According to eminent scholar Richard Klein, there was a massive genetic mutation that occurred in Africa that SUDDENLY made humans MUCH smarter than they had ever been before. This mutation did not make the brain any bigger, but it did rewire it, allowing for truly symbolic thought.
According to this article:
To witness the contrast between premodern and modern ways of life, Klein says, sift through the remains from caves along the southern coast of South Africa. Simple Stone Age hunter-gatherers began camping here around 120,000 years ago and stayed on until around 60,000 years ago, when a punishing drought made the region uninhabitable. They developed a useful tool kit featuring carefully chipped knives, choppers, axes and other stone implements. Animal bones from the caves show that they hunted large mammals like eland, a horse-sized antelope. They built fires and buried their dead. These people, along with the Neanderthals then haunting the caves of Europe, were the most technologically adept beings of their time.
However, Klein says, there were just as many things they couldn’t manage, despite their modern-looking bodies and big brains. They didn’t build durable shelters. They almost never hunted dangerous but meaty prey like buffalo, preferring the more docile eland. Fishing was beyond their ken. They rarely crafted tools of bone, and they lacked cultural diversity. Perhaps most important, they left no indisputable signs of art or other symbolic thought.
Later inhabitants of the same caves, who moved in around 20,000 years ago, displayed all these talents and more.
What happened in between?
The burst of modern behavior—like other momentous happenings in our evolution—arose not in South Africa, Klein says, but in East Africa, which was wetter during the drought. Around 45,000 years ago, he believes, a group of simple people in East Africa began to behave in new ways and rapidly expanded in population and range. With better weapons, they broadened their diet to include more challenging and nutritious prey. With their new sense of aesthetic, they made the first clearly identifiable art. And they freed themselves to wander beyond the local watering hole—setting the stage for long-distance trade—with contrivances like canteens and the delicately crafted eggshell beads, which may have functioned as “hostess gifts” to cement goodwill with other clans.
Dramatic evidence of a surge in ingenuity and adaptability comes from a wave of human migration around 40,000 to 35,000 years ago. Fully modern Africans made their way into Europe, Klein says, where they encountered the Neanderthals, cave dwellers who had lived in and around Europe for more than 200,000 years. The lanky Africans, usually called Cro-Magnons once they reached Europe, were more vulnerable to cold than the husky Neanderthals. Yet they came, saw and conquered in short order, and the Neanderthals vanished forever.
Compare that with an earlier migration around 100,000 years ago, in which the Neanderthals eventually prevailed. Physically—but not yet behaviorally—modern Africans took advantage of a long warm spell to expand northward into Neanderthal territory in the Middle East, only to scuttle south again when temperatures later plunged. The critical difference between the two migrations? The earlier settlers apparently lacked the modern ability to respond to change with new survival strategies, such as fitted garments, projectile weapons and well-heated huts.
I’ve done some research and I now believe Homo Erectus had a spatial IQ of 53 and a symbolic IQ of 40, giving it a composite IQ of 41. Then about 200,000 years ago in East Africa, it mutated into anatomically modern humans and these had a spatial IQ of 75, but a symbolic IQ of still only 40, giving them a composite IQ of 53.
So when they tried to leave Africa, they were brutally killed off by Neanderthals, who in addition to being 2.5 times stronger, had a spatial IQ of 91 and a symbolic IQ of 40, giving them a composite IQ of 62
However sometime after 70,000 years ago, anatomically modern humans mutated again in East Africa into behaviorally modern humans: their spatial IQs stayed 75 but their symbolic IQs suddenly jumped to 75 too, bringing them their composite IQ to 70.
This allowed them to leave Africa without being bullied by the Neanderthals. The Neanderthals were still 2.5 times stronger, but modern humans were taller, faster, and now 8 points smarter.
Then after evolving to the cold climate of ice age Europe, symbolic IQ improved to 88 and spatial IQ also improved to 88, raising their composite IQs to 87, allowing them to brutally murder all the Neanderthals in record time, despite the huge difference in strength. The super strong Neanderthals were humiliated to be destroyed by a bunch of scrawny nerdy modern humans
After the Neanderthals were killed off, the ice age ended, and the malnutrition and disease caused brain size to shrink and composite IQ of modern Europeans to drop to 77. However with the booming population, new high IQ genes were lifting the composite IQ up to 90.
Then in the 20th century, advances in nutrition, sanitation and vaccines, allowed them to return to pre-agriculture health, and their brains returned to their original size, and with the mutations that occurred during agriculture (see the 10,000 year explosion by Cochran and Harpending), their composite IQ was now 100.
Can you give a good, short definition of “symbolic” IQ?
The cognitive ability to adapt symbols (i.e. words, numbers) to your advantage
Can you tell me what is the best symbolic IQ test in the market ?
Or is it that anytime PP learns a new world, he has an obsessive need to add IQ to it ?
IQ is just a unit of measurement. If we want to study intelligence scientifically we need numbers
But you’re right that we can’t assume this symbolic thought that made us human is related to conventional IQ
“IQ is just a unit of measurement. If we want to study intelligence scientifically we need numbers”
If you wan’t to do something that looks like science, avoid IQ estimates out of the blue. True IQ tests are already barely scientific, so don’t add more nonsense.
How do you know what science looks like? You’re just a lawyer. You didn’t even know what a correlation was until I schooled you.
I have people with actual science degrees reading this blog & you’re not one, so shut your hole & know your role
Don’t be angry, I didn’t know correlations for good reasons, I have studied that quickly in school and never had to use it anymore afterward.
“I have people with actual science degrees reading this blog”
They must have a lot of fun reading you.
adding IQ ala peepee is retarded.
the claim is that…
1. there’s a sudden change in behavior.
2. there is no corresponding increase in cranial capacity.
the rest is bathhouse stuff.
Afrosapiens and Mugabe, I wrote this review some four years ago. Tell me how much of it you agree or disagree with
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/review/0307387305/R3NHDD8F0Q4WKQ/ref=cm_cr_dp_mb_rvw_1?ie=UTF8&cursor=1
Jack Moresby,
That’s one of the 5 books I’m current reading (I’m weird, I stop and start different books in different science genres). His points on twin studies are alright but pretty funny. I got up to the chapter on sports and almost threw the book in the fireplace.
“the authors of The Bell Curve, “fundamentally misinterpreted a number of studies, becoming convinced that roughly 60 percent of each person’s intelligence comes directly from his or her genes.”
Ned Block (1995), a philosopher of science, brought up this same point about Dr. Murray.
I want to finish the book now and take a look at your review. I’ll finish it this weekend.
“Afrosapiens and Mugabe, I wrote this review some four years ago. Tell me how much of it you agree or disagree with”
You’re asking if I agree or disagree with your review on a book that I haven’t read that criticizes another book that I haven’t read. So I’ll allow myself to have an uninformed opinion. PP don’t say anything, you’re worse than me.
1. MISUNDERSTANDING HERITABILITY
Yes you’re right about how some critics misinterpreted the claim of the Bell Curve about heritability. But HBDers generally misinterpret the implications of heritability.
Firstly, race is about natural selection, if IQ differs between races because of natural selection, it should show the same patterns as other naturally selected traits. These patterns are:
-Low variation within a group
-High variation between groups
-Low heritability
Dark skin has been naturally selected in Africa, it has low variation there that is mostly due to environment (skin bleaching, differences in sun exposure, depigmentation caused by malnutrition and disease). And a small share of variance is due to genetic factors such as albinism, external admixture and local variation in skin pigmentation genes.
High heritability is expected in traits that have evolved randomly or under sexual selection. But even with a heritability of 100%, between group differences can be said to be genetic with certainty only if environmental factors are perfectly controlled, which is very difficult to do, especially for psychologists, political scientists and other -ists who know little about how the brain works.
2. OVERSTATING GENOTYPE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION
3. FUNHOUSE VERSION OF THE HISTORY OF GENETICS
Nothing to say yet, unless you tell me there are things I should disagree with to be consistent with my opinions
4. THE FALLACY OF “DELIBERATE PRACTICE”
Shenk’s a bit extreme saying ability has no tie whatsoever with genetics, that’s not true, environmental injuries also impair development in irreversible ways. But IQ has a large degree of malleability as shown in the studies about the role of motivation. We achieve things because we want to achieve and because we have the ability to achieve, ability means nothing without willingness and vice-versa.
