny idea but you people are obviously not aware of the works of Otto Weininger (a philosopher) and Max Hartmann (a biologist). The Law of Sexual Affinitiy. As sexes were once equal they got split. Since they evolve within populations, there is always the attraction towards a “full person” that is 100% female and 100% male, which means that masculine men are attracted to feminine women, and vice versae. Since men and women evolve together, this only makes sense, evolution happens WITHIN populations.
There is also the problem of “mirror neurons”, that means you are more attracted to people that look similar to you because you can “mirror” their expressions, which leads to true empathy. The problem of mixed race children is that they fall in-between the lines and cannot really connect to e.g. their mothers, because they have e.g. different facial musculature. That is the first step towards madness and also the reason why there have been studies that Whites cannot feel empathy towards other races. Yeah, because they CANNOT mirror them.
Sociobiologists and “evolution clowns” should take note of that, mating smart people with smart people DOES not result in good things if there is no similarity between them.
Bottom line: those ideas of “attractive” blacks versus “smart” orientals, is not really true since people are still more attracted to people from their own population. This is only distorted by media and other garbage influences.that result in neurotic behavior. Abandon that shit.
“Bottom line: those ideas of “attractive” blacks versus “smart” orientals, is not really true since people are still more attracted to people from their own population. This is only distorted by media and other garbage influences.that result in neurotic behavior. Abandon that shit.”
Yes people are attracted to their own, you’re proving our point.
I would note that mixed race individuals do generally display much higher rates of depression, anxiety, bipolar and para schiz.
I’ve often said the pop star Chris Brown is almost certainly as para schiz (half white/black) just based on his physiognomy and the fact he likes beating women.
Same with that footballer in the 90s, Stan Collymore who publicly beat up his girlfriend in a bar after he thought she was flirting with someone.
I think he does dogging in car parks now.
I think you are onto something. Your explanation makes sense.
However, it is also a fact mixed race individuals are usually seen as more attractive and genetically robust, controlling for gender dimorphism.
Yeah….you’re onto something here. Same with east asian/white mixes. Interesting research area.
Both of Chris Brown’s parents identified as black. But Chris Brown probably does has significant non-black ancestry (just based on his appearance).
You cannot generalize “mixed raced individuals”. Of course, having a Caucasoid facial morphology and black skin is sometimes seen as very attractive, for example. Also, Polynesian+European mixes are often said to be extraordinarily healthy… But there are probably also other mixes that aren’t as good. Think of a very simple example, e.g. you get big teeth but a small jaw at the same time… will result in horrible-looking teeth. And that can happen, and is also a problem of intra-European mixing. In Germany, e.g. high-class East Prussian were expelled, lost all of their property, and suddenly became part of the underclass(!) in the West and South of Germany and mixed with them (so basically Nordic(-East Baltics) were “forced” to get along with less sophisticated “Alpines”/”Dinarics”. Many unbalanced individuals resulted out of that, I am pretty sure.)
Before this “Alpha Male”/”Beta Male” stuff overtook society, it was more about finding couples that “fit” together… but this has been completely abandoned, since the general idea is now mixing smart and attractive people, regardless of anything else…
But yeah, I AM definitely onto something, when it comes to my “mirror neuron” theory. Sadly, I seem to be the first to have noticed that. So, yeah, mixing Chinese women with an IQ of 115 with European men of IQ130 does not sound so good now, judging from that, no matter what “HBD” guys think…
Nature is rendering the final judgement on mixed race individuals viability, not I or you.
“mixing Chinese women with an IQ of 115 with European men of IQ130 does not sound so good now, judging from that, no matter what “HBD” guys think…”
Who has argued for this?
Donald “grab ’em by the pussy” Trump IS a verified misogynist and racist. The -ist terms should be used when appropriate. I was rooting for him though because that’s who Americans deserve.
Definitely interesting but it may suffer the same problem of oversimplistity. Mixed race individuals do not simply acquire the entirety of traits from one side. Secondly if two people each from a different race are attracted to each other sexually and mentally, then that hints to a shared genetic expression between the two. Meaning the child will be able to identify expressionally with both parents because not only do the parents resemble eachother(despite different geographic ancestry) but the child will too. You’re using circular reasoning. If anything hybrids will blend in better with both races. I basically look like a white guy with dark skin, However I still have facial traits from my filipino side like a roundish face and bigger teeth, even though caucasoids have more dolichocephalic heads my mom’s head borderlines brachycephalic just like my father.
Looks has a lot to do with the alpha/beta status. Good looking people, are usually more confident, because they are more socially accepted, thus leading to self fulfilling prophecy of being alpha. Beta less so, omega are losers in societal acceptance…
One group that PP never discuss or profile. Mixed black/ashkenazim individuals, although they are rarer than mixed black/white individuals, they do exist. And they usually do better in life with better outcomes, simply because Jews are never as hedonistic as Whites, at least we’re talking about American Whites. Jew proles do better than White proles, simply of less destructive behaviors.
He’s from PP’s homeland of Canada.
I was reading up that in Africa, many Chinese immigrants/foreign workers who are usually men, take native African women as wives/girlfriends, due to what’s available in their surroundings.
Also, I read that Chinese are tribal like Africans, and many Chinese in Africa don’t intermarry with other Chinese of another group, due to differences in dialects, food, rather, they’ll marry an African over one of their own in terms of race. Here’s where PP’s genetic interests are played out differently.
JS, this classic Sopranos scene.
((((Hollywood)))) always tries to shove black guys into tv shows and movies as the bfs of white daughters.
Its sickening.
A bit like their pederasty, homophilia and affinity for children.
Supergirl’s bf is black now. Star Wars is another Magic Negro Wives Matter stunt.
No wonder Trump won.
It is curious how half caste blacks look MENA. I assume the physiognomy demonstrates a similar temperament to MENA people’s.
Therefore, over the longer run, should Zion win Kulturkampf, we can expect the Middle East in America.
Tony handled that well. But I would have pistol whipped my daughter as well if she did that and emphasised if she did it again she would be banished to Siberia or even beheaded.
Before this “Alpha Male”/”Beta Male” stuff overtook society, it was more about finding couples that “fit” together… but this has been completely abandoned, since the general idea is now mixing smart and attractive people, regardless of anything else…
excellent. marriages based solely on attraction or love are doomed.
Deal with it! needs a black boyfriend.
Jews are intermarrying gentiles at very high rates. However, much of their criteria for blacks to Asians, they must be better than average in income and education. However, White gentiles in America are engaging in dysgenic breeding.
Jew men who marry black women I’ve seen, marry up, never down.
So yes, Jew have always been the scheming opportunists…they view most non-Jews as beneath them…difference between now and then…they’re more polite now and hide their racism better.
Also, a few Jewish women I’ve met with their black boyfriends and husbands, all of them earning six figure salaries. I guess liberal Jews do practice what they preach…that black people are equally capable like everyone else, despite what HBD tells us.
sorry to say JS confirms the only jew-gentile marriage i know of.
a poor jewish lawyer from a poor jewish family married the lawyer daughter of a rich gentile lawyer. they’d known each other since law school, so maybe it was love…the only problem…the girl was a paraplegic, near quadriplegic as the result of a car accident she had in college. they had one child, then the jew ran off with some much lower class woman, then came back. gross.
my Cynical and my cynical side thought at the time, “he’s marrying her for her money.” i was too young even to notice he was a jew. and…she died before age 50 from pneumonia…such people have a high mortality rate…he inherited.
this was the same jew who said my dad is the smartest person he’s ever met.
Daughters of both Trump & Clinton married Jews, so no matter who had won the White House, a Jew would be in the first family
I wonder if part of the reason for the high Jewish IQ is by marrying into the richest and most powerful families for centuries, they absorbed the highest IQ Gentile genes
Perhaps gypsies did the opposite
“this was the same jew who said my dad is the smartest person he’s ever met.”
I had a good laugh at that one.
Love him or hate him, funniest guy on the blog.
He’s dreamy.
lolyer is “two spirit”. its fantasy is to be locked in a prison.
>Perhaps gypsies did the opposite
If that has anything to do with me, know that my name has nothing to do with my ethnicity.
As for the Jews and IQ thing. I strongly doubt it and suspect that’s probably a more recent phenomenon given how strongly the Jews were persecuted all throught the most significant points of their history in Europe. I find it much more likely that some kind of genetic bottleneck emerged because European Jews without strong Verbal and mathematical capacities did not survive long given that they were essentially prohibited from any trade save money lending.
LOL it has nothing to do with you (I’m not that passive aggressive) and I never thought you were gypsy. But gypsies and Jews have similar histories and Jews are sometimes stereotyped as high IQ gypsies while gypsies are sometimes stereotyped as low IQ Jews
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Gypsies have a generally nomadic lifestyle, mending tins and pots and pans and so on. They historically, have been semiskilled labour. Not particularly intellectually demanding work.
Whereas Jews, as I said, have historically been restricted to white collar work.
Hence the disparity in the IQ’s of their descendants.
“I wonder if part of the reason for the high Jewish IQ is by marrying into the richest and most powerful families for centuries, they absorbed the highest IQ Gentile genes”
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/29/southern-italians-and-ashkenazi-jews-what-is-the-connection/
High Jewish IQ is explained by us goyim barring Jews from certain occupations, confining them to jobs like banking.
Click to access AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf
I believe it’s a combo of marrying Roman women and what Cochran, Hardy, and Harpending say.
very interesting study.
clicking on the philosturbator’s links testosterone may work only before and during puberty to increase penis size and…
drum roll…
gypsywoman has a link showing that white pubertals have higher androstenedione and lower estradiol than blacks.
also interesting, men with big dicks tend to be short.
also interesting, men with big dicks tend to be short
And American blacks are slightly shorter than American whites
Ignore my analysis, makes sense. Mine with IGF-1 is much better.
People of the same ethny are attracted to each other due to Ethnic genetic interests.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/05/16/ethnic-genetic-interests-and-group-selection-does-exist-a-reply-to-jayman-2/
“Sociobiologists and “evolution clowns” should take note of that, mating smart people with smart people DOES not result in good things if there is no similarity between them.”
Is an evolutionary clown like a evolutionist? People match on personality as well. This occurs naturally.
But media can change all of that I think — in the case of blacks and Asians, many of their kind want White people as romance companions. black men especially like White women over black women, and Asian Women want a White spouse over Asian spouse.
You’re a personal trainer right? Do you feel like a prole? Lion would consider you prole. Does it make you self-conscious?
Yes I am a personal trainer. No I don’t feel like a prole. I make great money. I’m also a nutritionist and repair furniture. Why should I care what some random Jew thinks of me? Nothing makes me self-conscious, I have extremely high self-esteem. Why would I feel like a prole when I make great money doing what I love to do? Again, why should I care what some random (jobless?) Jew thinks of me. It’s like caring what that lowlife Andrew Anglin thinks of me. Why should I care what some jobless loser thinks about what I do with my career and businesses?
”I have extremely high self-esteem”
= narcisism, 😉
To be really smart and narcisistic you must have a great self-awareness, if not…
I have high self-esteem because I know what I’m capable of in terms of my work and because if I didn’t….. I wouldn’t be in business. Would you ask someone to control your health who doesn’t have high self-esteem?
Really*
It does not look like…
”Would you ask someone to control your health who doesn’t have high self-esteem?”
Too much self-esteem can be dangerous because people think they are capable of anything, specially in the health departments.
Again, too much self-esteem = narcisism, without higher self-awareness/introspective skills often result in stupidity.
And higher self-awareness many times mean also lower self-esteem, in localized or specialized way’s…
i know i’m dumb to that proclivities but i know i’m average to that skills and smart[er] to that departments.
Santo are you gay? You sound like a gay guy.
Only if you have telepathy, i don’t sound ”gay”, yes, i’m.
I’m sound semi-illiterate in english, yes, what i’m by now.
Only if you think gay and illiterate in english is the same thing.
”i’m sound”
whatévis
“Too much self-esteem can be dangerous because people think they are capable of anything, specially in the health departments.”
Im good at what I do. I have self confidence because I get results for people and they keep them. Self confidence is needed in life especially in what I do.
What you FEEL.
What I KNOW.
“Whites cannot feel empathy towards other races.”
Empathy towards other races and attraction to other races are different. Whites could empathize with a lamppost if they choose.
“people are still more attracted to people from their own population.”
Unless they are disenfranchised with those of their own population. White women in the US today are too much like men. A guy may be more attracted to an asian who acts more like a woman and at the same time is more intelligent. Asian women may be attracted to the masculinity of strong white men who have at least adequate intelligence.
America is now regressing into the 19th century world, not even into the 20th century world.
Donald Trump wants to ban Syrian refugees from coming into America and bring back factory jobs for White trash living in de-civilization. After 8 years of Obama, dumb blacks act like savages trying to seek retribution against White racism, now dumb Whites are seeking retribution after 8 years of Obama. America seems like a big sports event where opponents are always trying to outscore each other.
French Canadians are already making films about Syrian refugees — their culture, their lives, and their experience in Québec.
The real irony — American intellectual types will see these French Canadian movies and then ask why America does not produce these films.
Stupid as always, Americans are fucking retards!
Perhaps a model for explaining the disintegration of the United States?
Carl Icahn is a very very intelligent guy. Its simply the fact he talks like a hoodlum that means the points he makes sound dumb.
On the other hand, Soros sounds like a Greek Philosopher entertaining students in the Classical Age universities.
And makes also very cogent points.
Interesting.
“Carl Icahn is a very very intelligent guy. Its simply the fact he talks like a hoodlum that means the points he makes sound dumb.
On the other hand, Soros sounds like a Greek Philosopher entertaining students in the Classical Age universities.”
Talk is cheap.
“An intellectual is a man who takes more words than necessary to tell more than he knows.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower
Pingback: Some of my blog posts | Miller & His MUSINGS
Good post, and I’m personally still undecided as to whether blacks have bigger dicks on average, although most of the gigantic guys in porn are black. And I’m packing myself ! (just kidding, or not)
Still, I think Pumpkin focuses on Negroid vs. Caucasoid vs. Mongoloid cognitive/racial differences and not enough on Occidental vs. Oriental, particularly why European societies (particularly Anglo ones) are much more open to outsiders than Oriental ones (even advanced ones like Japan). And why is scientific/artistic innovation so much higher in Europe vs. East Asia (with the exception of maybe in cartooning and video games, which arguably aren’t even art)? And lastly, why are East Asian societies so family-oriented, more like the Middle East in that respect than Europe?