5. UNDERESTIMATING THE POWER OF IQ
As said before, IQ is malleable to a large degree. Most of its apparent stability and innate character are due to the fact that some environmental factors irreversibly affect the brain under age 3, when 90% of brain development happens. The high correlation between IQ at age 11 and age 80 has to be expected under these circumstances. Also, the seemingly increasing heritability with age has more to do with measurement error than gene expression. It’s much more difficult to reliably estimate a child’s IQ than that of an adult, because children are children and react in different ways to this kind of tasks compared with adult.
What you say about the Flynn effect could be said about group differences too.
“6. CONFIRMATION BIAS RUN AMUCK”
Lol, this author might be an extremist but no one has lessons about bias to be told by hereditarians.
Can you explain why there was suddendly malnutrition & disease after ice age ended ?
So arctic people didn’t suffer this 10 IQ point shrink ?
Because when the ice age ended, agriculture started, which is less nutritious than hunting and gathering, and it brings people together causing disease. Arctic people suffered the same decline when their traditional way of life was ended by colonizers.
Are you implying that being raised in an hunter-gatherer society & a modern society is the same thing in terms of nutrition ?
PP doesn’t know anything about nutrition.
Are you implying that being raised in an hunter-gatherer society & a modern society is the same thing in terms of nutrition ?
More or less. Both allow us to reach our genetic potential for height, brain size, IQ etc
“More or less. Both allow us to reach our genetic potential for height, brain size, IQ etc”
Rather less than more, hunter-gatherers don’t get obese, don’t eat processed foods with potentially harmful chemicals. On the other hand, they don’t get fortified foods and rely on the nutrients that are found in their environments.
“PP doesn’t know anything about nutrition.”
Yes, and he shows it anytime he mentions nutrition.
“More or less. Both allow us to reach our genetic potential for height, brain size, IQ etc”
Rather less than more, hunter-gatherers don’t get obese,
For a lawyer your ability to make analogies is weak. Weight has far more phenotypic elasticity than height or brain size; the traits that hunter-gather life style and modern society both maximize. It’s you who knows nothing about nutrition.
“Weight has far more phenotypic elasticity than height or brain size; the traits that hunter-gather life style and modern society both maximize.”
Obesity is caused by malnutrition and diets that don’t provide the nutrients needed for brain growth, modern diet doesn’t maximize brain growth, it might increase it compared to the diet of traditional farmers but we can’t say it allows intelligence to reach its full genetic potential. The same is true with Hunter-gatherers who live to the Malthusian limit, always on the brink of famine, whose lifestyle is costly in terms of energy and nutrient consumption and who rely solely on nutrients that are available in their local environment. Arctic hunter-gatherers eat way too much meat, those from the desert don’t eat fish, most in all environment don’t drink milk which is necessary for bone health… You definitely can’t say that modern diet and hunter-gatherer diets provide the same advantages for brain growth and height.
Obesity is caused by malnutrition and diets that don’t provide the nutrients needed for brain growth, modern diet doesn’t maximize brain growth, it might increase it compared to the diet of traditional farmers but we can’t say it allows intelligence to reach its full genetic potential.
Modern diet and health conditions have allowed height and brain size to come closer to their genetic potential than in any point in time since hunter/gatherer days.
The same is true with Hunter-gatherers who live to the Malthusian limit, always on the brink of famine, whose lifestyle is costly in terms of energy and nutrient consumption and who rely solely on nutrients that are available in their local environment. Arctic hunter-gatherers eat way too much meat, those from the desert don’t eat fish, most in all environment don’t drink milk which is necessary for bone health…
Although there are exceptions, many hunter-gatherers have had TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS to evolve to the nutrients that were around them. Their bodies are specifically adapted to find their traditional way of life optimally healthy, and on top of that, they lived in small isolated communities, not facing the disease that comes with agriculture as huge masses people live in close proximity along side rodents.
PP, just speaking on first world countries, the heritability of BMI is between .75 and .82.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3355836/
At least in first world countries, BMI, a good predictor of weight, is highly heritable. Carbs, processed foods, starchy vegetables, high amounts of protein, all causes of obesity (through insulin spikes) and high weight. If you’re interested, read these.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/06/07/481094825/a-neuroscientist-tackles-why-diets-make-us-fat
https://optimisingnutrition.com/2016/04/18/the-obesity-code/
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/books/review/Bazelon.t.html
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8727466-why-we-get-fat
https://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462
http://www.npr.org/books/titles/227776091/the-story-of-the-human-body-evolution-health-and-disease
These are outstanding books and will get you started on nutrition science, obesity science and the history of dieting as well as you get to know the truth about dieting and carbohydrates. As Afrosapiens said hunter gatherers have extremely low rates of diseases. I can get you figures later, my books are at home. For instance there was this one study where Aborigines had diabetes. They were eating a Western diet. They then went back to the outback and started eating their natural diet. Their diabetes disappeared in about 3 weeks. Can’t get my hands on the study at the moment, I’ll link it later.
But yea, nutrition is very interesting. However, contrary to what the alternative hypothesis says, there are no racial differences in carbohydrate metabolism (lol), as far as I know that’s straight bullshit. They said they figured out Gary Taubes East Asian rice paradox, when it’s already been taken care of. It’s not their CHO metabolism that has them have low rates of diabetes, it’s their diet quality.
And Steve Sailer has an article about Inuits and fish oil. Stay far away from it. Hate when people talk about nutrition when they’ve no idea what they’re talking about.
“This mutation did not make the brain any bigger, but it did rewire it, allowing for truly symbolic thought.”
Oh, I thought specialists said bigger brain = better technology = newer species = better genetic intelligence, period.
This guy must be an amateur if he says: same size brain = better technology = same species = better genetic intelligence.
Can you unmoderate me even if I’m picky ?
Oh, I thought specialists said bigger brain = better technology = newer species = better genetic intelligence, period.
You clearly have no interest in truth; just misrepresenting arguments in a cynical attempt to discredit HBD
“just misrepresenting arguments in a cynical attempt to discredit HBD”
There are no arguments in science, only hypotheses that ask to be tested. Here the HBD hypothesis fails the test.
Arguments belong to ideology, not science.
Arguments belong to logic *
“Arguments belong to logic *”
True. But arguments support ideas, science is about facts that are established by testing hypotheses.
I thought I already cleared up this issue with Santo.
Realist is right about logic.
Logic = Induction, empiricism/measuring, deduction, analogising, symbolics/math.
You do not need induction all the time to know anything. If we relied on induction all the time, we wouldn’t even be generating hypothesis in the first instance.
We often just use the scientific method to increase the confidence level of knowledge, rather than discover it per se.
For more complicated contingent or ephemeral phenomena, we can never model symbolically, nor design an experiment to test it, but rely on other forms of logic.
This separates a hedge fund manager from a scientist.
Both can be mathematicians.
People need to rediscover the magic of Venn diagrams.
It’ll help you categorise things.
there goes peepee’s proof of ne asian superiority point #3.
Please stop showing so much deference to eminent scholars. It’s off-putting.
why would you not be put-off by people such as peepee?
you should take peepee’s deference as like a handsome man telling you he has AIDS.
in ireland calling someone a “drink sodden loser” is a hate crime.
I’m just a dumb girl. Can’t even get people to take me seriously on a fucking blog. Bye.
you can always hunt buffalo.
More like the buffalo can hunt me. I’d be the first one to die in the jungle. 5’2″, 112 lbs, zero spatial skills and dumb as bricks. Frivolous. Immature.
“According to eminent scholar Richard Klein, there was a massive genetic mutation that occurred in Africa that SUDDENLY made humans MUCH smarter than they had ever been before. ”
We have already been through this before pumpkin. It was probably one of your more embarrassing posts. Multiple commenters and I Pointed out the outdated assumptions klein and you have made. There have been multiple finds since his thesis that contradict such views.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7164/full/nature06204.html
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/377665
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265420627_Henshilwood_CS_Dubreuil_B_2009_Reading_the_artefacts_Gleaning_language_skills_from_the_Middle_Stone_Age_in_southern_Africa_In_eds_R_Botha_C_Knight_The_Cradle_of_Language_Oxford_Oxford_University_Press
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16018
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/324/5932/1298
“in East Africa, it mutated into anatomically modern humans and these had a spatial IQ of 75, but a symbolic IQ of still only 40, giving them a composite IQ of 53. So when they tried to leave Africa, they were brutally killed off by Neanderthals, who in addition to being 2.5 times stronger, had a spatial IQ of 91 and a symbolic IQ of 40, giving them a composite IQ of 62”
You’re underestimating the symbolic Intelligence of african hominids. Less time spent hunting, and trying to survive meant more time for artistic and social growth that allowed for cultural flourishing.
Remember pumpkin while adapting to new environments in general selects for g, certain pressures within environments will still cause a selection for it. African hominids encephalized just as much if not more than eurasian ones.
“Physically—but not yet behaviorally—modern Africans took advantage of a long warm spell to expand northward into Neanderthal territory in the Middle East, only to scuttle south again when temperatures later plunged. The critical difference between the two migrations? The earlier settlers apparently lacked the modern ability to respond to change with new survival strategies, such as fitted garments, projectile weapons and well-heated huts.”
I would like more information of how he came to such a realization? Intelligence=metal potential to adapt not ability so it doesn’t necessarily mean middle eastern hominids were less intelligent. In fact they interbred with the neanderthals when they made it there. Was there also a warm period occuring during the second migration? If not, intellectual comparisons between the groups could be meaningless. Interestingly enough maybe the toba catastrophe explains the “sudden”(not really) cultural complexity of eurasian homo sapiens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory#Genetic_bottleneck_theory
People never concede anything.
Which one me or pumpkin?….prolly both huh?
Literally no one ever concedes anything. I’ve been at this for a few years and the most I can say is I’ve had people tell me that my arguments have changed their views, ie those who read the discussion, but the person I discussed with never changed their view.
I’m open to being wrong. Do I believe everything I’ve ever written is right? Of course I do, but I highly doubt that all of the views and theories I have are based in reality. I will concede to a point if I am wrong, but only after a nice long drawn out debate overturning every stone.
For instance, due to the paper that Afro linked me the other day along with the WHR and intelligence theory, I’m beginning to rethink my views on the evolution of human intelligence as a whole. Mostly because it makes so much damn sense with men liking hour glass bodies, women storing fat in their hips, thighs and buttocks, DPA being hugely important for brain growth in the first few months of life (along with prenatal nutrition). As I’ve said 60 million times before, nutrition and caloric energy drives things. Without proper nutrition, good luck reproducing. Without proper micros and adequate kcal, good luck growing to your genetic potential, etc.
“I will concede to a point if I am wrong, but only after a nice long drawn out debate overturning every stone.”
That’s basically what I feel. I wish knew enough about that nutrition stuff to discuss it with you.
I deal with this stuff every day. When I’m not working, I’m either blogging, reading, cooking or sleeping. I mostly read articles on nutrition and the like so I can better help my clientele.
That’s why I love this theory from what I know of it so far and it makes so much damn sense. The authors wrote a book on it as well. I’m usually averse to retarded ‘specialized diets’, but for women especially, they need large amounts of fish oil when pregnant. (http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancy-health/omega-3-fish-oil/) Contrary to retarded articles by Steve Sailer saying that it’s not proven that fish oils and omega-3s and other micros don’t have the same effect on other ethnies not named the Inuit is retarded. Why people talk about nutrition without having even a modicum of understanding about it pisses me off because that’s how misinformation spreads.
You’ll see what I’m talking about in my article when I’m done.
Moreover, we Americans consume much more omega 6 fatty acids than omega 3s. Omega 6s are correlated with obesity and abdominal fat.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23249760
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26950145
Melo,
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/12/22/why-are-men-attracted-to-low-waist-to-hip-ratios/
There are also early homo sapiens sites like these below, where evidence of behavioral modernity are found:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0078092
https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=kK6ufxgAAAAJ&citation_for_view=kK6ufxgAAAAJ:u5HHmVD_uO8C
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/268/5210/553
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-katanda-harpoons.html
Visual processing and higher order visual intelligence are not the quite same thing . It is believed that Neanderthals had larger eyes (and correspondingly more of their brains devoted to sight) to see in the lower light environments of highter lattitudes. They may have also spent more time active at night (the same is true of some arctic and many nocturnal animals).
If anything, the evidence suggests that, more likely, sapiens had roughly equal-superior spatial rasoning abilities (at least in some areas)—since such should correlate (somewhat) with technological sophistication.
Many of the halmark technologies(characteristic of sapiens later and elsewhere in the world), which are rarely seen among neanderthals (though there are a few, often ambiguous, cases re: neanderthals) appear among African sapiens prior to the OOA migration or arround the same time—I linked to some of these in the comments of another post at this site (sapiens appears to be more innovative technologically overall)
Projectiles (and sometimes copmpound weapons using microliths as at Pinnacle Point, South Africa) are created by sapiens (or their immediate predecessors/ancestors) in Africa ca 270,000 bc.. at gademotta (link to the Jonatan Sahle study above), the harpoons at Semiki ca. 90,000 bc (above), or the arrows at Sibudu, S. Af. ca 70,000 bc.) The use of projectiles is more demanding in areas of visual reasoning (as well as safer/more efficient); requiring the estimation of distance, trajectory and speed, than was the neanderthal hunting method of close proximity hunting with thrusting spears.
Edit: “… had larger eyes (and correspondingly more of their brains devoted to sight, while homo sapiens had a larger pre-frontal cortex)”
Cont: : “… sapiens had a larger pre-frontal cortex, which is associated with executive functioning—and implicated in higher order reasoning generally—and not only with things social)”
“The researchers found that Neanderthals that lived 25-75K years ago had a much higher proportion of their brains dedicated to visual processing, even when compared with anatomically modern humans living during the same time period. This specialization of their brains, the scientists propose, mean that less neural tissue was left over for higher-order reasoning, problem-solving and creating elaborate social networks.”
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-03/eyes-have-it
“In addition, previous suggestions that large Neanderthal brains were associated with their high lean body mass imply that Neanderthal also invested more neural tissue in somatic areas involved in body maintenance and control compared with those of contemporary AMHs.”
http://www.tested.com/science/life/454072-why-bigger-neanderthal-brains-didnt-make-them-smarter-humans/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefrontal_cortex
Edit: “The use (and making/designing) of projectiles is more demanding in areas of visual/spatial…”
“It is believed that Neanderthals had larger eyes (and correspondingly more of their brains devoted to sight) to see in the lower light environments of highter lattitudes.”
This link still exists today. It has been argued that it debunks the “Cold Climate” hypothesis of intelligence; the extra brain size in cold climate people is just used for sight in the lower light environments.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-brain-size-doesnt-correlate-with-intelligence-180947627/
People are so threatened by the brain size-intelligence correlation that they’ll desperately grasp at any straw to debunk it.
Well PP can you blame them?
It’s EGIs for basically every race except ‘Yellow Asians’ and Whites/SW Asians/Jews.
Even for many of people in those groups the threat of Breakdown in order caused by widespread policy acting on this behalf is a self-interested move.
From Arthur Jensen:
“The brain size difference itself is certainly significant, but it is not highly
correlated with IQ the correlation is about 0.4. There are any number of tests
where selection is not based on sex. The British Intelligence Scale is one of these,
and shows no sex differences whatsoever. The most interesting thing to me is that if
you put sex into a factor analytic battery, and put it into the correlation matrix as a
dichotomous variable, it doesn’t show any loading on g, even though it has
loadings on just about every other factor. This is true for a fairly large battery of
different tests. I doubt that brain size itself is either a necessary or su⁄cient
condition for high intelligence. A former student of mine has been studying true
midgets, who are about the size of three-year-old children, with correspondingly
small heads, and they have a normal distribution of intelligence, and they are just as
intelligent as their non-midget siblings (Kranzler et al 1998). I can’t get excited
about the idea of sex differences in g.”
http://download.bioon.com.cn/view/upload/201307/31134632_2716.pdf#page=269
Cont/@ Barrack Thatcher:
Apparently in porportion to body/eye size (neanderthals had larger bodies) neanderthal brains were smaller:
fter correcting for these differences, the research team found that the amount of brain volume left over for other tasks—in other words, the mental capacity not devoted to seeing the world or moving the body—was significantly smaller for Neanderthals than for ancient H. sapiens. Although the average raw brain volumes of the two groups studied were practically identical (1473.84 cubic centimeters for humans versus 1473.46 for Neanderthals), the average “corrected” Neanderthal brain volume was just 1133.98 cubic centimeters, compared to 1332.41 for the humans.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/science-shows-why-youre-smarter-than-a-neanderthal-1885827/#RjFcOXKZ5uCQgY51.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1758/20130168
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/science-shows-why-youre-smarter-than-a-neanderthal-1885827/
Apparently in porportion to body/eye size (neanderthals had larger bodies) neanderthal brains were smaller
No need to confuse the issue by discussing eye size. The simple correction for body size seems to be enough to give Neanderthals smaller brains.
the average “corrected” Neanderthal brain volume was just 1133.98 cubic centimeters, compared to 1332.41 for the humans.