Hbd seems want to push this version of facts that Europeans inside the hainal area are less clanniah BUT they has been quite similar with other human populations in this behavioral aspect since a long time and JUST after the cultural revolution in the 60’s that in fact “Europeans” anglos started to behave like that.
“Why Europeans are so open to outsiders”??
Why Europeans weren’t open before 60’s cultural revolution?
Anglo openness to outsiders is a farse. Spain integrates its immigrants far better than any Londontown, NYC, or Liverpool. Anglo society is stratified, divided by race, and not by culture, not even defined by the discourse of the White majority, but the elite.
Anglo Whites never really liked their colonial subjects, they were and are still perceived as useful tools.
Stop kidding yourself!
French Canada society is defined first by native French Canadian identity, and second cultural and linguistic identity — and this is not reflecting on race.
Anglo Canada similar to the United States, which has no national/cultural identity, is defined by those of the elite with money and status, usually through political strong arm. This is why Jews have become the New Anglos. They learned to flex political muscle converting it to power. This is why Anglo society has a strong divisive element.
I asked this question which defines multiculturalism in Anglo Prole Sphere and other Western societies:
1) An outsider living in a society that is perceived as open and free, with high social inequality, usually based on race, income and education
or
2) An outsider living in a society that is perceived as less open, but with lower social inequality.
This is the difference between United States and a country like Spain.
And again, French Canada is not defined by elitism but by cultural and linguistic elements, so therefore a person who works at a restaurant as a waiter and speaks French is respected, and a higher paying professional who doesn’t speak French is ostracized.
Anglo society works almost in the opposite, society based solely on money, occupation, and what neighborhood and schools of association, and not to forget race, which is a very strong criteria of social standing.
These PUA men like Heartiste are the biggest losers. They turn an interesting and natural phenomenon, to wit, falling in love into a stupid and contrived “game”. These men are sociopaths.
PUAs are pretty stupid imo. They do make money off of idiots who don’t know how to talk to women, then after their seminar or whatever they still don’t know how to talk to women they think they can trade tips and learn how to do this. It comes down to personality and looks and if you have nothing in both departments you’re not getting a good woman. All men want tens, only select few can get them. If you don’t have the personality or looks you won’t get a good woman. (phew, I have both so I’m fine.)
Heartiste has a very harsh way of putting things, but in general his observations on women are 90% true.
He’s also a very intelligent guy. There’s enough clues of that.
If you want to get 8’s or above and make them like you and stick around – hit the gym and lift weights(+steroids if your test is naturally too low), dress well and distinctly, approach women as much as possible, and always approach them with ironclad, somewhat obnoxious confidence. Never take women literally. They’re kind of like children in the sense they’re brains are not developed for dialectic. So don’t talk about logical stuff.
Women in this modern world of male +15% test declines, obesity, shrinking male wages, and a feminised culture are literally thirsting for strong, masculine dominant men. Men that they can sink into in bed.
All their chick porn reflects what they want – to be led and dominated.
If you’re a man, you’ll want to do that anyway deep down.
Most of the leading feminists are lesbian. Hence their ideas about gender relations are warped and usually soured by bitterness with having to compete with men in the workplace or some other social heirarchy..
Its the equivalent of women asking gay men what straight men want.
Our grandfathers and great grandfathers knew all this but feminism has made us forget.
Watch a movie from the 1950s…it is stunning how men act, and more importantly how women react. Better yet, read books from even earlier.
Lesbians are worse dating advisers than Heartiste.
Repeat 10 times in the mirror before bedtime girls.
“He’s also a very intelligent guy. There’s enough clues of that.”
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2016/11/17/study-whites-are-more-empathetic-than-nonwhites/#comment-822045
“Never take women literally. They’re kind of like children in the sense they’re brains are not developed for dialectic. So don’t talk about logical stuff.”
Schizosphere misses the mark yet again… That’s true for a large percentage of BOTH men and women…
Women have higher verbal IQ than men.
But much much more so for women.
All the stuff about women wanting alpha males, wanting to be dominated, wanting to led…it’s too oversimplified. Women vary dramatically in their preferences and too many nerds online base their view of women on their very brief and limited experiences.
blah, blah, blah…
the shortrest route to a woman’s heart is to treat her like shit.
women are coprophages.
And there’s an observation from Marta Toren as the love interest that defines Bogart’s physical image and offbeat appeal: “You’re so ugly. How can a man so ugly be so handsome?”
act like bogie. look like the young alain delon in le samourai. they’ll have to change their panties.
PP, you occasionally blog about the SAT, IQ, or some other statistical phenomena you’re really very familiar with and it’s outstanding.
Then you insist on blogging about things like this, and an “Autism-schizophrenia continuum”.
Here you’ve speculated on the basis of at best frail evidence, and at worst close to fabricated and in the latter case it’s based almost purely on hypothesis and speculation.
I’m not someone who generally tells intelligent people to “Stay in their lane” and I respect that the same critical faculties that enable you to analyse one thing may allow you analyse another – but please stay in your lane.
“but please stay in your lane.”
I agree. I cringe seeing his writings on evolution.
Well he could write about school testing or have more interesting posts.
You don’t have to wait for bullet proof peer reviewed evidence to come in to say anything all the time.
In fact, in the case of HBD, I expect we will never get peer reviewed multiple controlled studies because the academy is controlled by Zion.
He is also right about the spectrum and penis sizes in this instance.
He’s not right about penis size. The data is inconclusive. I cited two studies on hormones and penis size. Whites has more of the IGF-1 hormone, blacks and easy Asians have the dame two CAG repeats.
Hormonal correlations are meaningful, and it’s right up my alley as I read about this stuff constantly.
From my knowledge on the human body and hormones, there is no statistical difference in penis size between races.
I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Everything I know about hormones and the human body tells me there is no racial difference.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2608588/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201601/race-differences-in-androgens-do-they-mean-anything
Moreover, he has failed to address the Ajmani study that shows a length of 3.21 inches for Nigerians and continuously cites the same studies (without a primary source I may add), so why should I believe there are racial differences in penis size?
He’s failed to address my point on the correlation between penis size and off 1 with whites having higher levels of the hormone.
I’ve never seen PP say anything critical about Rushton. He’s like a God to him. I’ve never seen him admit he was wrong.
Smart people change their minds often. PP loves IQ correlations, well there’s one for him.
https://techcrunch.com/2012/10/19/jeff-bezos-the-smart-people-change-their-minds/
Well psychology today is notoriously HBD denialist.
It reflects sociology more than real psychology of Rushton, Bernays, Zimbardo,Freud or Skinner.
Secondly I can’t find the paper I read a year ago.
But basically they calculated the effect of androgen receptors and had charts comparing east asians, whites and blacks.
The most interesting finding is that while blacks were about half an SD above whites….
Asians were a full SD below whites.
Or 1.5 SDs below blacks!!!
This makes sense intuitively.
For the record, dick size is kind of important but not overly groundbreaking.
I mean, asians are probably 20 times less likely to be drug addicts, retardates or homeless.
But he’s not wrong . Richard Lynn has datasets on penis sizes as well which correspond to PP.
Also our friend Marsha is an interesting anecdote. I suspect other prozzies would confirm the same.
The final nail in the coffin is common sense – blacks have more testosterone in general as evidenced by muscularity, criminality, athleticism, number of sexual partners, low IQ and height.
You’re barking up the wrong tree.
“Well psychology today is notoriously HBD denialist.”
“Rushton responded to criticisms of his racist theories by arguing that scientific theories should be judged on the merits of their evidence.”
^^^^^
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201210/the-pseudoscience-race-differences-in-penis-size
>Freud
>real psychology
My sides. Stop. I’m laughing too hard. I had an abnormal psychology teacher who loved him.
“Well psychology today is notoriously HBD denialist.”
Irrelevant, most of the empirical data shows no statistically significant difference between whites and blacks.
All of the studies that I’ve seen (Including PP’s) showing otherwise have huge flaws such as being self-reported or having tiny sample sizes.
I don’t know, and don’t really care about Asians.
Find that paper if you want us to care, at the moment you’re essentially spreading rumors.
“The final nail in the coffin is common sense – blacks have more testosterone in general as evidenced by muscularity, criminality, athleticism, number of sexual partners, low IQ and height. ”
Common sense is not now, and never has been the final nail in the coffin for anything.
Strong Empirical evidence is the basis for solid judgement.
Also height? The average height of whites and blacks is the same in most western countries.
Guys, it doesn’t really matter to me what you think about penis size. There’s reality and there’s pseudoscience. Unfortunately by linking to Psychology Today!: Top 10 Ways to Have a Better Sex Life With Your Dog you demonstrate you can’t distinguish.
And Freud contributed more in 1 paper to psychology, than Psychology today has contributed in 20 years.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/why-religion-is-natural-and-science-is-not/201611/can-people-overcome-their-implicit-biases?collection=1096558
This is from the front page today.
If they print a story like this, this means they would probably deny the 100m Olympic Sprint being indicative of anything. So the
It also means they would hide the data.
Also, since I have the benefit of off scale verbal, let me give you another clue:
The Psychology Today article linked by RaceRealist keeps quoting Weizmann as the scientific author that has ‘debunked’ Rushton and Lynn.
Weizmann….
http://yorku.academia.edu/FredricWeizmann/CurriculumVitae
That’s his CV
I see:
Tavistock, Social Psychology, and numerous articles about debunking race psychology patterns.
I assume he’ s Jewish.
He’s a quack.
I put 85% probability I could read any of his debunks and it would be dodgy p values, semantics, poor sampling and made up data.
ZION WANTS TO CONTROL YOUR MIND. CAN YOU REALY DENY REALITY THAT LONG MY YOUNG FRIENDS?
There’a a response of mine above awaiting moderation.
As far as common sense. Critical rationalism is for retard autists. Deduction for common sense high IQ people.
One of us looks retarded and can’t figure out stuff without spoonfeeding.
One of looks not retarded.
“Guys, it doesn’t really matter to me what you think about penis size. There’s reality and there’s pseudoscience. Unfortunately by linking to Psychology Today!: Top 10 Ways to Have a Better Sex Life With Your Dog you demonstrate you can’t distinguish.”
Unsubtle guilt by association.
The quality of evidence in question is the quality of evidence in question. The simple fact that it’s coming from Psychology today does not make the evidence bad.
>And Freud contributed more in 1 paper to psychology, than Psychology today has contributed in 20 years.
Freud’s legacy is a misguided approach to a field he invented. His sole legitimate contribution is delineating Psychology as a field of study unto itself.
>Also, since I have the benefit of off scale verbal, let me give you another clue:
You’ve done everything to indicate the opposite here so don’t grandstand and brag about IQ.
>One of looks not retarded.
You literally confused induction with deduction, because “Common sense” is heuristic and therefore inductive by definition, and then bragged about your high verbal abilities.
And you think you don’t look like a retard?
Are you posting drunk?
In fact I’ll go ahead.
The fact that you put down rationalism and then praise deduction without realizing the irony of doing so is telling me that you probably don’t have particularly high verbal abilities at all.
“The quality of evidence in question is the quality of evidence in question. The simple fact that it’s coming from Psychology today does not make the evidence bad.”
Poor meta logic.
Contrary to debate class logic, ad hominem is a very good proxy as to the motivation and intent of an argument and the genetic/financial interest behind it. Not good for argument in time t, but survival in time t>00
Click to access Genetic-Influences-2014-15.pdf
Look at slide 5.
He correctly points out that genetic disposition to certain psychological traits can be inferred from twin, adoption and genetics.
Then he uses weasel gamma verbal logic to focus only on heritability indexes and measurement issues with genetics while completely not addressing the results of twin and adoption studies.
To the average 110IQ student, this ‘debunking’ of genetics will sail over her head.
To the average 90IQ psychology today reader, Chem Weizmann’s weasel verbal logic will sail over their heads.
Weizmann is the key your article lies its head on.
If I was inclined and bored I’d read the papers…
But in the end, you can read them yourselves.Because I know what will be in them.
Adieu.
Gypsy, read Weizmann. Then file a book report.
Deduction: the inference of particular instances by reference to a general law or principle.
Think about that one in relation to my arguments above.
No really, think about it for a while.
>Poor meta logic.
No it isn’t.
“Contrary to debate class logic, ad hominem is a very good proxy as to the motivation and intent of an argument and the genetic/financial interest behind it. ”
I am aware, but that doesn’t mute the empirical evidence.
Hence, it is not “Poor meta logic”
>He correctly points out that genetic disposition to certain psychological traits can be inferred from twin, adoption and genetics.
Are you trying to prove to me that heritability is real, assuming I think it is not? Are you actively trying to embarrass yourself?
>Weizmann is the key your article lies its head on.
Not my article. I was pointing out the basis for your dismissal is retarded.
Which it is.
On a quiet night. Reflect on why I got the right answer before you and how easy it was to get to it without praying for numerous replicable studies to be wrapped under the Christmas Tree in the year 2056 when they will allow it.
>No really, think about it for a while.
I understand the principle of outsourcing to the more able or efficient, but really there’s no need to do yourself down like that.
No, but I am attacking Weizmann ad hominem and sowing doubt in your mind about his motivation and scientific rigour.
Rarely do I see someone with such a strong bias against genetics and therefore HBD, also make a cogent argument about something inflammatory like penis size or IQ differentials among races.
Weizmann is the key your article lies its head on.
If I was inclined and bored I’d read the papers…
But in the end, you can read them yourselves.Because I know what will be in them.
Adieu.
>No, but I am attacking Weizmann ad hominem and sowing doubt in your mind about his motivation and scientific rigour.
No you’re trying to get the last word in like a dramatic effeminate little bitch.
If Weizmann is bad Weizmann is bad.
But that’s not the original basis of your dismissal, the original basis of your dismissal and what I was criticizing was the fact that you inferred that RaceRealist’s evidence war poor merely on the basis of it being a Psychology Today article.
East Asians don’t thrive in Western nations especially in America, the most intense, testosterone-masculine and power oriented society of them all. There is a genetic/biological reason behind it. Their men complain about racism, but in reality, this has do with mal-adaptation of incompatible racial elements with the society dictated by another race.