That’s a pretty huge difference. The SD for cranial capacity in humans is 91 cc. Not sure if these adjustments change that, but if not, that’s a difference of 2.18 SD. Assuming a brain-size IQ correlation of 0.33, differences in brain size alone would explain 0.33(2.18) = 0.72 SD (11 IQ points) of the modern human vs Neanderthal IQ gap, with the remaining difference perhaps being explained by the brain mutation which Klein proposed (and was supposedly independent of brain size).
Not sure how that “smithsonian donation” link got in there.
Afrosapiens,
“A former student of mine has been studying true midgets, who are about the size of three-year-old children, with correspondingly small heads, and they have a normal distribution of intelligence, and they are just as intelligent as their non-midget siblings (Kranzler et al 1998).”
Interesting.
“People are so threatened by the brain size-intelligence correlation that they’ll desperately grasp at any straw to debunk it.”
PP, my friend, that’s not a refutation and you know it.
“The use of projectiles is more demanding in areas of visual reasoning (as well as safer/more efficient); requiring the estimation of distance, trajectory and speed, than was the neanderthal hunting method of close proximity hunting with thrusting spears.”
That’s not evidence of homo sapiens having higher spatial abilities. I believe neanderthals lacked rotation in their arms, which made the invention of projectile weapons pointless.
Neanderthals, my second favorite hominids, they disprove cold climate theory and re-assert pumpkin and I’s definition of intelligence.
Neanderthals, my second favorite hominids, they disprove cold climate theory and re-assert pumpkin and I’s definition of intelligence.
Cold climate + big population = high IQ
Neanderthals had the former, but modern humans in Africa had the latter
“That’s not evidence of homo sapiens having higher spatial abilities. I believe neanderthals lacked rotation in their arms, which made the invention of projectile weapons pointless.”
Designing and making such weapons (rather than simply close range points) generally would suggest higher spatial abilities, all else being equal, the cognitive process generally being more complex (in certain respects at least), and the considering the significant benefits of hunting being able to (esp. certain types of) game at a distance.
If Nenderthals did not do this because they were anatomically incapable of effective throwing (which I think may be disputed, but I am unsure), it could be as you suggest. But on the other hand, this physical ability in sapiens may have allowed/coevolved with (or at least helped to encourage/contribute to) the growth of mental abilities associated with creating, designing and using those kinds of objects(and related areas), (leading to an enhancement in sapiens of certain mental abilities), which would had never occurred, (or occurred less), in neanderthals.
@RaceRealist
There is also a disease which is called microcephaly and gives people very small heads but their intelligence isn’t affected. I also need to find this study that says women prefer men with small heads.
More nonsense from Afrosapiens. Microcephalics tend to have IQs WAY below average:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=gnjMX_jtvYoC&pg=PA322&lpg=PA322&dq=microcephaly+iq&source=bl&ots=FMrkjZoxCT&sig=eATC_cJ186KYsDRjQVZWH9g12g8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5woX6iorRAhVq0oMKHYZcAO04ChDoAQg2MAQ#v=onepage&q=microcephaly%20iq&f=false
I also need to find this study that says women prefer men with small heads.
Lucky you!
Edit: “…which would have never occurred/did not occur, (or occurred less), in neanderthals.”
“Cold climate + big population = high IQ
Neanderthals had the former, but modern humans in Africa had the latter”
refer to my recent comment in your “Apocalypse Neanderthal” post
It’s a simplification that easy reasoning dictates false. It’s more likely differing selection pressures are the cause.
Multiple commenters and I Pointed out the outdated assumptions klein and you have made. There have been multiple finds since his thesis that contradict such views.
Klein’s argument has been weakened as gaps in the fossil record have been filled in, but his basic observation still holds. Anatomical modernity predates behavioral modernity by over 100,000 years, as one of your own links concedes (though this link was edited by Klein):
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16018
The main debate has always been whether behavioral modernity was caused by a genetic change, or just the natural progression of culture. Even before the recent discoveries, Klein was in the minority in advocating the former.
You’re underestimating the symbolic Intelligence of african hominids. Less time spent hunting, and trying to survive meant more time for artistic and social growth that allowed for cultural flourishing.
So H. erectus was too busy hunting to make a single recognizable drawing in 1.8 million years? Neanderthals couldn’t find time to draw a single coherent thing in 200,000 years? And yet in the last 70,000 years, modern humans have found time to create trillions of art work. This might suggest a huge jump in symbolic ability.
There is evidence of fairly complex synthesized paints (made with heat) by sapiens ca 100,000 bc., and the creation of paintings seems likely. Simpler ground pigments come earlier among (possibly) more primitive sapiens, and in a few rare neanderthal and heidelbergensis sites. Africa has been relatively unexcaveted relative to Europe and other sites my appear in the future, but admittedly the evidence may not be as definitive yet as it could be.
But indeed erectus was quite primitive and there is no evidence of art from them or the capacity for it (the same being varyingly true of other early pre-sapiens hominins).
https://www.world-archaeology.com/more/blombos-cave-100000-year-old-paint-in-a-shell.htm
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/14/141313283/in-african-cave-an-early-human-paint-shop
The precise heating of silicrete ca. possibly 164-70,000 bc to increase flakeability (hafted to make tools, sometimes microliths toward the end of the time range) is evident at Pinnacle Point S. A..
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5942/859
http://phys.org/news/2009-08-early-modern-humans-tools-stone.html
Homo Sapiens is likely to have originated from (or been affected at an early period, possibly crucial to its formation: various times between 200-70,000 bc) by semi-arid and at times extremely dry climates (when Africa was even—much— drier than it is today—and many parts are today seasonally quite dry; ice ages in near-polar/temperate areas tended to correspond to droughts nearer the equator). Homo sapiens remains/evidence is oldest in eastern and southern Africa (oldest East Africa ca. 200,000 bc).
The traits that allowed sapiens to survive in these difficult climates (and that were developed there) likely were (at least) a contributor to the species’ intelligence and success in colder (and other diffucult) ones later on.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/drought-followed-by-brain-how-climate-change-spurred-evolution-of-human-intelligence-8884863.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008171121.htm
Edit: “—and many parts are today seasonally quite dry, including much of West Africa i.e the large savanna and savanna/forest border zones;”
I think the genetic change idea was actually more popular back in the day, before new archaeological evidence emerged.
Actually yes homoerectus was too busy, but also less intelligent. Its a slightly fallacious comparison to african homo sapiens
If im not mistaken homo erectus is when we started to become the powerful hunters we are today. Endurance running and persistance hunting became fashion and our diet had become more carnivorous. But we had not yet reached the level of intelligence where our hunting became efficient enough for liesure time leftover,. We were still like animals around us; absorbed within our struggle with nature.
An interesting idea is the bicameral mind, you should look into it.
Also, pumpkin neanderthals didn’t have much time for invention either, archaeological records show they suffered from broken bones and other wounds quite often meaning they lived a very rough life.
It was probably due to their “up close and personal” hunting style.
Also, pumpkin neanderthals didn’t have much time for invention either, archaeological records show they suffered from broken bones and other wounds quite often meaning they lived a very rough life.
No time to draw a single picture in 200,000 years? Not plausible. They probably lacked the symbolic ability to understand the concept of representations.
Again pumpkin, intelligence is potential not performance or ability.
“They probably lacked the symbolic ability to understand the concept of representations.”
Impossible, they had language, and some even speculate musical instruments and boats. There are infact cave drawings made by neanderthals but they aren’t anywhere near as complex as homo sapien’s.
I wonder for what purpose they built these underground structures.
http://www.livescience.com/54906-neanderthals-built-bizarre-underground-ring-structures.html
Also in relation to your “N+Cold= IQ” hypothesis
“Their lower population density may have also increased Neanderthal susceptibility to mutations caused by inbreeding”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Behavior
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140421-neanderthal-dna-genes-human-ancestry-science/
“”The conclusions regarding skeletal change being greater along the Neanderthal lineage than the modern human one appear to be at odds with the usual view of Homo sapiens,” said human origins expert Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London. Compared to the robust-looking earlier human species that preceded Neanderthals, humans appear more changed by evolution, with lighter skulls and thinner bones.
Pääbo cautioned, however, against equating genetic change with evolutionary sophistication. “Clearly, Neandertals were not ‘less evolved’ than modern humans,” he said. “They had their own history and evolution. They took another path, if you like.””
“There are infact cave drawings made by neanderthals but they aren’t anywhere near as complex as homo sapien’s.”
I don’t believe there are any confirmed drawing by neaderthals. I believe there were some that some speculate could be by them because they are (sometimes uncertainly) dated from arround when the earliest time sapiens would have begun began to enter the area (and their particular presence at the site’s vicinity is uncertain) and identity of the site’s occupants was unknown.
Some other neanderthal evidence is also ambiguous. The bone tools and shell beads of the Ulluzzian culture in Italy are now attributed to sapiens, and the Chatelperonian culture may have been sapiens influenced (though that is still pretty unsure).
I wasn’t taking about el castillo. I should have been more specific it’s more like carvings, and they’re very primitive.
http://www.livescience.com/47640-abstract-neanderthal-cave-engraving-discovered.html
Pumpkin is right about brain size, but I read a magazine this morning that said the the optimised blood flow to the brain increase > the size of the brain matters in evolutionary terms.
Thats why NAC is an excellent nootropic if you guys have never been on it.
That’s always why my paranoia spikes on NAC and I’m a more relaxed guy of it.
Realist, you should look into nootropics when looking at nutrition.
“Realist, you should look into nootropics when looking at nutrition.”
I’ve not looked into it. But it seems like a ‘Try this one weird trick to…..!!!!” ad.
PP should look into WHR and intelligence. Women with a lower WHR are more intelligent and have more intelligent children. This theory is solid, in my opinion, due to the DHA/omega 3 role.
I think most mooted nootropics work, at least I notice a difference.
Some have side effects.
Caffeine is one most people are familiar of. They explicitly drink it for a nootropic purpose.
Apparently ECA stacks (ephedra, caffeine and aspirin) are useful for cognitive benefits but they subside in a week or so.
I have some bronkaid (for the ephedra), baby aspirin and caffeine for my ECA stack for my next cut. Can’t wait.
herro,
http://phys.org/news/2016-08-smarter-brains-blood-thirsty.html
Yes that was the study they quoted.
PP said Jews had smaller brains than White gentiles. Just confirming, because swindlers needn’t to be smart, but cunning. In this case, Jews are less evolved as a people, because they act in ways that make others get piss at them.
Why is it that these excellent countries have no toleration for them, despite being anti-semitic?
Spain, Japan, and let’s throw in France.
I’m not exactly going to be an ambassador to Israel anytime soon or getting a Zion Rulz tat on my ass but:
I’m supposed to buy this shit? 2000 years, he can’t find one broad to fit the bill? Come on, Dave, you must be doing something *seriously* wrong!…the denial of Jewish intellectual edge by you over and over again is just la la land stuff.
I don’t disagree about their cunning.
The American Jewish bourgeois were once a laughing stock to French Psychoanalyst, Jacques Lacan. So he’s right, and many people are right, Jews don’t control the world, they control the dumbest nation in the 1st world.
Noah the Ark Chomsky called Lacan a charlatan, well, there are more charlatans who are Jews, but none of the charismatic type. Only imbeciles we call the American prole audience could only digest their dry humor.
Another Jew that Jacques Lacan ridicule who was his “actual” friend:
Roman Polanski — speaking of Lalala Jewish film factory. Lacan would always huff and puff at him, because he was just another Jewish swine who loves money over artistic creativity. No surprise to you that he left his French citizenry so he could become an Anglo Prole in Hollywood.
I’m a fan of phenylpiracetam.
Can I be released from censorship prison?
No.
You will pay for your crimes.
what about people who look like they have larger brains? pinker tries and fails to pass as a poodle.
just kidding…the poodle’s brain morphology differs from that of other dogs.
must be why they’re all sex maniacs who like to eat shit…french! you thought frogs’ legs and snails were odd.
Allons enfants de la Patrie
Le jour de gloire est arrivé!
which reminds me.
the entire french national team was composed of immigrants or the children of immigrants.
except for that retarded looking guy, ribery…
and he’s…
married TO A MUSLIM!
Haha Ribery looks like that because he was in a car crash when he was younger.
2016
I’d say half and half.
2006
Its depends on the type of football the manager wants to play.
Since Domenech was an absurdo political ham sandwich put in there to negate player power, he didn’t have the brains to do anything more than double DM crash bang wallop stuff.
This is not the Euro 2016 squad
and the french team had lots of issues in South Africa.
what issues? injuries maybe?
no!
the issues were RACE!
It had no issues in Brazil and at the Euro, the team was almost entirely black too.
France controlled large swathes of land under the former Ottoman Empire. There is a reason why many Muslims are in Gallic land. There is a reason why the “Hispanics” of French Canada come from North Africa instead of Latin America.
“France controlled large swathes of land under the former Ottoman Empire.”
Nope, only Algeria as a colony, Tunisia as a protectorate and then Lebanon and Syria as mandates after WWI.
And as if this is not colonization. Also, I forgot Morocco, which was not under Ottoman rule.
It’s colonization but it has little to do with the Ottoman Empire, these places were Muslim and Arab before coming under Turkish domination.
I know I know I know — you don’t have to tell me, but they were former Ottoman domains, do you not understand?
They were, but France didn’t colonize large parts of the Ottoman Empire which was centered on Turkey, the Middle East and Egypt. French Muslims come from the Maghreb and West Africa.
The Ottoman Empire included all of North Africa, with the exception of Morocco. Moroccans differ from Algerians and Tunisians, not by much.
And this protectorate thing — why not just call it a commonwealth or exhortation?
So why do Levantines speak or learn French, instead of Spanish?
“The Ottoman Empire included all of North Africa, with the exception of Morocco. Moroccans differ from Algerians and Tunisians, not by much.”
That’s far from being a large part of the Ottoman Empire, actually, Tunis and Algiers were autonomous tributary entities of the Ottoman empire. In practice, the French found loosely organized tribal societies there and very few Turks.
“And this protectorate thing — why not just call it a commonwealth or exhortation?”
Protectorates and mandates differed legally and administratively from colonies. Local rulers had more power, French authorities didn’t have total control like in colonies. Political influence leads to cultural influence, but in the Levant, except for Lebanese Christians, there has been very little French cultural penetration. Syrian refugees are rushing to Turkey, Lebanon, Germany, Austria and Sweden, not France.
Syrians are not going to France, because of its bureaucracy. It is less efficient in accepting them and there are more prohibitions on asylum seekers than let say Germany. Furthermore, Syria is further away from France so this adds another layer of inconvenience for Syrians to migrate there. Aside from the French influence, there are more Muslims from North Africa simply because of proximity.
I understand your point about the Ottomans.
I’ve perused books written for a Muslim audience that are published in Lebanon with introductions/prefaces in French, so you are wrong about the Christian vs Islam dichotomy when it comes to the language.
Only 32% of Lebanese speak French, 1,9 million out of 6 million. Syria was not even included in the stats of La Francophonie, but the Syrians we have here don’t speak French. French influence is much stronger in North Africa and distance doesn’t mean a lot, there are refugees from the Congo here and other French speaking African countries and they prefer France to other European countries. And the book you’re mentioning is by no means a sign of high penetration of French culture among Muslims in the Levant.
Click to access pays-plus-1-million-locuteurs.pdf
I never said French Culture, but the French language. And yes, there are Africans from faraway who were under the rule of the French, (who by the way never developed any bourgeois mannerisms in their native land) and they are now in France. And yes, distance has nothing to do with it. Now distance has a lot do with North Africans ending up in France, who were subjugated by the French. And according to some stat, only 30% of Morocco’s population speak French.
“who by the way never developed any bourgeois mannerisms in their native land”
Can’t be more wrong, the Francophone African elite (I know them pretty well) are stereotipically bourgeois in their manners, trying to be more French than the French, with ridiculously sophisticated and anachronistic language.
“And according to some stat, only 30% of Morocco’s population speak French.”
Morocco was a protectorate, it’s much less developed than Lebanon with comparatively weaker school infrastructure. And Morocco is 98%+ Muslim.
What are you trying to argue? That France has no cultural and linguistic influence on much of the Arabic Speaking world. Syrian refugees don’t end up in France, because of its inefficiency in accepting asylum seekers. Whether they speak French or not has nothing do with their decision.
Language has a lot to do with where people chose to live. France has a lot of influence on its former dependencies in North Africa, much less in the Levant, and very little in Egypt, Arabia, Iraq, Sudan, Libya and Jordan.
So why are many Lebanese in Latin America? They are over-represented as an elite group down there. And this goes back to my comment regarding an ethnic group’s versatility among higher functioning groups, and the lack of it when it comes to Jews who are seen as parasitic. And most Jews live in America, outside of Israel with a narrow niche of occupations and talents.
There are 14 million Lebanese outside of Lebanon and there are 20 million Jews in the world.
“So why are many Lebanese in Latin America?”