Again, poor verbal logic.
1 Psychology Today is a biased piece of crap.
1.1 Psychology Today is a biased piece of crap; and an example of this is how they debunked two psychologists, whose theories make a lot of sense based on other data/observations about race, with the weasel work of 1 psychologist who worked for Tavistock.
I was merely expanding on my original point.
The proof in the pudding Senor Inductivo would be to read Mr Weizmann’s studies ‘debunking’ them. For all we know Weizman’s studies don’t even address the issue and the article writer misinterpreted the conclusion, which happens from time to time.
Your faux-Wittgenstein is showing.
Y’know I wasn’t gonna be pedantic and point out that you’re using a deduction based on what is ultimately an assumption, or an induction which makes you guilty of Hume’s problem of induction in the first place but since you insist on talking about my verbal abilities like you’re in any place to judge I will.
And I’ll follow that up with the following: I wasn’t disputing the general veracity or truth-content of r/k selection theory, but it’s far from a fully established theory explaining all of the emprical facts and of the empirical facts it uses to justify itself Penis size just so happens to be one. And you insist that we deduce from a paper that you read on the sensitivity of black testosterone receptors that indeed blacks happen to be hung low, but we need do no such thing when there is strong empirical data already available through a google search and current studies have thrown the data that Rushton was using to support his assumptions into doubt.
And for the record, generally speaking I think that Rushton is right.
The Philosopher, here is the paper.
Click to access iq-race-brain-size-r-k-theory-rushton-weizmann-canadian-psychology-1-1990.pdf
Try to defend “French Army Surgeon”, that’d make my day:
“This work is filled with internal contradictions. For example, an average African Negro penis is said to be 7 3/4 to 8 inches long on p. 56, while on p. 242 it is stated that it “generally exceeds” 9 inches. Similarly, while the French Army surgeon announces on p. 56 that he once discovered a 12-inch penis, an organ of that size becomes “far from rare” on p. 243. As one might presume from such a work, there is no indication of the statistical procedures used to compute averages, what terms such as “often” mean, how subjects were selected, how measurements were made, what the sample sizes were, etc.”
…
“It should be noted that the French Army surgeon (1896) is not an unimportant source. It is Rushton’s (Rushton, 1988a; Rushton & Bogaert, 1987) only source for the “data” on racial differences in clitoral size and on the placement of female genitalia. It is also the only source which contains comparative “data” on male genitalia from all three racial groups, and the only source (e.g., Rushton, 1988a) at all for data on erectile “angle and texture” (“Orientals parallel to body and stiff, blacks at right angles and flexible.” p. 1015)”
More gamma weaseling and sand kicking.
Psychology Today has front page story on ‘implicit bias’ today. Race Realist quoted this article. Race Realist didn’t realise the article’s debunking of Rushton and Lynn’s data on r/k traits was done over and over by the same author.
I can assume RaceRealist never read any of those papers. Neither have I. Neither have you. I can assume you don’t see how this makes the article suspect, so we’ll let that slide.
I looked into him, and now can assume based on his presentation slides to his students and his CV he is biased against hereditary explanations for differences in racial attributes.
Now you are within your right to believe that to be the case.
But I built all this on the fairly concrete assumption that Psychology today is a biased source, which I don’t need a peer reviewed study of Tavistock social psychologists to know.
So if you want to jump to another musical chair gamma, and start a new line of argument, go ahead. Pretend you didn’t argue it. I’m not being obtuse. I don’t gain any special mirth in proving you wrong. Nothing wrong with being wrong by the way. Its a fairly trivial topic.
But reality is reality. You’re fighting your own emotion, not my logic.
Let me try a compound argument:
1. Testosterone differs by race: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/85/6/506.extract
2. Penis Size is linked to testosterone: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/660741
http://www.wellnessmd.com/Penis_Size___Enhancement.html
http://www.healthline.com/health/low-testosterone/effects-on-body
Penis size studies are not funded, very controversial to some, and rely a lot on self reporting.
Ergo proxy it by looking at test.
In the same way you can gauge the size of a man’s house by his annual income.
>Pretend you didn’t argue it.
I didn’t.
You’re smugly poisoning the well by pretending I did.
I never defended bad research at any point, and objected to your assumption. If someone finds legitimate research from Psychology Today and prompts you to read it the fact that it is from Psychology Today does not make it any less legitimate.
But lets go with your first compounding shall we? The first study, which shows the most significant difference between whites and blacks in testosterone, is based on a sample of only 50 people, and a sample of convenience at that. It’s the Canadian Study mentioned much earlier. Later tests have not been able to replicate such a large disparity.
However a much larger study done on adolescents going through puberty, which I’m sure you’ll agree is a critical time for the development of phenotypical features like the one’s we’re describing shows no large difference between whites and blacks in testosterone and in fact shows that blacks have greater estiradol concentration.
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/jcem.75.2.1639961
I’m not questioning your second point, of course it’s true.
ones*
Correction there, racerealist didn’t quote the implicit bias story but the other article.
Ok I’ve read the article. Some logical errors to note:
1. Weizmann keeps charging Rushton for failing to evidence the environmental factors that would cause r and k selection…which is basically the point of his book. (Semantics)
2. Weizmann argues black crime is focused on blacks and so is more K selected (retardation level verbal logic)
3. Weizmann begins his piece by stating people want to point out genetic differences of races to justify social inequality….Rushton has never argued for that explicitly anyway, and his hierarchy makes asians the most K selected…ergo they would deserve credos in the model
4. Cites 18/35 studies proving aspects of R/K based on Stearns meta study. Who wants to bet that Stearns is another social justice warrior that left out studies that make social justice look bad.
5. Since heritability only involves variation within a population, it says nothing about the operation of genes within individuals; thus, heritability cannot be identified with heredity, a confusion which is quite common, even among geneticists (Paul,
1985)…More retarded logic…It doesn’t say “nothing”. It can say something. Much like the average GDP of Switzerland of 50k doesn’t say the man I meet on the street is going to be making 50k in Zurich, but the proxy says a lot about average tendencies.
6. The rest of the genetic is bad stuff is based on argument from lack of tools. Which is fine. We can’t say Guns and Roses are the best rock band of all time either.
7. The ‘no such thing as race’ is the same derivative of ‘no such thing as colours’ old saw. Not going to debate it since you all implicitly talk about race as something meaningful worth discussing….as do most SJWs who secretly believe in it.
8. Ok Weizmann brings up a credible point on reproductive rates which are indeed caused more by the environment e.g. condoms in West v no condoms. Now Rushton wasn’t arguing for baby numbers as such, but proclivity of sexual advances, partners and so on. Weizmann perhaps was being purposefully obtuse here.
9. Weizman quotes 2 Czech studies comparing army whites (high T occupation) with Nigerian medical students (low T) and another between Bulgarians and Czechs and the has the lambast to say Rushton was cherrypicking data!! Hahaha at least Kinsey’s sample was much larger and compared like with like!!
10. Not going to comment on IQ. I don’t think any of you seriously believe Weismann that there are no differences here.
We have demonstrated that Rushton’s
Differential K theory has no foundation whatsoever
in evolutionary biology
No you have proved Social Justice Warrior propaganda has no role in evolutionary biology.
If you are angry that people will figure out Jews have the highest IQs and use that as a pretext to seize wealth like Hitler did, FUCKING SAY IT AND DONT INSULT MY INTELLIGENCE
Well I guess I proved I’m inclined and bored as well. That’s bad. Cheerio.
“The final nail in the coffin is common sense – blacks have more testosterone in general as evidenced by muscularity, criminality, athleticism, number of sexual partners, low IQ and height.”
Low IQ evidences high T? Probably why women are so much smarter than men :p
/sarc
this has do with mal-adaptation of incompatible racial elements with the society dictated by another race.
wunderbar!
now js understands more than any HBDer! except maybe peepee.
the obverse…some races are like invasive species…too well “adapted”…like armstrong lifting more than alekseyev, because he’s on the moon.
now js understands more than any HBDer! except maybe peepee.
the obverse…some races are like invasive species…too well “adapted”…like armstrong lifting more than alekseyev, because he’s on the moon.
And sadly this is what causes anti-Semitism. Whites built Western civilization using the spatial talent to construct building and fight wars, but spatially challenged Ashkenazi Jews are able to dominate those civilizations using verbal (media) and math (finance) talent and networking, causing whites to feel usurped in their own backyard.
Since heritability only involves variation within a population, it says nothing about the operation of genes within individuals.
what does heritability says about an individual? assuming a bivariate normal distribution of MZT IQs all it can say is that if the individual has a twin in the same population that he will have an IQ in the interval h*(twin’s IQ) +/- 2*sqrt(1 – h^2) 95% of the time.
it can say nothing about the direct effect of genes on the individual, because such direct effects (independent of environment) will all have h^2 = 1.
Gypsyman, thanks for the constructive criticism. I agree I’m out of lane (though not nessecarily wrong) about autism/schizophrenia but discussing penis size doesn’t require any special knowledge, but perhaps my source is low quality (haven’t seen the original publication Rushton cited so the methodology or sample size might be poor)
“(haven’t seen the original publication Rushton cited so the methodology or sample size might be poor)”
I just ordered the Kinsey 1979 Kinsey publication and the ‘Public Forum” magazine that Rushton cited from “P. Nobile”. Will take pictures of it and upload. Will write an article once I receive it.
>though not nessecarily wrong
If I take your claim as a falsifiable hypothesis I have evidence against it, although you’ll have to accept the credibility of my testimony. I knew a girl who had both Aspergers syndrome and was Schizophrenic, experiencing hallucinations.
This is partly but not entirely the basis of my doubt that Austim and Schizophrenia act along a continuum of any kind. I suspect they’re indepedent of one another.
>haven’t seen the original publication Rushton cited so the methodology or sample size might be poor
Look for the original source, there’s lots to criticise about it.
Find a more modern and reliable dataset.
For one, this dataset overestimates the penis size of both the average black and white man according to more modern data.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23841855
I DID just pull this dataset after googling, check it closely for rigour.
Here’s a picture of the ‘International Journal of Human Relations’ (lol)
Here’s that item for purchase:
https://www.amazon.com/Forum-August-International-Journal-Relations/dp/B001U0UMXY/
Here’s the 79 Kinsey report for purchase:
https://www.amazon.com/Kinsey-Data-Tabulations-1938-1963-Interviews/dp/0253334314
Black women prone to heavy set with bigger breasts, East Asian women are the opposite, preponderance of smaller breasts and thinner physique. Whatever applies to men, applies to women. Whites are in between the 2 extremes.
I have a hypothesis that if Hollywood didn’t go full Magic Negro, Trump may not have won.
Threatening white america’s reproductive genetic interests is a far sight more amygdala activating than talking about tax policy.
I bet they regret pumping 60m into that Margot Robbie Will Smith movie now. Probably turned 5% of the white vote.
Likewise, it makes their other psychological warfare methods in academia and mass media less effective.
Yo no soy coolie, senor. Stick to you lane sucka!
Mischievous paedophiles.
why do any care except the e asians.
the difference between black africans and europeans is small.
so there’s blackzilla and john holmes, but no chinese spare ribs.
go get uncle wong!
Sorry, RR, there is really no further discussion to be had here.
This goes directly with R-K selectivity, the testosterone/biochemical stats Philosopher provides, etc.
It also is part of the fundamental HBD theory that tropical peoples were more selected for aggression as opposed to brains, if you believe that sort of thing. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
“Sorry, RR, there is really no further discussion to be had here.”
There most definitely is.
“This goes directly with R-K selectivity, the testosterone/biochemical stats Philosopher provides, etc.”
I am skeptical, I’ve not outright thrown it out. What testosterone stats? A 2.5 to 4.9 percent difference explains it? IGF-1, a factor in penile length does no explain it as blacks have levels closer to Asians.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/12/03/are-there-race-differences-in-penis-size-part-ii/
Levels of IGF-1 in whites were 224 ng/ml, 205 ng/ml in blacks and 208 ng/ml in Asians. PP talks about correlations with it, yet testosterone nor IGF-1 explains any supposed differences.
“It also is part of the fundamental HBD theory that tropical peoples were more selected for aggression as opposed to brains, if you believe that sort of thing. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”
I know that. That doesn’t mean I have to accept an inverse relationship between penis size and brain size when there isn’t enough data and the data I have cited shows no statistical difference and no difference at all.
I’m happy that he stopped saying that blacks are swinger than Whites at least.
I’m happy he stopped saying that blacks are stronger than Whites at least *
As to the other thread, the curious cat person mentioned Jung’sMBTI personality types.
While I’m not an expert of that part of psychometrics, I have personally found the system very true in its descriptions and predictions.
Perhaps you can do a post Pumpkin on personality testing: MBTI, Big 5, Dark Triad, Hare’s Psychopathy and so on.
then there’s the hiv/aids issue in black africa.
1. is it real? duesberg says no, and the rate of population growth supports him.
2. if it is real…why?…there are only two possibilities:
a. black africans are much looser than other peoples.
b. the bbc…makes loose…so to say.
then there’s the peacock’s tail issue for human in general. that is,
compared to the three other species of “great apes” humans are john holmeses.
gorillas, chimps, orangutans…relative to their body size…they’re hung like a chinese baby.
no one wants to talk about it…
why do humans have such huge dicks?
bbc = big black c… if you didn’t know.
a reason…
it may be the result of sexual selection…like the peacock’s tail.
it may be men with bigger dicks were selected by females.
that is, the human penis is much larger than it needs to be…if its sole purpose were delivering sperm.
for porn watchers this is obvious.
there are lots of male porn actors who are too long. they can’t go balls to the wall.
though none are too wide.
it’s a small part of overall attractiveness…but girth counts.
There’s four laws of evolutionary biology according to here:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/10/05/four-laws-of-evolutionary-biology/
The second law suggests the shape of male genitalia is one of the prime distinguishing factors between species, and in some cases, the only distinguishing factor. So selective forces on genitalia shape have been extremely strong throughout evolutionary history.
Mugabe has a small dick. That’s why he’s smoldering with rage. He’s compensating.
that’s not what you told me last night.
but you’re right. i am smoldering!