The Lebanese fled Ottoman persecution of Christians as well as military draft long before the French got a mandate on greater Syria. Those who fled were wealthy traders or more humble peddlers so they quickly rose above the peasant masses. But most of the Syrians and Lebanese that have come to Europe or Australia recently are from lower classes and are not doing that well, especially in Australia.
And back to my previous comment and earlier comments – Jews are prole as a group because they are very common in America. Only proles live in America.
“Only proles live in America.”
Including you.
This paper has found that wealth inequality in America has remain constant since the early 20th century. Furthermore, those generating wealth found less time for leisure, because they are busy striving for money. Most important, most people made their fortunes instead of inherited them. So Americans are prole in this regard.
https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/five-myths-about-economic-inequality-america
Whether all of this is true, one thing is for sure: Americans aren’t like the Spaniards who take it easy, because they want to consume frivolously and they need to work for it. Prole!
yeah. where’d js get that idea?
but napolean did have an egypt campaign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_campaign_in_Egypt_and_Syria
Yes, one of the most pointless and humiliating French military enterprise ever. If I remember well, the French revolutionary government wanted to occupy Napoléon in far away countries instead of having him trying to seize power at home, ridiculous failure too.
and why did france lose in 2006?
they were clearly the better team…sorry RR…italians can’t win every time.
because materazzi apparently said something “insensitive” to zidane.
head butt, terrorist attack…
it’s all part of the same phenomenon…the same social phenomenon…
in france!
“I’ve done some research and I now believe Homo Erectus had a spatial IQ of 53 and a symbolic IQ of 40, giving it a composite IQ of 41. Then about 200,000 years ago in East Africa, it mutated into anatomically modern humans and these had a spatial IQ of 75, but a symbolic IQ of still only 40, giving them a composite IQ of 53.”
It must have been very quick research because Homo Sapiens evolved from Homo Heidelbergensis, not Homo Erectus.
Many researchers suggest that Homo heidelbergensis is a mere variant of Homo erectus
No, they see it as an independent species that shares features with homo Erectus and later hominids.
Some see it as an independent species. Others see it as a race of H erectus.
Be honest, you didn’t think of homo heidelbergensis when you wrote that humans evolved from homo erectus 200k years ago.
I ignored them because not everyone agrees they’re a species and because i don’t have an estimate for their IQ
Trust me i know all about Heidelbergensis; melo and i have argued about them in the past
And you have a scientific estimate for homo erectus ?! ROFL
And you have a scientific estimate for homo erectus ?! ROFL
Let’s just say I have an educated guess. cognitive archeology is never going to be anything like a hard science.
“cognitive archeology is never going to be anything like a hard science.”
Astrology neither.
“cognitive archeology is never going to be anything like a hard science.”
Astrology neither.
Cognitive archeology is a soft science. Astrology is a pseudoscience.
Heidelbergensis (or the hominins so assigned) would have been quite a bit smarter than erectus I think. There is evidence of Heidelbergensis having the capacity for language (in some form anyway) and using hafted (thrusting) spears (e.g. kathu pan site)—which erectus does not, relying, as far as we know, more on the handaxe as a subsistence tool. Heidelbergensis individuals also have a significantly larger brain size than erectus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis#The_muddle_in_the_middle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis#Evidence_of_hunting
Lion thinks the construction sector is prole, yes, at the street level, the cement mixer is a prole, and then tells me that Jews don’t go into construction.
The wealthiest tycoons in construction are not Jews, with the exception of a Rusky, who builds gas pipes, not buildings:
http://www.worldsrichpeople.com/richest-construction-tycoons.html
Some of them have an engineering background. Jews can’t hack it in real world engineering.
So? They are the richest, smartest,and most powerful ethnic group in entire human history. So not being found in real world engineering isnt a big deal for them. maybe their low visio-spatial intelligence prevented them in succeeding in architecture and hard engineering (civil, mechanical i presume?).
On a different note, although i am not an architect i was good at building block games (the kind of intelligence that would make one a good architect i suppose). But i used to suck at assembling my kid brothers bicycles from spare parts. So i wondered just a few minutes back when i wrote the first paragraph on this post 🙂 that if both these skill sets fall under the same visuo-spatial category of IQ tests?, why did i do well in one and suck at the other? If i am good at one should i be good at the other one too? Similarly, I am very good at some verbal intel skills but suck at other verbal intel skills very badly. I always felt my skills did not fit neatly into the categories of IQ tests, they used to overlap with other categories or they used be good at half of the full category. Another ex: I am good at logical intelligence but bad at mathematics. But IQ tests have a mathematical/logical category.
So if there are others like me who have skills that dont fall neatly into one or the other category maybe the tests can change how they cateogorise intelligences.My idea for it is:
Maybe the logic component should be included not just with the mathematics category but also with the verbal and visual-spatial category or seperately with visual and spatial. So it would be” Spatial-logic category (architects and civil engineering types): Visual-logic category (mechanical engineers)
Verbal skills section should be divided into- verballogic skills, non-verbal logic skills. And a new category: Exceutive verbal skills. And if there is an executive verbal skill category, it makes sense to have a non-verbal executive category too.
Along with the existing mathematicall-logical skills category of course.
What do you people think?
You must be delusional to think that Jews are the greatest ethnic group to grace the planet.
The Jews might be chosen to be God’s followers, but the Greeks invented their own gods and used rationalism to disproved religion as the greatest farce of mankind — this itself is the greatest achievement that man has demonstrated, logic is what made the West superior over others. The Jews are just peddlers of this superiority.
JS,
Everybody had their own gods in antiquity. And any high IQ person can disprove religion (now disproving god…..thats the hard part!).
Greeks have had tremendous achievements to their name like philosophy, mathematics etc. But compared to todays jews (look at the nobel prizes) its still less. I would rate them the second greatest. Also all those achievements of the greeks happened over a span of a thousand years. While the achievements of jews happened over a hundred years. Also remember not just inventions and discoveries, jews also excel at finance (which greeks never did) excel at power (they control the world now) but greeks never controlled the known world at that time. Excel at sports (there are more jewish sport superstars than greek superstars today) media, politics etc etc
Sorry for that bipolar episode. I’m handling it. Just seasonal blues.
yet still not first nations comedians.
Yet still a white trash mullet-sporting prole
Aww. Bathing suits for grannies!
Yet still no pleasure, only paint. Lead paint.
i found this picture of deal.
http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2014e8aa7fa89970d-800wi
deal is fat injun who will only wear a thong.
there should be a law.
Mugabe,
I’ll respond to all your points on the other thread btw.
It would seem like Symbolic IQ is a precursor to verbal IQ; it’s about communication. Perhaps this was before spoken language?
perhaps you aren’t mexican…perhaps.
are you drunk again?
what do you mean “again”?
f—ing mexican.
http://images.memes.com/meme/680709
Unlike others on here I will not have a level 9 freak-out when someone incorrectly guesses my race.
who are the “others”?
Lena Dunham is gross. The Philosopher thinks I’m a radical SJW but I hate Lena Dunham. She’s just an attention seeker.
I think when Flabbers McFuckface says things like that, mothers around the country go:
(((Lena Dunham)))
The Philosopher- what do you make of Trump’s pick for the US Ambassador to Israel? David Friedman is an extreme right wing zionist. Doesn’t seem like your kind of guy.
He put Tillerson at state so he had to pick a neocon ambassador as a show of strength for Zion. It’s a nothing role so I’m fine with it.
(((They))) really wanted Romney or Bolton. It would be like Hilary going rogue under Obama all over again.
The (((CIA))) is very scared relations with Russia will be friendly as a white nationalist project, even symbolically, scares the heepers jeepers out of Zion.
They study history obsessively. No.1 on the list of Zion’s bullies who shoved their heads into lockers – Slavs.
Actually the interesting thing is that Jews enjoyed more power in Russia than in any other gentile country during the lifetime (but especially the early period) of the Soviet Union.
Putin is anti-Jewish simply on account of his anti-Soviet/capitalist streak. He’s been destroying the soviet elements that remained.
If you apply the social/economic liberal dichotomy to Jews, you find that the Bolshevik Jews were remarkably consistent. Jews are socially liberal in most gentile countries because they make up a historically vulnerable/prejudiced minority. The communist Jews took their liberalism and applied it to the economy.
In the West, something odd has happened recently. Have you caught it? A nexus has emerged between the ardent capitalists and the SJW/empaths. I call it the empathy project. Its stated goal is to expand the circle of empathy. The corporate types figured out that expanding the circle of empathy leads to expanded profits. One reason is that the ex-marginalized enter mainstream society which in America revolves around consumerism. The ex-marginalized have taken on the capitalist values of their ex-oppressors, to wit society at large.