Of course you are. You need help. Perhaps benzos to mellow you out?
you need a larger vocab darling.
look up “smoldering” in the OED.
Darling? Keep it in your pants.
Even though it comes out, you still show some restrain. Therefore, it’s suppressed to some extent.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/smoulder
Exist in a suppressed or concealed state:
‘the controversy smouldered on for several years’
‘smouldering rage’
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/08/11/489611201/dont-call-me-darling-american-bar-association-bans-sexist-language
my darling squaw…
smoldering means, among other things, that you look less like lou costello in The Co-eds and more like jef costello…a beautiful killer.
Krugman has lost his mind.
I stopped reading him shortly after he started pistol whipping Bernie on his blog accusing him of sexism! and racism! and saying Dwight Eisenhower’s economic plan wouldn’t work before publishing more junk on how illegal immigration isn’t happening and actually we’ve been net exporters of people to Mexico and we can all have ice cream.
As soon as that happened, I knew he was in the tank.
To consider when I was younger I felt Maddow, Krugman, and others on MSNBC were reliable sources.
The only liberal pundits coming out of Hilary’s mushroom cloud of corruption smelling like roses are Chris Matthews, Cenk Uhgur, Jimmy Dore, Ed Schultz, Michael Moore (somewhat).
Bill Maher is another idiot. Trump being elected president must have been the worst night in his life. He’s a very intelligent guy so downplaying Wikileaks and jumping on the OscarsSoWhite bandwagon probably killed his crossover cache with independents.
That oscarssowhite stuff was so bad I stopped watching Maher. Just so bad. In the first instance, the magic negroes are tokens who have no acting ability. Denzel has been playing himself/the same character for 30 years and now they want more oscars?! THEY WERENT EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE IN ANY OF THE FUCKING MOVIES IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE THEY CANT ACT AND MOST SCRIPTS DONT NEED A JIVE TALKER.
Likewise Morgan Freeman or any other black actor.
Will Smith is the only actor to have some semblance of range, but nothing too broad from his original Prince of Bel Air persona.
THE REAL JOKE WAS GIVING THEM ANYTHING IN THE FIRST PLACE> LOW IMPULSE CONTROL AND NARCISSISTIC LOW IQ = GIMME MORE O DAT OSCAR.
**Forest Whitaker is probably the best black actor.
Munger talks about HBD here at 58m 30secs
This is amazing.
Ergo, Warren Buffet must be HBD aware.
This is amazing.
Since finance is applied social science. Where being right about human behaviour means making money more than heaving to the orthodox theories, I imagine most great investors must be HBD aware or suspicious.
Most elite social scientists at the universities are disingenuous liberals who masquerade as scholars of the poor and dysfunctional. They in fact do believe in HBD, but their work is not reflective of that. It’s called entitlement or privilege.
Finance guys are stupid in the way that elite ivory tower types live a better life, despite earning less, but they earn lucrative fees spouting BS, which is more BS than playing with fiat money.
If you’re not a striver or a de-facto elite in America, there is no point to your existence. America is all about status of the haves and no status of the have nots, credentialism in America is all about money, not a measure of ability.
American social scientists and White liberal types do not focus on non-Whites when it comes to poverty, only blacks in their studies, citing a lack of parenting, a lack of resources and a lack of capital, which has nothing do with social upbringing, but a lot to do with HBD racial differences. Hispanics, Muslims and Asians in the environment of blacks would do better regardless of the same conditions.
And one can make a case that HBD is true, given the small disparity between East Asians who are deemed “proles” and those who come from wealthier backgrounds. There isn’t much difference between the 2 in terms of behavior. But there is a stark difference between White proles and the White elite. Whites are more diverse in the cognitive/behaviorial realm.
There’s nothing “amazing” about HBD. It’s a racist ideology and it comes from an evil place.
“It’s a racist ideology and it comes from an evil place.”
Please continue. Then provide evidence for your assertion. And no, showing ‘racist’ altrighters talking about HBD doesn’t count.
What evil place does it come from? Because it’s ‘racist’ (whatever that means), does that make the ideology untrue?
A college professor who happens to be Jewish, believed his “White Privilege” was the result of his success in life, where as his poor black neighbors didn’t have that privilege and never made much of themselves, and still reside in the housing projects in which he grew up with them. It turns that his parents knew other Jews who helped him network with more elite Jews, thus allowing him to attend their schools and, as opposed to the public schools infested with racial minorities where he was living. And it isn’t even so much “White Privilege” but the Jewish network which controls most elite institutions.
Jews are masters of deception!!!
And this Jew guy is now married to a White woman, but tries to shag any younger pretty White woman who comes his way, while teaching at the university.
And this guy focuses on black people in his studies. He has no principles. Just sick!!!
Yeah, I often wonder if guys like Weizmann are not only aware, but espouse PC
(a) for defensive racial reasons, fearing pogroms and such,
(b) but are actually aware and espouse it for domination and offensive reasons.
Freud mentions pogroms a lot in his Civilisation essay. I thought it was just virtue curtsying until I realised he was jewish.
They are neurotic about it.
Like Pete Beinhart, the mass media hivemind and so on. Jews are insanely neurotic about race. They think about it all the time.
Now evidence for (b) is that Trump is often charged as being anti-semitic – when he has never talked about anything but positives for Israel and never mentioned anything about jews.
But when he talks about ‘globalists’, it gets very interesting…
I think the Zionist Jews, who control the media, take ‘globalist’ to mean jew, because they implicitly acknowledge that yes, most globalists are Jews (the Council on Foreign Relations is a good example).
So when they charge ‘anti semitism!’ in a way, their facade has finally folded, and they acknowledge that the Jews are running the world domination game.
Now an interesting question is whether the debunking of the Protocols of the Elders was a fraud….
…until I realised he was jewish…?
how could you not realize that from the beginning? who doesn’t know freud was jewish?
It’s a racist ideology and it comes from an evil place.
said the same person who, i assume, believes that white trash’s trashiness is the result of genes.
given the long standing racial hierarchy in the US, the trashiest whites will tend to have distant black or amerind ancestors.
one can actually see this. white trash tend to be short and have deep brown eyes.
I’m not sure if it’s due to genes.
I think your theory about low class whites is entirely based on racial prejudice.
not my racial prejudice. i have none. except i really hate injuns, especially injun women.
he’s 92, and he’s buffett’s butt boy. that’s why he can say it. buffett saying it would be news. but…
notice that he contradicts himself.
first he says that evolution has continued over the last 10-4k years (since civilization) and this explains why ashkenazi jews and new guineans are not the same…then he says that…how the chinese were selected to be “good at capitalism” is a mystery, because capitalism isn’t part of their history.
he’s just more proof that billionaires can be “not that bright”.
also notice what he still can’t say, though he obviously knows it.
he’s right about dogs though. the various breeds are distinct in a number of behavioral ways. a question is whether humans are more like a single breed of dog than like multiple breeds. for example, the toy poodle, the miniature poodle, the standard poodle…all poodles.
https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/debunking_a_racialist_myth_about_the_genetic_variation_between_dog_breeds
A recent paper on a genome-wide SNP analysis on 919 dogs from 85 breeds, showed by AMOVA that 65.1% of genetic variance was within breeds, 31.1% between breeds, and 3.8% between breed groups (they defined 10 different groups: Spaniels, Retrievers, etc.)…So, we can see that dog breeds are actually much more variable than human races. The myth of limited genetic diversity prevalent in racialist circles (to which I also fell victim) needs to be dispelled.
not to mention that dogs have no culture, nor that human behavior is uniquely malleable in the animal kingdom, nor that humans are, in fact, very different from animals…all animals…even though they are 99% similar to chimps gentically.
Much of the success of Jews come from their acumen skill of in-group networking, and this can be replicated across all groups with a natural talent for verbosity. They have done well in America, simply because Anglo Prole Republics have no cultural or national unity, only money and status via political strong arm.
And a lot of Jewish success has to do with the fact that verbal and math skills are especially useful in business, compared to spatial ability where East Asians excel.
However if western civilization crumbles & people must hunt and live off the land, I don’t know if Jews will be able to adapt.
People don’t “adapt” to environments. Bad genes get weeded out DUE to environmental change, which is a random event.
Let’s take an asteroid impact scenario. Yes or no: survival would be based on chance (talking initial impact of the asteroid and whatever species gets killed off during it).
In that case, people who live in or near the wilderness with a lot of know-how on how to survive without a societal structure will survive. Even the average high IQ white or Asian American doesn’t know how to survive off the land. So how is “intelligence the ability to adapt” when a lot of low IQ hicks have the survival know-how living on the edges of the earth? Ever seen those Alaskan wilderness shows? Those people don’t look to smart to me.
PP: Such simplistic view of a group, which has low to mediocre talent at best. Whites speak better — not only that, they are significantly better looking with better genes, yet actors like Adam Sandler gets all kinds of awards for his poor acting skills in Hollywood. In reality, many Whites don’t care — and those who care don’t know any better.
East Asians might have high spatial skills, but the majority of their societies don’t reflect any of it, where they look like dumpster grounds that one finds with lower functioning groups.
JS i agree with you about ethnic networking, but i think the unique Jewish profile is also relevant
The Jews have proven one thing about Anglo Prole Republics: There is no such thing as equal opportunity for everyone or the general idea of unity. It’s about tribalism asserting its power over less privileged groups. Jews and elite liberals tend to be very insecure and tribal, more so than right wing groups– simply they are fewer in numbers and their power is fragile. If you and your readers will understand: These people don’t care for the downtrodden, unless they’re black, and most of it is a ploy from their real intentions.
Jews and elite liberals tend to be very insecure and tribal,
Jews might be tribal, but white elite liberals are the opposite of tribal.
Jews are tribal in an ethnic-sense. White liberals are tribal in an ideological-sense. Both groups achieve their agenda by using mostly black men as their “useful” idiots.
Jews are the most powerful of liberals, and elite non-Jewish liberals are 2nd in the food chain.
Jews are tribal in an ethnic-sense. White liberals are tribal in an ideological-sense. Both groups achieve their agenda by using mostly black men as their “useful” idiots.
What agenda are white liberals advancing? And how are black men useful idiots in this relationship? You don’t think they benefit?
This false narrative of equality using blacks, especially black men, as tokens at the expense of other groups, who are capable of competing White liberals (and Jews) in wealth and status.
Essentially, what I said goes back to your view that high IQ elites are looking out for their genetic interests in a very complex way. Some of your commenters are upset that black men get to pair up with attractive White women in Hollywood — that’s a technique of divide and conquer, and to detract the real issues at hand.
This false narrative of equality using blacks, especially black men, as tokens at the expense of other groups, who are capable of competing White liberals (and Jews) in wealth and status.
How does that make black men useful idiots? If anything these tokens benefit enormously, and so do their people. If anything it’s the white elite (and they’re not liberals) who are the true useful idiots because it’s their white race that’s getting fucked over and the divide and conquer strategy is mostly serving to divide whites against each other (proles vs swpls). White elites are to the Jewish elite what black conservatives were to the old WASP elite: House negroes and Uncle Toms
SWPLs are White elites, and they have their own hierarchies, but they all embrace “liberalism”.
black uncle toms are being used to undermine their own people (the house negroes) in terms of the black legacy of White oppression, and the relationship between black men and black women — this is not too different from White elites being used by Jewish elites, to undermine their own people with divide and conquer tactics.
Hispanics, even White Hispanics with a Spanish surname, understand for example that Hollywood discriminates everyone, unless they’re Jewish, a good looking, yet stupid White gentile, or a black man. We Hispanics regardless of racial makeup, are still treated like 2nd nobodies, and the same applies with Muslims and Asians.
I once had a Jewish professor who discouraged me from pursuing academic studies — I was smart enough to detect his BS and what he said about academia not conducive to one’s well being — Jews are the masters of deception,and someone who is smart and objective will notice that Jews dominate academia. And he was only an average professor, in terms of expertise in his field, yet he has tenure.
the philosturbator is an aussie, but he may be a lebanese aussie.
thanks for the vid…this one showed up on the list to the right…this could never have been broadcast in the US…even though it has a black presenter…a very smart black presenter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb2iFikOwYU
so how could it be broadcast in the UK?
because…despite appearances…the british aristocracy still has power…lots…the windsors are germans…but they have no guilt about the last war.
england is still english.
“but the data from the United States, where both whites and blacks are reared with similar nutrition”
I’m not sure that nutrition affects penis size but even if it does, your assumption that Blacks and Whites are equally fed in the United States has to be verified.
Here are a few numbers:
22% of Black households are food insecures, 27% of black children live in food-insecure households. In contrast, 10% of white households are food insecure.
http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hunger/african-american-hunger/african-american-hunger-fact-sheet.html
24,4% of Blacks have nutrition-related anemia (mainly iron and folic acid), compared with 3,3% among whites.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/6/1457.full
An estitmated 7% to 13% of children in the US are growth stunted due to malnutrition.
Click to access 07_02_Indicators.pdf
Nutrition has an impact on behavior and intelligence and it likely accounts for for racial differences in the US.
Nutrition has an impact on behavior and intelligence and it likely accounts for for racial differences in the US.
The best studies are those comparing the biological kids of white women & black men with the biological kids of white women & white men, when both groups are adopted into white homes, because in such studies, the mixed kids & white kids both had a white prenatal environment and a white family environment, so if the 1 SD black-white gap is 100% genetic, the half black kids should score half an SD below the white kids in those studies.
That’s what happened in the Minnesota transracial adoption study, though other much smaller studies failed to replicate it
“so if the 1 SD black-white gap is 100% genetic, the half black kids should score half an SD below the white kids in those studies.”
It will only be fully genetic if the difference remains after controlling for socio-economic, nutritional and health variables that differ between white women who had white kids and those who had biracial kids.
If I remember well, the black and biracial kids had worse pre-adoption histories than the white kids, lower educated mothers and lower income adoptive families so I don’t think the Minnesota study had the requirements to conclude on a 100% genetic gap, in fact no one has ever claimed that IQ had an heritability of 100%.
“That’s what happened in the Minnesota transracial adoption study, though other much smaller studies failed to replicate it”
The Minnesota transracial adoption study (HBD’s gold standard) was not much bigger than the studies that failed to replicate it
Afrosapiens you are correct.
PP nutrition does have an effect on behavior.
Lack of iron, zinc, B vitamins as well as being protein deficient has an adverse effect on brain size, behavior, and intelligence.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041117005027.htm
Also pp food insecurity is linked to socioeconomic status.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/1/6.full
Drewnowski and Specter (2004) showed that 1) the highest rates of obesity are found in populations with the lowest incomes and education (correlated with IQ); 2) an inverse relationship between energy density and energy cost; 3) sweets and fats have higher energy density and are more palatable (food scientists work feverishly in labs to find out different combinations of foods to make them more palatable so we will eat more of them); and 4) poverty and food insecurity are associated with lower food expenditures, lower fruit and vegetable intake, and lower-quality diet. All of these data points show that those who are poor are more likely to be obese due to more energy-dense food being cheaper and fats and sugars being more palatable. it’s worth noting that dietary fat combined with carbohydrates and the subsequent insulin spike stores the dietary fat as body fat as well as the insulin telling the body to not burn fat.
Afrosapiens, I would say that nutrition would have an adverse effect on penis size if there was adverse nutrition before puberty.
Also I would say that nutrition would account for at most, 2 to 3 points.
I’ll check nutrient deficiencies in black Americans later.
“Afrosapiens, I would say that nutrition would have an adverse effect on penis size if there was adverse nutrition before puberty.”
I don’t know how the penis works, but it’s not a complex organ, it’s just blood-filled tissue.
Nutritional deficiencies irreversibly impair neuro-development the if they happen from pregnancy to age two.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/nutrition-hunger-food-children-vitamins-us
It is clear that black american children are more at risk for a majority of nutrient deficiencies. If penis size is stunted by childhood malnutrition, black men must have a genetic potential for much bigger penises.
Well…
“Most commonly, people with anemia report feelings of weakness or tired, and sometimes poor concentration”
22% of blacks, live, work, go to school and take IQ tests feeling weak, tired and with poor concentration due to anemia, compared with 3% of whites.
Below is a link to a litterature review on the impact of nutrition on IQ and/or accademic performance.
Click to access 0deec518c55307b9a0000000.pdf
The results are mixed, iron is thought to have a large effect on IQ, other nutrients have no significant effects on IQ but increase school performance, having breakfast improves school performance and behavior.
Other than nutrients, pollutants such as lead contribute to racial differences in IQ and academic performance. I would suggest that these combined factors contribute up to 10 points to the difference. Another 5 points might be explained by lack of test motivation, stereotype threat and other test-taking skills differences.
Test-Motivation and IQ
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/19/7716.abstract
Pollution and IQ
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/urban-air-pollutants-can-damage-iqs-before-babys-first-breath/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1367853/
Although I’m pro-HBD, I think test motivation is probably the best anti-HBD argument, especially for black Americans who have a sub-culture that sees intellectual achievement as “trying to be white”. And test motivation probably explains at least 10 points of the Flynn effect.
Motivation may influence IQ scores by up to 15 points.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/motivation-may-influence-iq-scores
Well, test motivation is a huge challenge to the intrinsic validity of IQ as a whole. It is likely that test-motivation both improves IQ and life outcomes, hence the IQ-life outcomes correlation.
“Motivation may influence IQ scores by up to 15 points.”
That’s not the whole story:
1- Large gains are mostly found in people scoring low, average-scoring people never gain more than 5 points, people in the 70s, 80s can gain as much as 20 something points though the group average will typically be around 15.
2- The bigger the reward, the larger the gain
How do you know it’s not the other way around? maybe having a low IQ causes a lack of motivation.
Africans don’t really seem to have the same level of apathy for education that american blacks do and there immigrants seem to do a pretty good job at adapting to new countries. Could just be self selection though.
“How do you know it’s not the other way around? maybe having a low IQ causes a lack of motivation.”
Since a reward can increase IQ by more than one SD in some individuals, the safe guess is that IQ is for a large part artificial and that an IQ score is more likely to be the consequence than the cause of something. But it is clear that low IQ and low motivation are comorbid traits found in the underclass though none is biologically hardwired and both are highly malleable.
“Africans don’t really seem to have the same level of apathy for education that american blacks do and there immigrants seem to do a pretty good job at adapting to new countries. Could just be self selection though.”
It’s hard to generalize, here in France there are different types of Africans. The nationalities that do well are those frome the Gulf of Guinea (Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, Gabon, Congo-Brazzaville) The Sahelians from Mali, Guinea and Senegal are underperforming at the same level as the Arabs who are maybe doing worse than African Americans. Elsewhere in Europe, Somalis, Erythreans and Congolese do just as bad as the Sahelians and the Arabs. The people from the Gulf of Guinea do well, maybe at Asian levels, but they are not so hyper-selected, they are above-average of their respective countries but certainly not the top 5% contrary to the Chinese who are mostly migrant businessmen or overstaying international students.
“How do you know it’s not the other way around? maybe having a low IQ causes a lack of motivation.”
Since a reward can increase IQ by more than one SD in some individuals, the safe guess is that IQ is for a large part artificial and that an IQ score is more likely to be the consequence than the cause of something. But it is clear that low IQ and low motivation are comorbid traits found in the underclass though none is biologically hardwired and both are highly malleable. In short, people don’t “have” an IQ, they only have scores on IQ tests that depend on their basic ability and their attitude to the test.
“Africans don’t really seem to have the same level of apathy for education that american blacks do and there immigrants seem to do a pretty good job at adapting to new countries. Could just be self selection though.”
It’s hard to generalize, here in France there are different types of Africans. The nationalities that do well are those frome the Gulf of Guinea (Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, Gabon, Congo-Brazzaville) The Sahelians from Mali, Guinea and Senegal are underperforming at the same level as the Arabs who are maybe doing worse than African Americans. Elsewhere in Europe, Somalis, Erythreans and Congolese do just as bad as the Sahelians and the Arabs. The people from the Gulf of Guinea do well, maybe at Asian levels, but they are not so hyper-selected, they are above-average of their respective countries but certainly not the top 5% contrary to the Chinese who are mostly migrant businessmen or overstaying international students.
“If penis size is stunted by childhood malnutrition, black men must have a genetic potential for much bigger penises.”
I doubt it. Look at IGF-1 variation by race. Caucasians have the most (225 ng/ml) then Asians (208 ng/ml) and blacks (205 ng/ml). IGF-1 is known to enhance penile length and scrotal circumference.
“The results are mixed, iron is thought to have a large effect on IQ, other nutrients have no significant effects on IQ but increase school performance, having breakfast improves school performance and behavior.”
I’m pretty anti-breakfast, personally. But for kids, especially kids at risk for nutrient deficiencies it is needed.
Interesting paper though, I’ll read it tomorrow and get back to you.
“Other than nutrients, pollutants such as lead contribute to racial differences in IQ and academic performance. I would suggest that these combined factors contribute up to 10 points to the difference. Another 5 points might be explained by lack of test motivation, stereotype threat and other test-taking skills differences.”
How prevalent is lead exposure in low-income communities nowadays? Stereotype Threat is bunk.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201512/is-stereotype-threat-overcooked-overstated-and-oversold
Oh no, Philosopher, I cited Psychology Today.
Thanks for the pollution/IQ links. Speaking of, blacks and Dominicans and NYC have higher rates of obesity due to exposure to BPA more at an earlier age as well.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/05/19/science-daily-moms-exposure-to-bpa-during-pregnancy-can-put-her-baby-on-course-to-obesity/
Well that’s dumb.
You can’t say lack of motivation is the reason IQ is lower at the meta level.
Its like saying chinese nerds are shit at sport because they have no motivation.
What one is essence arguing is that if chinese nerds started hitting the gym and doing circuits they’d be better at sports.
True.
But the a priori reason is that they are just worse at athletic tasks due to lower testosterone and stay away from it. And even when they do, they can’t get as big physically as whites and certainly blacks.
On the other hand….
Likewise, blacks could have grinds, could have white parents (which many adoption studies have researched), could have private schooling and be given 10 minutes of free time in a recording studio as a reward.
But ‘motivation’ is merely a lagging indicator of poor ability usually.
There is some argument to the idea because blacks view academics as feminine, it discourages those that are ok from studying.
But studyability is not the same as IQ.
And we know from the adoption studies and blacks raised in predominantly white communities that that isn’t so.
Most of these tests have a culture fair component in any case.
So once again we’re back to why don’t the Chinese do weightlifting/why doesn’t Kinshasa make their kids practice math.
Because they suck. And if they were good, they’d want their kids doing that as a reproduction strategy.
http://www.sixthtone.com/news/despite-olympic-prospects-chinas-weightlifters-fight-stereotypes#
“How prevalent is lead exposure in low-income communities nowadays?”
From what I’ve read from various sources, there is no safe level of lead exposure and IQ deficits show up at very small lead levels. According to the media, lead exposure is still a public health concern in urban neighborhoods.
“Stereotype Threat is bunk.”
It might have been dismissed as a large contributor to the difference but the attitude to the test factor as a whole can’t be ruled out.
“You can’t say lack of motivation is the reason IQ is lower at the meta level.”
What has been proven is that rewards lead to IQ gains, anything else you say is speculation.
“So once again we’re back to why don’t the Chinese do weightlifting/why doesn’t Kinshasa make their kids practice math.”
Lol, if you think education issues in the developing world can be treated in such a simplistic way, you should not even try to discuss such subjects. Have you ever heard about these few things ?
-child labor
-extreme poverty
-Teacher incompetence and absenteeism
-Obsolete school programs
-Nonexistant school infrastructure and amenities
-Malaria, hunger, malnutrition, anemia, yellow fever, tuberculosis…
-Orphans, street children
Yes but Laos and Cambodia have those problems and they still score much better according to Lynn.
Also, you argue: Vee need more rewards for the blacks to make them do better.
THATS THE FUCKING PROBLEM YOU DUMMY.
Why should they get unique rewards than any other racial group to do well?
#MAGIC NEGRO LIVES SERIOUSLY MATTER
“the safe guess is that IQ is for a large part artificial and that an IQ score is more likely to be the consequence than the cause of something.”
You’re confusing an artificial score with actual intelligence, even if an individual’s scores vary across tests due to non-genetic factors, the correct amount of inherent potential was always there and constant.
What you’re arguing is akin to the question: “what came first the chicken or the egg?” This forced dichotomy of environmental vs genetic is fucking retarded. Their relation is embodied by dynamic influence. To keep it as simple as possible, an environment that provides necessary nutritional and intellectual benefits will further promulgate individuals with the proper mental and physical capacities for efficient application, these individuals in turn regulate their environment to sustain these luxuries. The same goes for a deleterious niche, it proliferates individuals with stunted characteristics and personalities, the stunted population will naturally have stunted behavior reinforcing anti-intellectualism. It’s all a feedback loop. Causation is one thing but almost all causation is “environmental” in pertinence to genetic traits.
“It’s hard to generalize”
I know, that’s why we have averages. Honestly, you could probably cherry pick any specific nationality or ethnicity as an exception but I bet on a macro scale the patterned discrepancies will remain true. Still the specific cases raise questions.
“Yes but Laos and Cambodia have those problems and they still score much better according to Lynn.”
According to Lynn… But in reality, nothing in their current development suggests more ability than say Ghana, Ivory Coast or Nigeria. No one ever came up with a representative sample of a developing country’s population to judge their “intelligence”. As far as education, I strongly doubt most countries in South and South-East Asia significantly outperform Sub-Saharan Africa.
“Why should they get unique rewards than any other racial group to do well?”
Maybe because of centuries of ongoing unfair treatment ? Sounds reasonable to me.
Pumpkin, It’d be cool if you could unmoderate my comment in response to afrosapiens.
it’s now unmoderated
Thanks bud.
“You’re confusing an artificial score with actual intelligence, even if an individual’s scores vary across tests due to non-genetic factors, the correct amount of inherent potential was always there and constant.”
IQ exists nowhere else than on a paper sheet, it is not a physical measurement, there is no actual matter in IQ.
IQ is not intelligence (it is an estimate of it) and a large part of one’s performance doesn’t reflect one’s basic ability
Motivation is one of the factors that affects the reliability of an IQ score (All test publishers acknowledge it). If someone who typically scores 80 without a reward scores 100 with a reward, then they are able to score 100, there is nothing more to say. And that’s especially more meaningful when people who usually score 100 only improve to 103 with increased motivation.
“Honestly, you could probably cherry pick any specific nationality or ethnicity as an exception but I bet on a macro scale the patterned discrepancies will remain true.”
If you know African cultural geography, you’ll realize that the Gulf of Guinea, the Sahel, North Africa and the Horn of Africa are well demarcated regions and that the differences between are culturally and historically rooted, that averaging them makes no sense because it’s almost like comparing oranges with apples. The Sunni Malekite Muslim Sahelians, the Pentecostalist/Animist/Syncretic Coastal West Africans and the Orthodox Christian Habesha must be culturally analyzed separately.
“IQ exists nowhere else than on a paper sheet, it is not a physical measurement, there is no actual matter in IQ.
IQ is not intelligence (it is an estimate of it) and a large part of one’s performance doesn’t reflect one’s basic ability”
I know, that’s what I said to some extent. IQ is an accurate measure of intelligence, but it is still just a test. Less abstracted tests like living life itself would be good measures of intelligence.
“80 without a reward scores 100 with a reward, then they are able to score 100, there is nothing more to say. And that’s especially more meaningful when people who usually score 100 only improve to 103 with increased motivation.”
where are you getting those numbers from? I found one study that said the average increase from motivation was .64 sd which is like 8 or 9 points. I also have other genetic studies suggesting that Africans have a genetic IQ of 90. so maybe you’re right idk.
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/19/7716.abstract
https://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=271
“If you know African cultural geography, you’ll realize that the Gulf of Guinea, the Sahel, North Africa and the Horn of Africa are well demarcated regions and that the differences between are culturally and historically rooted, that averaging them makes no sense because it’s almost like comparing oranges with apples.”
I was averaging on race not culture.
“What has been proven is that rewards lead to IQ gains, anything else you say is speculation.”
It’s clearer to say that rewards lead to better test scores, not bigger brains. Just because you buckle-down and learn a few “tricks” for solving a popular category of problems doesn’t mean you’re intrinsically smarter. One can gain a few points simply by practicing the tests.
One can look like a real wizard after they’ve mastered all the popular riddles.