Did you copy and paste that?
No. I just wrote it.
I remember many years ago on a consulting project for IBM we had a chinese girl on the team and when I read her piece I took her aside and asked:
Did you copy and paste that?
She did. Plagiarism.
Is the LSAT monitored or a take home test/project work thing?
Putin ain’t anti-Jewish.
“When he was a young child, he grew up in a very poor family. His parents were always out at work. He was fortunate that the next door neighbor was a Hasidic Jewish family, and they always made sure to invite him over,” Lazar explained. “They were extremely kind to him, and he realized that not only were they kind to a child that wasn’t theirs, not only were they kind to a child that wasn’t Jewish, but they were kind to a child in a time and place when it was dangerous to do that.”
https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/55179/how-russian-jews-helped-shape-life-worlds-most-powerful-leaders-jewish-world/#44WCp61eIqA1sTZP.97
He might be a Jew himself.
https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/73833/lebanese-report-putin-close-israel-jewish/#6VJJCp3jmrfErpL7.97
He called on European Jewry to take refuge in Russia.
http://m.jpost.com/Diaspora/Putin-calls-on-European-Jews-to-take-refuge-in-Russia-442175
I remember many years ago on a consulting project for IBM we had a chinese girl on the team and when I read her piece I took her aside and asked:
Did you copy and paste that?
She did. Plagiarism.
Is the LSAT monitored or a take home test/project work thing?
Are you serious?
1. I got 180 on several practice LSAT tests
2. got a perfect score on GRE Verbal
3. got into one of the top law schools
4. am in the top 15-20% of my class
You think I’m that dumb? I don’t feel smart and people perceive me as dumb but I’m not THAT dumb. Come on dude.
Putin is pretty similar to Stalin in temperament and calculation. But he’s a psychopath, not a para schiz. He doesn’t have those sullen eyes that are indicative of the latter condition.
Listen to him joke and talk glibly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBTBBNOtbhM
Putin is not a big fan of Jews. He can’t say it. But its obvious to me. You have to understand the history.
Once the ((((Americans)))) went in and privatised all the russian assets to Jews in the 90s under Yeltsin, Putin bided his time and played friendly with the (((Oligarchs))).
Then when (((Khodorkovsky))) plotted a coup, he seized control and exiled him and his circle, and removed all Jewish media influence in Russia.
Ever wondered why Abramovich and many other (((Russian))) billionaires like Khodorkovsky are in Rothschild’s Britain? Why he stepped in to stop Zion’s advance to Persia? Why neocons hate him so much? Why the Russian ambassador was killed to start war with Turkey?
Our Slavic brothers have struggled with Zion more than we have. Notice how Stalin was assassinated when he started talking about Final Solutions for Jews and the original ((((Bolsheviks)))) were all Jewish. Or the Mensheviks, Stalin himself exiled.
Putin and Stalin are remarkable echoes of Russian historical patterns. And before then, Tsar Alexander and his Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
As our colleague, Robert Mugabe is fond of saying, its a either a conspiracy or a pattern – and both aren’t good news.
Now as Dildos has shown, if you think Jews are pissed off at Germanic nice guy whites for cucking and rolling over, imagine the gamma rage at the slavs how treated them like dirt and beat the shit out of them whenever they moved up in the world.
The Bolsheviks killed more white people than Hitler killed jews.
But its an open debate whether they meant it racially, or whether it was an ideological fervour thing similar to Pol Pot in Cambodia.
We have to be restrained on some of this conspiracy speculation stuff.
take a picture of your score report and post it to tinypic.com. also tell us why you sat the GRE and what your ug major was.
We have to be restrained on some of this conspiracy speculation stuff.
such wisdom from philosophe.
Deal with it plz have my baby 👶🙏
Philosophy is largely useless.
Who do you think would be the last on their list?
Deal, the people that Trump is putting in his cabinet are exactly the type of people he said he would “drain out of the swamp” in DC.
Business as usual. I’ve been saying this for a while now. I wish I was wrong, but it seems like I’m right.
He’s playing 3D chess. Be patient. Its a very tough game most of don’t have the ability to play, myself included. I understand his moves though. And I can see his intent. He has to mask it.
Trump is probably the most underrated social genius of modern times.
Scott Adams says he’s the best 3D chess player in the world. I am in awe of that type of intelligence as I don’t have any of it myself.
if trump turns out to be just another GOP douche, what explains it?
the GOP hated him. hillary was the establishment candidate. he led hillary in small donations. who’s corrupted him? or was he corrupt all along?
“if trump turns out to be just another GOP douche, what explains it?”
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/11/08/donald-trump-and-ethnic-genetic-interests/
His new familial ties to Israel and the Jews as well as comments he’s made.
This too:
Kushner, the husband of Trump’s daughter Ivanka, was frequently by his father-in-law’s side throughout the campaign. He advised Trump on a host of issues, including his selection of a running mate, which led The New York Times to describe him as Trump’s “de facto campaign manager.”
Kushner also spearheaded the campaign’s data operation and helped craft some policy speeches, including Trump’s address at this year’s AIPAC Policy Conference, and was often the last person Trump spoke to before making any major decisions
http://www.timesofisrael.com/trumps-jewish-son-in-law-could-land-a-top-white-house-position/
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/11/20/trump-is-headed-to-white-house-did-just-elect-our-first-jewish-president.html
He only cares about America as long as we are….errr as long as Israel is “our greatest ally” (Trump’s words). Trump is for the Jews, his new family, not for America or the American people.
Ayaiyaiyai Senor Ding Dong!!
I’m going LOCO.
http://pagesix.com/2016/12/22/beach-boys-could-perform-at-trumps-inauguration/
The Beach Boys are going to play the Trump inauguration!!!!!!!
UNBELIEVABLE DAVE
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I GET AROUUUNDD…….<RRROU< RORU RoUND
Now if they bring back Chris Montez I’m quitting my job and flying to America.
You know just when you think things couldn’t be more vile, you remember there’s a lot of good in the world out there waiting to make a comeback.
Bernabeu faithful show a rare bit of class by giving 40 year old Roma legend Totti standing ovation
Still the greatest thing this year in football.
I’m just thinking out loud.
White nationalist types will give the example of Japan but they never explain what accounts for Japan’s success. It isn’t OBVIOUS that racially homogenous societies should be better off. Mugabe addressed it briefly:
the end to politics comes when the govern-ors and the govern-ed agree without coercion or propaganda.
and because people are different such a final conclusion to politics is most likely to come about in fairly small homogeneous countries.
Let’s create a model. Take 0 as the starting point of the governed (g) and an arbitrary + 3 for the Governors (G). These positions correspond to their respective economic status. Safe to assume that G are richer than g.
To get G and g to agree without coercion or propaganda, 1) g has to move, 2) G has to move, or 3) both have to move… This isn’t because of some nebulous force; one’s economic interests are specific to and flow from one’s station in life. Basic self-interest.
In a homogenous nation state, G and g are closer together to begin with. In contrast, multicultural countries like Brazil demonstrate a greater gap between the governed and the governors. But why? Because of the fear of invasion. I don’t fully believe in the Hobbesian idea that man’s state of nature is state of war. However, it is undoubtedly true that 1) valuable resources are scarce, 2) man likes competition, and 3) man fears invasion of his property.
Factors 1 and 2 are roughly present in both nation states and multiculti states. It’s factor 3 that’s exacerbated in the latter. Man’s tribalist instinct, his xenophobia, and more basically his fear of the unknown make him insecure. To combat insecurity, he does two things: 1) hoard resources and 2) protect his resources. Here’s the kicker. Factor 3 affects those with a high IQ more than the unwashed masses. The intelligent man is a worrier.
The gap between the cognitive elite and the masses is present in every nation. However, in multiculti states, this gap is even larger (with blacks, hispanics, etc). Governors tend to be more intelligent in all nations. In multiculti states like nation states, they rise to the top just the same. However, because they are more insecure in multiculti states, they are also richer. This is undesirable for obvious reasons.
Is this a copy and paste?
No. I’m sick of making dumb posts. From now on, I’ll only post when I have something to say.
Philosopher to see if something is a copy and paste just copy a string of what’s written into Google.
Deal, good. I can see that you’re a smart woman and that you’ll succeed in what you set out to do.
Thanks RR!
Dear GOD philburt.
That really has to be explained to you.
white nationalists are retards.
the US and the new world generally, isn’t just multi-racial. its whites are usually mixtures of various european nationalities.
europeans have been killing each other by the millions forever. the euro is a failure.
why would an american with an italian surname care more about an american with a swedish surname than italians care about swedes?
it’s all just lipstick on a pig. there’s no making the sow’s ear into a silk purse.