One can lucubrate to promulgate abstruse vernacular which only elucidates their own narcissism in lieu of connoting substantial prowess. ie Linguistic parlor tricks for feigning grey-matter-opulence. In that regard, motivation is more of a red herring impeding discovery of fact. Apart from that, I don’t see much of a connection between motivation and intelligence, only motivation and **expression** of intelligence.
Further, if someone already knows they won’t do well on a test, then they won’t be motivated to bother. A financial incentive increases the motivation, but what we can’t help noticing is that the low intelligence itself caused the lack of motivation that the financial incentive cured.
Melo seems correct. Low iq (relative to peers) causes lack of motivation to take iq tests. High iq (relative to peers) causes motivation to take iq tests and generally feign intelligence above and beyond what they intrinsically possess. Both ends of the curve are skewed.
The question that need answering remains: Does low iq cause low motivation in general life? I would say it’s only to the extent that it’s relative to smarter peers, which would be better labeled “discouragement”. A dumb person trapped on an island would have no reason to be less motivated than a smart person in the same situation. The only time motivation becomes relevant is when one is up against someone they know they can’t beat. No one likes a struggle in futility.
“Less abstracted tests like living life itself would be good measures of intelligence.”
No, because not everyone has the same opportunities, the same networks, the same luck, not everyone has the same aspirations. You can still say that there are smart aspirations or dumb aspirations but it’s mere personal judgment, and the environment we live in plays a huge role is what we aspire to be. The motivation factor just tries to estimate what intellectual performance people can do on intellectual tasks they want to succeed in. That means if a typical inner-city trouble youth wants to become a neuroscientist for what ever reason, they can provided they find support to accompany them in this goal amid life hardships.
“where are you getting those numbers from? I found one study that said the average increase from motivation was .64 sd which is like 8 or 9 points.”
This average comes from a meta-analysis of 40 something studies, it is an average. Samples averaging in the 100s showed no gains or little gains, people in the 80s typically gained 20 points.
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2011/04/20/1018601108.DCSupplemental/pnas.201018601SI.pdf#nameddest=ST1
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1018601108/-/DCSupplemental/sd01.xls
What is important to notice is that even though the mean of samples increases, the SD of each sample remains unchanged, implying that motivation still doesn’t make everyone equal and this probably reflects the influence of genetics and health factors on IQ.
“I was averaging on race not culture.”
This is what you wrote:
“Africans don’t really seem to have the same level of apathy for education that american blacks do and there immigrants seem to do a pretty good job at adapting to new countries.”
You were talking about cultural differences between Africans and Black Americans weren’t you ?
“It’s clearer to say that rewards lead to better test scores, not bigger brains.”
Yes, higher IQ doesn’t equal higher intelligence
“Further, if someone already knows they won’t do well on a test, then they won’t be motivated to bother.”
You never know how bad or good you will do on anything, it’s only the opinion that you have of yourself, it’s self-esteem.
“but what we can’t help noticing is that the low intelligence itself caused the lack of motivation that the financial incentive cured.”
No, that’s speculative, what the studies show is that low stakes conditions caused the lack of motivation that the financial incentive cured. This is the only firm fact that these studies bring to the debate.
“Melo seems correct. Low iq (relative to peers) causes lack of motivation to take iq tests. High iq (relative to peers) causes motivation to take iq tests and generally feign intelligence above and beyond what they intrinsically possess.”
No, if what you say is true, high IQ subjects should show gains similar to low IQ subjects but it’s not the case. And motivation may be caused by an infinity of factors, intelligence is not even one, unless you prove the opposite, there are lot of lazy and smart people, I’m one of them.
“I also have other genetic studies suggesting that Africans have a genetic IQ of 90.”
No study can give an estimate of any population’s “Genetic IQ”.
Genetic studies only found minimal correlations between some gene variants and educational attainment, not IQ. And no one knows if these genes influence the intellectual component of educational attainment rather than the non-intellectual one.
The tested subjects were almost only European, so we don’t know of genetic variants that occur outside of Europe and if these genetic variants influence school performance in the same way in non-European contexts.
“You never know how bad or good you will do on anything, it’s only the opinion that you have of yourself, it’s self-esteem.”
If you have iq 80-100, you know you won’t do well, so why bother?
If you have iq 140, you know you will do well, so you’ll prepare and try as hard as you can. No amount of money incentive will increase your motivation because money is not the point and you’re already maxed-out in effort.
Exceptions exist, but I’m speaking generally.
“No, that’s speculative, what the studies show is that low stakes conditions caused the lack of motivation that the financial incentive cured. This is the only firm fact that these studies bring to the debate.”
Low stakes = no incentive because you already know you can’t compete. If you knew you could compete, then the stakes would be high. So, low relative iq causes low stakes.
I know plenty of people who won’t do math, they won’t even try to learn, because to try is to risk looking stupid. They already know they can’t, so there is no point in trying. If they were paid, maybe they would try.
“No, if what you say is true, high IQ subjects should show gains similar to low IQ subjects but it’s not the case.”
Read above.
“And motivation may be caused by an infinity of factors, intelligence is not even one, unless you prove the opposite, there are lot of lazy and smart people, I’m one of them.”
That’s what I said… motivation and intelligence have little to do with each other. It’s motivation for *expression* of intelligence that is correlated to intelligence. Don’t you want to appear smarter than you really are? If you were dumb, imagine how lazy you’d be.
“If you have iq 80-100, you know you won’t do well, so why bother?”
Nobody know their IQ without taking actual IQ tests. You might think that you are dumb because you have bad grades or because people tell you so, but that doesn’t mean you are dumb. People with negative views on their intelligence will likely slack off or panic and give up in a low stakes test. But if there is something to win, there is an other factor: you want to win. So no matter your grades or what others say, you got to win and you actually do.
“If you have iq 140, you know you will do well, so you’ll prepare and try as hard as you can. No amount of money incentive will increase your motivation because money is not the point and you’re already maxed-out in effort.”
These studies weren’t designed this way, test takers were assigned to an incentive group and to a control group. People only knew the would be rewarded while taking the test. And you never know you have IQ 140 before you take a test, especially since many very-high IQ persons are under-performers
“Low stakes = no incentive because you already know you can’t compete.”
Low stakes = no incentive because you already Believe you can’t compete. Or you don’t even care about competing.
“If you knew you could compete, then the stakes would be high. So, low relative iq causes low stakes.”
If you BELIEVE you could compete and care about competing, then the commitment to the task will be high. So low stakes causes low relative IQ.
“These studies weren’t designed this way, test takers were assigned to an incentive group and to a control group. People only knew the would be rewarded while taking the test. And you never know you have IQ 140 before you take a test, especially since many very-high IQ persons are under-performers”
Many high-iq people are under-performers? Well, I agree with that, but does PP?
However, I don’t agree that they would under-perform on an iq test. How else would you explain the greater jump from 80 to 100, but only 100 to 103? Why does incentive only work for low-iq people?
“Low stakes = no incentive because you already Believe you can’t compete. Or you don’t even care about competing.”
I agree.
“If you BELIEVE you could compete and care about competing, then the commitment to the task will be high. So low stakes causes low relative IQ.”
I agree. It’s your perception that counts. That’s why I said “relative iq”. If your iq is low, you’re going to know it without needing to take a test. But if it’s low and everyone else is low too, then you won’t think yours is low because it’s not by a relative measure.
“How else would you explain the greater jump from 80 to 100, but only 100 to 103? Why does incentive only work for low-iq people?”
It’s simple, samples with low IQ have their IQ artificially depressed by lack of motivation, high IQ samples have their IQ more accurately estimated under low stakes conditions.
“If your iq is low, you’re going to know it without needing to take a test.”
No. You have to take the test to know. It’s like, saying “I don’t think I have AIDS so I don’t need to get tested”, “I don’t think I have cholesterol because I’m not fat and I think I eat well” and so on.
“You were talking about cultural differences between Africans and Black Americans weren’t you ?”
My bad I thought you were talking about something else. Steve sailor made a blog post about motivation a while back i think it sums up m criticisms and concerns well.
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2011/05/bryan-caplan-writes-years-ago-i-told.html
“It’s simple, samples with low IQ have their IQ artificially depressed by lack of motivation, high IQ samples have their IQ more accurately estimated under low stakes conditions.”
That’s about what I said.
“No. You have to take the test to know. It’s like, saying “I don’t think I have AIDS so I don’t need to get tested”, “I don’t think I have cholesterol because I’m not fat and I think I eat well” and so on.”
You have no way of knowing if you have aids or cholesterol, but you do know about how smart you are compared to your peers.
You’re suggesting that you wouldn’t know how attractive you are unless you first take a test. Or that you wouldn’t know how fat you are unless you weigh yourself. Some things are self-evident.
“Steve sailor made a blog post about motivation a while back i think it sums up m criticisms and concerns well.”
Steve Sailer “encule les mouches” for the most of his post. He’s right saying that gaps also show up in high stakes tests but he forgets one thing that is well studied in African American ethnology. The fact is that black Americans tend to aim to achieve just respectable scores, they are not trying to excel because excellence is a white thing, more than a racial trait, it’s a typical working-class disgust toward excellence.
That’s in America, In, Britain, the situation is just opposite white working class kids are the second worst underperformers after gypsies. while Black Africans perform slightly over the white average and Caribbeans somewhat below but not that much.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/dec/15/gcse-statistics-free-school-meals-race-local-authorities-poverty
“You’re suggesting that you wouldn’t know how attractive you are unless you first take a test.”
I don’t know how attractive people think I am unless they tell me, I might think of myslef as being attractive whereas most people don’t.
“Or that you wouldn’t know how fat you are unless you weigh yourself.”
Of course, body proportions may make you look thinner or thicker than you think you are. I’m 90kg heavy but because I’m extremely fit and 1.88m tall, I absolutely don’t look fat, I’m athletic.
“The fact is that black Americans tend to aim to achieve just respectable scores, they are not trying to excel because excellence is a white thing, ”
Nah, blacks don’t want to excel /sarc 🙂
Negros with egos
“I don’t know how attractive people think I am unless they tell me”
Ok Mr. Modesty. I’m sure the ladies are not so niggardly with l’amour.
On a serious note, do blacks get depressed? I’ve never seen or heard of it happening.
http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2013/04/05/us_homicide__suicide_rates_in_whites__blacks_106500.html
Whites are more than 2.5 times as likely to die from suicide as blacks. Why do blacks seem to have such impervious self-esteem?
“Why do blacks seem to have such impervious self-esteem?”
They’re more extroverted along with having slightly elevated levels of testosterone in comparison to whites.
They don’t want to excel in the mainstream cultural norms, that’s well studied. Never wondered why they didn’t even speak American English.
http://gamapserver.who.int/mapLibrary/Files/Maps/Global_AS_suicide_rates_bothsexes_2012.png?ua=1
Suicide rate worldwide.
And don’t worry, I’m more than OK with how I look, girls too, french women for a large part love black guys, some even exclusively date blacks.
”And don’t worry, I’m more than OK with how I look, girls too, french women for a large part love black guys, some even exclusively date blacks.”
a racist one.
“They’re more extroverted along with having slightly elevated levels of testosterone in comparison to whites.”
So a wee more T would stop the suicides in whites? Hey, more loot for big pharma!
_______________________________________
“They don’t want to excel in the mainstream cultural norms, that’s well studied.”
I guess I can agree with that.
“Never wondered why they didn’t even speak American English.”
How do they make such good rappers?
“I’m more than OK with how I look, girls too, french women for a large part love black guys, some even exclusively date blacks.”
Same everywhere I suppose. It’s the bigger boners, they say.
Well what are the causes of suicide, especially on a population level? What are the causes for the white suicide rate in America?
“How do they make such good rappers?”
Blacks have high verbal IQs. So obviously the average rapper’s verbal IQ is pretty high. That would be a cool study.
This can be interpreted in another way: ‘most’ of black men desire white women … because they are the ones who usually run to the white women.
That’s a tautology.
“Blacks have high verbal IQs.”
Verbal IQ is not how well you talk, It’s how you understand and use verbal information.
“Well what are the causes of suicide, especially on a population level? What are the causes for the white suicide rate in America?”
An interplay of cultural and personal factors. IQ evolutionary terms, high suicide rate should be interpreted as self-elimination from evolution.
“‘most’ of black men desire white women”
No black man can resist a big booty and some juicy lips. And if white women didn’t share the same level attraction, we wouldn’t even be disgussing it. Some studies claim that woment are naturally more inclined to endogamy relative to men who jump on whatever female-looking creature.
RR,
great verbal reaction time necessarily don’t mean higher verbal IQ, period.
I really doubt the avg verbal IQ of rappers is super higher.
A lot of blacks are quite verbosen, talkative, but it doesn’t mean they know
– the correct meaning of many of words they are using
– develop their vocabulary (nor myself, hihihihi)
– manipulate verbal information and push it to the highest abstract verbal possibilities
– make verbal associations, specially the most difficult.
”That’s a tautology.”
Seems you don’t know apply this term.
Is white woman who are, supposedly, attracted to the black man, or is the black man who are attracted to the white woman*
I’m not repeating the same thing with different words, i just displaced the epicenter of this dynamic, from the white woman to the black man. And feminism IS specially/fundamentally for white man but jewish media manipulate the chain of informations in the way, multi culti is not only-directed to the white people, but for all.
a one example of this reality
”cultural appropriation” ONLY for whitey.
Black man is like southern italian man with their R-love strategy, they fired for all sides, the chance to hit some target is higher than someone (someman) who have K-love strategy
More hypothesis on suicide rates in the US
-Whites, proportionally own more guns than blacks, firearms are the most common suicide weapons there
-More androgens in whites, Suicide everywhere in the world is more prevalent among males, so male hormones may play a role.
-Status-loss anxiety. No need to explain more.
Well said Afrosapiens. I agree with you.
“Well said Afrosapiens. I agree with you.”
Fine, we could agree even more often I you were not stubbornly trying to see genetics and biology in every population difference.
Since I like long conversations, I can even go your way citing studies estimating the heritability of suicide to be between 30 and 55.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK107191/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17721766
The problem with this blog is the rampant racist and sexism. Just consider how many racial slurs I’ve had to put up with just because I’m not 100 % white. And men on the Internet hate women in general. You simply won’t be taken seriously if you’re non-white and/or a woman.
Yes, racism and sexism is rampant on this blog. But I must disagree on the fact that women and non-whites are not taken seriously here. I’m a black man from France and I’ve been an active commenter some months ago, I’ve been shown very little disrespect by the author, only a few dumb commenters made some dumb racist remarks to me. Other than me, there is a Brazilian guy here who’s not full blooded white, some blacks, Asians, biracial people and hispanics also come here and are well treated.
I don’t see rampant racism or sexism here, people out of the academic bubble tend to be/act like that because human socialization is fundamentally based on ”socialization of name-calling/biological identification and hierarchization”.
Even PP blog is quite busy we see less racism or sexism than in Unz platform or in Stormfront but i don’t blame them instantaneously because they are like that, just like over-generalizer ”white cells”, gifted to identify ”strange” elements. I always advocate to the REAL dialogue but it seems impossible to the current mental levels of most of humankind.
Yes i’m the classical ”white” people in Brazil. In USA and based on one drope rule i would be considered black because i’m hypo-afrodescendent. I look mostly caucasian, southern mediterranean, partially because i have that roots, but i have a relative ambiguous ethnic phenotype because i’m a mix of ”three parent” genes, my maternal uncle, my mother and my father (probably), and my maternal uncle is very mixed race and mentally ill.
But as i arealdy said here, real racism or sexism is not to say uncomfortable truth and i only agree that
to say truth you don’t need to be un-polite, if the most important is the truth itself, and yes, if the truth is the most important, so politeness or non-politeness would less important…
but as we need to choice between them, the rational choice is the polite way to say truth and the most important, search for balanced conclusions,
because ”find/search the truth” is not a real-act, literal-act, the literal act IS the balanced conclusions. what lack among most of us.
darling squaw…
are all canadians autistic?
I’m pretty sure, made fun of your profession and verbal intelligence before. It was a long ass time ago though.
Good to see you though, there aren’t enough of “us” around here. I have no idea where william went
Im pretty sure pumpkin***
I’m pretty sure, made fun of your profession and verbal intelligence before. It was a long ass time ago though.
I did make fun of Afrosapiens’s profession, but lawyers themselves make fun of lawyers. It’s sign of their high social status that they can culturally afford to laugh at themselves.
And I would never make fun of Afrosapiens’s verbal intelligence. I think he has one of the highest verbal IQs in the history of this blog.
“And I would never make fun of Afrosapiens’s verbal intelligence. I think he has one of the highest verbal IQs in the history of this blog.”
Don’t try to make me blush, it won’t work, you know it.
“lawyers themselves make fun of lawyers. It’s sign of their high social status that they can culturally afford to laugh at themselves.”
That seems a little…..made up.
“And I would never make fun of Afrosapiens’s verbal intelligence. I think he has one of the highest verbal IQs in the history of this blog.”
Oh i’m aware, actually I think you were making fun of his disproportionate verbal intelligence while simultaneously mocking his profession. I don’t remember exactly what you said, and i’m not going to search through all those comments but I think it had to do with him being spoiled ad lacking pragmatic traits or something?
Not to put you on blast pumpkin, I’m just a contrarian/know-it-all.
You’re histrionic.
If you don’t like it, why don’t you watch cartoons?
“The problem with this blog is the rampant racist and sexism.”
You can’t “Deal with it”? 😉
“Just consider how many racial slurs I’ve had to put up with just because I’m not 100 % white.”
Why does it matter? From your point of view, shouldn’t it make them look stupid? If you truly believe they are wrong, then it should be like people concluding the earth is flat…. it should be laughable. It wouldn’t offend me if someone thinks that. Everyone is entitled to a delusion or two.
“And men on the Internet hate women in general.”
How can they hate something so adorable? Oh wait… my bad. :p
Women want all the advantages of men and all the protections of women. Just like you want everyone to “deal with it” but you don’t want to “deal with it” yourself.
“You simply won’t be taken seriously if you’re non-white and/or a woman.”
Then don’t tell them.
no racial slurs darling squaw…just “pulling your chain”, “winding you up”…because it’s hilarious.
PP is pro-Jewish and pro-black. A few commenters or their comments, if you want to separate them from sock puppetry, indicate philo-semitism , which I presume are only coming from East Asians. Many East Asians, especially the Chinese, and with the exception of the Japanese, are in love with the Jews, solely for the reason of money lust. And the fact that Jews have ousted the de facto, Anglo Prole elite off their pedestals, is another reason for these East Asians to be celebratory.
brown says: just a bigoted woman.
cameron says: fruit cakes, loonies, and closet racists.
this is why populism is what the world needs now. the governing elite are out of touch with reality and simply bad people.
Both Conservative/New Labour/Lib Dem are all the same party.
The Cuckold Party.
They exist to bow to Zion and let the Beast ravage their people: Open borders, financial deregulation and Israel’s lebensraum.
Strangely Corbyn and May are now running as populist and the media want’s people to think they are extremists and fruitcakes and that the establishment is not extremist for the above positions.
You cannot keep a man with amygdala down.
Not even with teddy bear anchoring.
I genuinely think prodding whites by putting leggy blondes with black dudes in every ad, music video, movie and tv show is causing the nationalist revolt. I can’t prove it though.
For reference, blacks are at most, 2% of the UK population.
That was a good documentary.
Brits are even more cucked than Americans. They’re naturally more polite, owing to their Germanic heritage. The Americans have more celtic lineage….You could punch a brit in the face and he’d apologise.
When Jews made up the term gentele/gentile…they were talking about Germanics.
Anyways, the discrimination legislation I’m not wholly against, but it does bring up the interesting fact that Jews select their own tribe for work in finance, law, media and Hollywood.
As I said before, think of the top young actors that have broken into Hollywood over the past 10 years: Adrian Brody (remember him?), Jonah Hill, Paul Rudd, Jason Segel, Seth Rogen, Shia Leboeuf, Nat Portman, Andrew Garfield, Jake Gyllenhal, Jesse Eisenberg etc
The vast majority of new talent is Jewish.
And Jews ain’t exactly know for their looks.
So their really should be an #Oscarsnotwhite.
Bill Maher (jew) thinks whiteness is a problem in the academy.
Same with private equity analyst hires, hedge fund hires and barrister pupilage.
And Harvard admissions as Unz shows.
60% of Harvard students are jews.
The black documentary man has 3 minutes on Jewish power and wealth and somehow can’t make the tantalising leap that they also control our minds with that.
He was so close, so close.
unz reported 20-30% iirc, and his data came from hillel international…self-reporting again. still absurd. one would expect jews to be 6%, which they are at cal-tech.
did he do any surname analysis? if academic excellence is uniformly distributed across ashkenazi surnames and the frequency of each surname among ashkenazis is known, this can give a pretty accurate estimate of the total percentage jews…but it may be that ashkenazim without jewish sounding names are at a disadvantage in admissions.
Yes in fact, he did the surname analysis to get the reference group of math/science olympiad and national scholar finalist jew representation and relied on Harvard Crimson campus publication for the jew stats.
Its been over a year since I read it, but I think that was the methodology.
I think the 60% I’m recalling may have been that the proportion of jews that were counted as ‘whites’ in Harvard’s official diversity data.
In fact, most of these quotas work on the premise of overall population proportions, not against academic merit.
So Jews should be 1-2%.
Its outrageous.
PP
https://ethnicmuse.wordpress.com/tag/human-penis-size/
https://ethnicmuse.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/condoms-and-ethnicity-ii/
Rushton was wrong. The Kinsey data was a self-report. Should I take self-reports weight loss as fact while reading a weight loss study?
Self reported data.
Obviously black Africans 60-70IQ is showing here because in Kinshasa 14cm=54cm.
Once again the Asian Quant does mean they accurately enlarge their penis lengths by 20% to the collage age intern asking them outside the noodle shop.
Let’s examine with new average self-reported data from Herbenick et al. (2014).
G-d
PP ban me for that.
Fuck I’m an idiot.
You’re funny RR,
hahahahahahahahahahaha
Too much racism on these threads in my opinion. People need to wake up and smell the coffee. White countries are for EVERYONE. Not just whites.
And if racist whites move somewhere else we’ll follow them because we can’t be productive ourselves and demand free money and Oscars from them.
GIMME SOME O DAT OSCA MONEY MAN.
Anglo Prole Society is governed by its high parasite class = Jews and their White gentile minions
with its rank and file:
Whites = The Productive Class
The lower productive class = East Asians and anyone who is non-black and Brown
The lower parasite class = non-blacks who are outliers
The lowest parasite class = blacks
The thing is I’m not particularly sensitive to mean comments about First Nations peoples. I acknowledge that I’m 7/8 white (mainly French and Irish/English). I also care about my white heritage but it’s not like white people are discriminated against.
I don’t get this. You have 1/8 or 12.5% Native American heritage.
I actually am very sympathetic to the Native American issue though.
Unlike blacks today, I do think Native Americans have been treated harshly by whites. One only has to look at the Dakota Pipeline where they are digging up burial grounds or the repeated treaty abrogations against Natives.
If natives received 1/10 as much Magic Negro money, they’d be doing better.
They also have a very unfortunate mutations which makes them susceptible to alcoholism.
The real eternal shame of the US is not slavery, but the issue of the Native Americans. I do think they are much more capable of integrating, working, not capping randomers on the street or turning whole cities into the jungle.
the abos and alcoholism thing is bullshit…in n america and in australia.
in the US it is a federal crime to sell liquor on an indian reservation. whose idea was that?
and does this putative susceptibility affect abos s of the rio grande too? are mexicans and c americans notorious boozers?
and how is it that alcoholism is NOT heritable in the populations where heritability has been measured yet HBDers continue to claim it is? plomin says it isn’t. is he lying?
basically it’s all a part of the anglo-american/individualist ideology. this is true of drug addiction and most mental illness too. the very idea that the society is itself sick is un-thinkable, so the locus of pathology/sickness is found in the individual and his genes or his character and doctors will claim they can cure him…for a fee. that is, there is an assumption which is always made, but never made explicit…that societies are merely a sum of individuals and each of these individuals is atomic, cut off from any influence of the society he finds himself in, but which he never chose. it’s an example of what zizek calls “the unknown known”…or “ideology”…they don’t know bu they are doing it.
wikipedia agrees.
The scientific literature has refuted the claims to many of these myths by documenting the wide variability of alcohol problems across and within Native tribes and the very different response that certain individuals have to alcohol opposed to others. Another important way that scientific literature has refuted these myths is by identifying that there are no current discovered genetic or other biological anomalies that render Native peoples particularly vulnerable to alcoholism.
“I actually am very sympathetic to the Native American issue though.
Unlike blacks today, I do think Native Americans have been treated harshly by whites.”
Why did the whites not make slaves of the natives instead of lugging their slaves all the way across the ocean?
Alternatively, why did the whites not capitalize on forming trading partners with the natives? Put them to work in the capitalist “machinery”.
It’s possible that they weren’t suited for either and the only question is why they didn’t go the way of the neanderthals.
“One only has to look at the Dakota Pipeline where they are digging up burial grounds or the repeated treaty abrogations against Natives.”
http://www.truthjustice.net/politics/falling-for-lies-at-standing-rock/
the answer to that is they were enslaved in parts of the new world, but they died from disease and they couldn’t handle the work! the negroes were stronger.
the indians have treated my people, the andaman pygmies, horribly.
White people like Mugabe who complain about discrimination are full of shit.
We (including myself because I look white) are privileged. I’ve travelled to foreign countries with my non-white friends and they faced racism(both conspicuous and subtle). On the other hand, I never faced racism. At least no negative racism. People treat you better if you’re white at least in Asia. It’s weird.
i’m not white.
You don’t understand. In America, it’s common for people to fabricate Indigenous ancestry. This isn’t the case in Canada. I’m not just making it up. And there’s nothing wrong with identifying more with my Indigenous ancestry. I do acknowledge that I’m privileged because I look white.
it’s pronounced “throat warbler mangrove”.
Yea dude I’m a con artist.
No wonder my eyes are dark brown and small. So typical for a 100 % white person!
Typical French/Irish/English eyes
MUGABE is indeed not White.
Mugabe is of East Indian Dalit (low cast) ancestry.
His parents came to the United States on a STEM visa to escape mistreatment in India.
Mugabe failed to live up to academic expectations in his youth, perhaps due to pre-morbid Schizophrenia, and became a rebellious child, hence the hatred of his parents.
He eventually left the typical “mainstream liberal” plantation that so many Minorities are on (hence his blaming of minorities for Bernie’s loss to Hillary), and began to develop his own ideology.
He felt indebted to Whites/”your average American” for sparing him from the hardship of low caste East Indian life, hence he became a mild White Nationalist (not wanting to kick non-Whites out, just keeping the “White character” of the U.S.).
Despite this, he rejected HBD because he feels it attempts to justify the oppression of his Dalit people, hence he lashes out against it.
There are more Whites in Canada with 1st nation ancestry than there are Natives in modern day America — so it seems.
It’s quite interesting to note that the mongoloid element of Canada’s Whites, which is sorely lacking in any American White Geronimo or Pocahontus, proves my next point.
Tiny eyes – Austin Powers seen here as a Mounty, has a bit of mongoloid in him. His bio is full of it — English parents immigrating to Canada, my @ss. He’s a son of a METI.
how did you know don? you’re a veritable sherlock holmes!
are those really your eyes?
look 100% injun.
i am 1/8th andamanese, 3/4s tamil dalit, 1/8th tapir.

and again with the white trash stuff…think about it…get some empathy…it’s not like you have to be these people’s friends, but you can still feel bad for them.
social mobility varies geographically in the US. in the south it’s just as bad for whites as it is for blacks according to the NYTs, the worst in the country. why are these people racists? because they’re stupid and vicious? and this is the same reason they’re poor? or is that because they’re “lazy”?
james baldwin understood it. his answer was much less facile than yours.
they’ve been raised to believe, and by now they helplessly believe, that no matter how terrible their lives may be, and their lives have been quite terrible, and no matter how far they fall, no matter what disaster overtakes them, they have one enormous knowledge in consolation, which is like a heavenly revelation: at least, they are not Black…Now, I suggest that of all the terrible things that can happen to a human being, that is one of the worst. I suggest that what has happened to white Southerners is in some ways, after all, much worse than what has happened to Negroes…
Canadian Whites, many are indeed mongrelfied with mongoloid to the naked eye:
No American White boy resembles these Justin mutts:
“Look 100 % injun”
Only my eyes do somewhat. The rest of my face just looks white. However, I use a lot of spray tan and dye my hair black which can create a somewhat ambiguous impression.
I use a lot of spray tan and dye my hair black.
so you hate your own people…the white trash.
How are white trash my own people?
i do have empathy for all.. including white trash… i seem harsh but i’m very high on the empathy meter
1. you dye your hair.
2. you wear spray tan.
3. under another name you said you would move to the riviera if you had the money and hook up with the local ladies, ergo you’re a lesbian.
1 + 2 + 3
I’m not a lesbian. That’s when I was pretending to be an alpha bro just like peepee. I should’ve stuck with it because bros get more respect on the Internet.
”I was pretending to be an alpha bro just like peepee”
this cosmetics of yours shows you are either a self hating injun or at pains to disguise your injun ancestry…
what do i mean?
anyone with light hair and light skin but with dark brown eyes…it’s obvious…they’re part something…
so you darken your skin and hair to appear s italian, algarvian, or maltese.
santa claus scores again!
Umm… NO… it’s NOT obvious.
The cosmetics actually make me look less white not more. Only an r-tard would say otherwise… It doesn’t even make sense
actually this comment of yours reveals your racist… you simply can’t fathom how someone could be proud of being “injun” so you project that on to me. there’s another explanation for the cosmetics: I hate pale skin. White trash/supremacists tend to be pale.
Light skin (no tan), natural hair
[photo redacted by PP, Dec 7, 2016]
Heavy tan, black hair
[photo redacted by PP, Dec 7, 2016]
According to Mugabe, the first pic “exposes” my Indigenous ancestry more. What is he smoking?!
I think pale skin look beautiful but the phenotypical combination is also important.
what’s wrong with your eyebrows?
oh well. if this is really you…not gonna follow…
not a pedo.
although i’m still carded when i buy liquor…
…you simply can’t fathom how someone could be proud of being “injun”…
i can’t fathom how anyone could be proud of being ANYTHING.
why don’t you hook up with norm…he’s a lot older and a lot richer.
I don’t want you to “follow”. I’m in my early 20s.
And no thanks.
My point was just that your theory is wrong about me hating my Indigenous side.
It was a mistake to post my pics. Now, no one will take my views seriously just like in real life. My case illustrates that physical attractiveness (excuse me for my immodesty) can make one worthless. Guys won’t see anything besides your boobs and ass. And women will hate you. At least lawyers are above it but many are not.
But the interesting thing is that my behavior contradicts my thoughts on the matter. That is, I act dumb and match the stereotype almost unconsciously. Anyway, enough of “woe is me” posts. I realize that I’m self-absorbed.
immodesty is excusable, delusion is not.
i’ve blurred my distinguishing feature too, but i am not delusional.
I’m a narcissist but I’m not delusional.
But this is good if it means you (or anyone else) won’t imagine having sex with me. That would really gross me out.
I’m wondering if PP knows the cranium size of Natives vs East Asians — Canadian Whites tend to be more docile, sport bigger heads, epicanthic like eyes with flatter faces and broader checkbones — reminiscent of Mongoloids, not to mention more intelligent than American Whites.
Even Canadian Askhenazis look too Asiatic for my tastes — this guy who is Canada’s economic doomsday forecaster — Jeff Berwick looks like a Chinaman interviewed by a French Canadian lady who also has native features.
I don’t think that’s true. White people in Canada and America look pretty similar. Canadians have more French ancestry and Americans have more German ancestry. That’s pretty much the only difference. Most Canadian whites don’t have Indigenous admixture.
No, Canadian Whites generally do not look like American Whites. How are those 2 individuals in the video above, passably American?
On average, there seems to be more mongrel-mixed ancestry among Whites in Canada just by taking a random sample. Justin Bieber doesn’t look 100% White, neither does Trudeau nor Mike Myers, nor a few Canadians whom I personally know.
Miscegenation in Canada is more common given the fact that Canada doesn’t stigmatize racial minorities as much as they do here in the states. America rectifies this by pairing only black and White people together in the mainstream media, and it becomes a snafu. Canada portrays a multicultural society where Whites are with 1st nations, Metis and others. If I remember, you guys elected an East Asian prime minister, even a few Jews I believed, and America is not on the same path.
This lady according to her bio is a Manitoban native and she owns a bookstore in New York:
Doe she look 100% White to you
As you can see, a random sample of Canadian “Whites” reveal mongrelization.
Manitoba is which is a prairie province in Canada, has a lot of 1st Nation-Metis types. The same goes for Saskatoon, which also has a lot of 1st nations. So does certain parts of Ontario and French Canada.
A survey of like 4 people, including myself. Lol.
What a joke. I’ve spent my entire life in Canada. I know what we look like.
“A survey of like 4 people, including myself. Lol.”
Welcome to JS world.
Yeah, mongrels. You’re a mongrel. Latin America is a mongrel land, Canada is semi-mongrel. America remains the least mixed of the new world — despite being a nation of cesspool utopianism.
And the French Canadians are even more mongrelfied than the Anglo Proles of Canada — A Latin America of the Arctic Cold, with sporadic peppering of non-White phenotype among “Whites”.
Now, just to prove my point to the White trash in the United States that America has the least contaminated – White gene pool.
Aren’t you Hispanic? How can you call others “mongrels” as a Hispanic? Ridiculous.
You fail to understand my point.
White trash in America worry about a mongrelization of their people. American Whites are the least mongrelfied of among New World “Whites”.
What an irony for a nation that constant strives for an utopian cesspool!
That’s right. Only white trash call others mongrels. You called me a mongrel so what does that make you? I’d rather be a “mongrel” than white trash.
Yuck!
JS,
i also tend to have similar observation about white australians. Maybe the ”anglo purity” among many anglo diaspora or ex-colonies is more a partial myth than a reality. I don’t believe most of white canadians and white americans are ”pure” as europeans, namely northwestern europeans. The ”pocahontas heritage” maybe is not a complete factoid.
My historical understanding of racial dynamic in USA and in Canada, by now, is
– in the begining of colonization, mixed marriages wasn’t so rare, specially with amerindians,
– Many people ”passed” for ”white”,
– En masse european immigration in the XIX century whitewashing the Anglo-Saxon colonies, considerably diluting the proportion of whites with mixed-race heritage, what happened in Brazil and in Argentina, but even more intense,
– Even i know there are obviously masculinized white men, white american men in the ”deep south” look/behave in ethnic ambiguous way. Maybe they ”culturally appropriate” the black man way of life/behave, 😉 …
– French/latinized people, those who enphasise language/culture than race/ethnicity mixed a lot with amerindians and enslaved blacks, and many of hipo-descendent (injun*) passed for white, namely in Canada but also in older french colonization areas in USA.
Supposedly ”least clannish” people today, northwestern europeans, has been during great part of their history, quite clannish and ”racist” while supposedly, the partial clannish people, like iberians, has behaved very ”liberal” with their historical en masse miscigenation in latin america, during 400 years and so on.
The ”clannish genes-theory” of Hbd Chick, seems, don’t fit with historical behavioral patterns of northwestern/central and southern europeans, probably because despise completely the social/cultural factors, trying all the time fit their inbred-outbred theory in every aspect of this subject.
Only before 60’s revolutions that northwestern europeans started to behave in ”liberal” ways.
Interestingly, the stereotype of nordics, in the old racial anthropology, has been quite different, more conservative-leaning, than liberal ones, and mediterranean as ”more-liberal” in SOME aspects of their behavior and or personality, more outgoing, ”la dolce vita”, daydreaming, dramatic/emotional, etc
Santo, you are correct in your views about liberal racist NW Euros and clannish liberal Southern Euros.
Anglo Americans in the United States are the least mixed White group in the New World. In Canada, Anglos mixed with the natives more, but the French saw them almost as their own people, so there was more mixing.
HBD chick is of NW European extraction, yet she doesn’t see what’s going on. It’s internal prejudices at play.
Also, Anglo societies, are not very cultural appropriating, just money and consumption.
I’m up in French Canada, and I’ve met some fellow Anglo Proles, and they’re always complaining about Quebec French, they are not very ambitious for money and status. Some want to go back to the United States. Stupid, these are the same people who complain America being too multicultural, not enough White people, but now discovering these French Canadians are too different in lifestyle. You cannot have it both ways. Of course, America’s wealth could not be achieved immensely without the different immigrant groups.
According to Mugabe and JS, white people are heavily persecuted in the US. I have to ask, are they living in a parallel universe? White privilege is real both at home and around the world. I never felt more “white guilt” than when I was travelling with my non-white friends. People treated me differently (better) than them for no reason. One negative thing is that white people are thought to be rich so people may try to scam you. But they’ll be polite.
“White privilege is real both at home and around the world.”
Would Obama have been elected if he were not black?
“People treated me differently (better) than them for no reason.”
Are you sure you didn’t dress differently or carry yourself differently? Maybe you presented yourself at the front of the group? Maybe you were more eager to engage? I’m betting there is more to the story.
Mugabe has sympathy for White trash and I don’t. White trash as in Anglo Proles.
Deal with Dildos must have an IQ below 105.
At least I’m not a schizo
According to Mugabe and JS, white people are heavily persecuted in the US.
amazing how you scored 171 on LSAT when you can’t read.
It’s a debating tactic honey
i know what “poisoning the well” means…but what is lying about what other people have said in the same debate called?
is it called “lying”?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining “battle” and the defeat of an “enemy” may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.
As a whole, I agree that it’s nonsense.
BUT, the issue is that so called “liberals” or “progressives” have a lot of very, very nasty vitriol against poor Whites, and as “liberals” they should not.
Whites aren’t as poor as NAMs, but Whites vastly outnumber NAMs.
There’s just no reason for that.
“Deal With It!” is an example of a so-called “progressive” who defends ‘poor, helpless Natives’, yet spits on ‘poor helpless Whites’.
Grow up. This is why Trump won.
no reason for the vitriol I mean.
Mugabe and philosopher would argue that part of the reason for the vitriol is ethnic differences- the wealthy neoliberals being Jews.
The problem lies with the inherent demographic of America. Too many White trash and inner city minorities that make America an undesirable place to live.
The correlation is mostly for the length, not for the circumference, strangely. Maybe the length is a side-effect of bigger female butts, in order to reach there.. And what is bigger butts good for? Maybe bigger butts give advantage in sprinting…
Penis Size is correlated with IQ == shorter length = higher IQ?
PP’s post on this topic has no relation to IQ whatsoever!
And east asian women tend to have shorter vaginas than african women…
This article will interest you PP.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3567477/
Though I’m pretty convinced that testosterone has nothing to do with prostate cancer. IMO vitamin D deficiency is a much more likely culprit.
PP,
EthnicMuse left me these two papers that I was looking for to look into Rushton’s claims on penis size. I’m downloading them right now. Give them a look.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/12/01/are-there-racial-differences-in-penis-size/comment-page-1/#comment-1428
OK PP, so from Out for the sperm count, which asks why testes vary among species:
Human males, as well as having low sperm reserves, also have a low rate of sperm production per gram of sperm reducing tissue. Moller found that the daily sperm production rate per gram of parenchyma varied from 12 X10 ^9 ti 25 X 10 ^9 sperm per gram. Most studies on humans have been performed on Caucasians, but there are marked differences in testes size among human races. Even controlling for age differences among samples, adult male Danes have testes that are more than twice the size of their Chinese equivalents, for example. This difference is much greater than would be expected on the basis of racial differences in body size. Various estimates suggest that individual Caucasians produce twice the number or spermatoza per day than do Chinese (185-253 X 10 ^6 compared with 84 X 10 ^6).
Despite this difference and the evidence from other primates, there is a reluctance to connect differences in human testes size with historic differences in mating patterns and their associated differences in degrees of sperm competition. Primates living in single male groups, for example, have relatively small testes of similar size, irrespective of the number of females in the group (so-called ‘monogamous’ species have testes the same size as ‘harem’ species). There is no evidence relating testes size to sperm competition among human races, perhaps because nobody has looked for it. Rough estimates of uncertainty in paternity are available for different human cultures, but it is not known whether they relate their testes size when body-weight effects are controlled for. We think it is as likely that testes size differences among human races have been adaptive in their own right — different responses to different mating behaviors — as that the differences arose as a correlated non-adaptive response for selection of ovary size and twinning rates among females. In neither case, however, has a statistically sound comparative test been performed.
Looks positive for the theory. I’m still agnostic on it, though.
Download link here:
http://libgen.io/scimag/ads.php?doi=10.1038%2F337508a0&downloadname=
Short (1979):
2. The Testes
These are contained in a pendulous scrotum which is conspicuous. Schonfeld (1943) has presented a comprehensive review of human testicular growth and development, showing that the average weight of one testis in Caucasians after the age of 18 is 14.5-16.5 g, whereas in Orientals it appears to be only 12 g. Measurement of testis size by palpation, using a graded series of models for comparison, shows that the volume starts to increase from I ml at the age of 11, to reach an asymptote of 16 ml by the age of 20, with 80% of the observations lying between 11 and 21 ml. Schultz (1938a) found that the average weight of one testis in three Negroes aged 31-41 years was 25.1 g, giving a testes:body weight ratio of 0.079%, somewhat higher than the gorilla or orang, but considerably lower than the chimpanzee. These differences in relative testis size between man and the Great Apes would seem to be in accord with the different copulatory frequencies of the four species.
Now I need to track these studies down.
Download link here.
http://libgen.io/ads.php?md5=72C9398BD5134D1044633EC0A7E6D5F9
“This means that black men will be dramatically over-represented among the thickest penises in America, and among the ten thickest in America, 100% should be black; unless some non-black man has some kind of freak mutation.”
And one does. Look up Jonah Falcon if you’re curious
“Despite Oprah’s superhuman cranial capacity, from the neck down she is still a typical black woman, and the sex drive of the African jungles still raced through her blood.”
This is the content I subscribe to your blog for
I found a porn video recently where the male “actor” had a member which appeared at least on par with Jonah Falcon’s claims. I’ll e-mail you the link if you’re curious