America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea.
This guy wants to tell me we’re living in a community. Don’t make me laugh… America’s not a country. It’s just a business.
it’s a fact jack!
the more homogeneous the country the…
1. less inequality AND
2. the bigger the safety net.
3. one of africa’s big problems is the artificiality of its countries’ borders. they were determined by colonial powers, not by africans.
https://images.washingtonpost.com/?url=http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/05/diverity-map-harvard.jpg&w=1484&op=resize&opt=1&filter=antialias
The Jews are the most remarkable nation of world history because, faced with the question of being or not being, they preferred … being at any price: the price they had to pay was the radical falsification of all nature, all naturalness, all reality, the entire inner world as well as the outer. … Considered psychologically, the Jewish nation is a nation of the toughest vital energy which … took the side of all décadence instincts—not as being dominated by them but because it divined in them a power by means of which one can prevail against ‘the world.’ The Jews are the counterparts of décadents: they have been compelled to act as décadents to the point of illusion…. [T]his kind of man has a life-interest in making mankind sick, and in inverting the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ ‘true’ and ‘false’ in a mortally dangerous and world-maligning sense. (sec. 24)
Nietzsche hits it out of the ballpark.
The Anti Christ, 1888.
[APPLAUSE NOW]
Jewish majority-Israel has all the problems of America.
NYC and Los Angeles, 2 cities with the most Jews, have the highest gini coefficients in North America. Tel Aviv in Israel also has a very high gini coefficient of haves and haves not. Is this a coincidence?
No, Jews are more low empathy than gentiles. Thus, they favour less redistribution to other tribes and races. It makes perfect sense.
You make a good point. To add, Jews are Asiatics, and all Asiatics have low empathy.
And Jewish dominated cities tend to be segregated, its citizens rapacious for wealth and suspicious of outsiders — the idea that NYC and Los Angeles are the 2 unhappiest cities in America.
jeers!
nietzsche was rabble.
and he died from syphilis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17087793?dopt=Abstract
Seems like it was frontotemporal dementia or Picks disease.
Nietzsche is the Master.
Okay, so talking about Afro’s Jensen quote, we see there is an 0.4 IQ-Cranial Capacity correlation it accounts for 16% of IQ.
What causes the other 84%?
Is it possible that the other factors are uniform in the races which would lead to the gap?
Wouldn’t it be likely there is a disparity in other factors that influence IQ, which would reduce or cancel out the gap based on Cranial Capacity?
Yes it’s entirely possible that a smaller brained race could have as high or higher an IQ than a bigger brained race. Arctic people have much bigger brains than Ashkenazi Jews but much lower IQs. But this is the exception that proves the rule. At the group level, the brain size-IQ correlation gets much higher
At the individual level the brain size IQ correlation used to be thought to be 0.4, but more recent research suggests it’s smaller (my current best guess is 0.33)
You need to understand that Eskimos do not have a book tradition, what I call brain exercise that are found among Jews.
“But this is the exception that proves the rule.”
Another unscientific quote from PP. I science, exceptions invalidate rules, they only validate them when they are found not to be related to the rule after further examination.
“But this is the exception that proves the rule.”
Another unscientific quote from PP. I science, exceptions invalidate rules, they only validate them when they are found not to be related to the rule after further examination.
Low IQ gibberish
Reading a paper on the benefits of cognitive diversity in democracies. I’ll try to evaluate the argument and apply it to diverse/multicultural democracies.
Link?
Btw if Mugabe is correct that the end of politics is when the governed (g) and governors (G) agree without coercion or propaganda, the following dilemma arises for liberals.
Why is it that g and G are so different from each other? One word: elections! In a democracy, the people elect their representatives. Who do they elect? They’ve historically elected the well educated, the rich, and the intelligent.This governing class then tends to reproduce as a class. In other words, the masses want their rulers to be aristocratic.
Elections are anti-meritocracy and pro-aristocracy. If Mugabe is right, the end of politics may require the end of democracy as we know it. Perhaps, we ought to switch to picking our governors via a lottery.
God awful logical leaps in that text. Copy and paste from the same source please.
I think you’re probably a rabid sexist. On a scale of 1-10 how much do you hate women? You call women dumb, property, sperm trashcans, etc… You gave the example of a Chinese girl who used to plagiarize. Do you know any smart women? I get the impression that you only hang around sluts. Is your sister dumb?
You know what? Never mind. I don’t care if you’re sexist or w/e. Don’t care at all. Waste of time to care.
One thing SJWs never get is that pointing out something is or isn’t, is not a hateful act.
If I say blacks would not make good citizens its not necessarily because I hate them, its just an empirical fact in aggregate I’m making (although in this case I do also hate the idea of them in aggregate hahaha)
But if I say you have bipolar, slutty, spew rubbish and the Chinese girl is plagiarizing…
what makes you think I hate you or the Chinese girl, or people I criticize in general, or their ethnic or gender group in aggregate?
I don’t ‘hate’ everyone I criticise or their ethnic/gender group. If I say the taxi driver was an asshole because he took a longer route, that doesn’t mean I hate Kurds.
And even if I did, my level of hatred on a scale of 1-10, is far far less than my deep loathing of gamma Zion.
You’d be a 0 or 1 on a bad day.
The Chinese girl I don’t ‘hate’, and actually found slightly endearing for owning up and correcting it and explaining that’s just how its done in China. Fair enough says I.
Women always make everything charged and personal. In more manly times they said “Honey, you’re being hysterical”. Watch a movie from the 50s.
You just make it worse but I think you’re trying to get under my skin. I’ll ignore it. No more wasting time.
But point out the “God awful logical leaps”. I didn’t provide a detailed roadmap from the premises to the conclusion. I didn’t show my work because I thought the intermediate steps were obvious.
Philburt continues to steal from other commenters.
https://cdn.boldomatic.com/content/post/hcY7Yg/If-I-wanted-to-kill-myself-I-would-climb-your-ego?size=800
Well the empirics are dumb of your argument.
But the argument itself is bull in china shop stuff:
“Yesterday I bought a newspaper in the shop. The headline was Putin takes Aleppo. Putin now owns Aleppo. This mean Aleppo is inherently doomed to be owned by Russians. Maybe we should ban Russians to save Aleppo”.
mssr philosophe is an expert on God awful leaps in logic.
“Elections are anti-meritocracy and pro-aristocracy. If Mugabe is right, the end of politics may require the end of democracy as we know it. Perhaps, we ought to switch to picking our governors via a lottery.”
Before we had democracy we had…
Aristocracy.
Most of East and Southeast Asia still has this de facto. They would much rather prefer not to have any elections at all. Hello South Korea!
Democracy ain’t perfect, but an aristocracy would have Trump and Bernie on the rack if they said those things in public. And it certainly wouldn’t allow a blog to post HBD stuff, or indeed allow blogs at all.
Its not the empirics though.
You’re theoretical argument is just wild:
I went to the shop to buy a newspaper today. The front headline was ‘Putin takes Aleppo’. This means Putin owns Aleppo. This shows Aleppo is inherently prone to being owned by Russians. Maybe if we banned Russians, this would help Aleppo.”
Bull in china shop stuff.
choosing the governors via lottery is an interesting idea, but is it necessary?
I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.
i don’t expect there can be an end to politics, but some places are closer than others.
how big is the difference between the Gs and the gs? how much more homogeneous are the Gs than the gs?
for a small homogeneous country the answer is: not as big and not much more, respectively.
and regarding aristocracy: the gs mind less when the Gs are the same type of people.
i haven’t noticed that smart people think of themselves in tribal terms or as a political group.
so if the Gs must have some minimum ability or skill they may be selected at random from those with such.
earl warren was chosen chief justice though he had never been a judge. now all the supremes come from federal appellate courts…they’re experts…just like all the popes come from the college of cardinals.
The goal can be seen in the exam questions of the time. Students were expected to combine economic principles with a strong grasp of current affairs. In 1927, for example, one paper on public finance asked students to explain the size and reasons for the main areas of British government spending. They were expected to have the skills of an essayist, spending one three-hour exam on a single question such as the future of gold, the rights and duties of shareholders, or alternatives to democracy. Cambridge economics considered itself to be an analytical science but calculation was not of the essence. A module in statistics produced a page-long test for final-year students; all the other papers were bare of mathematical symbols.
Compare this with the exams of today. Charlotte Grace, a student in the third year of the economics tripos (as undergraduate degrees are known in Cambridge), says she could have passed all the questions she faced in her first year without reading a newspaper. And though the five-page final-year macroeconomics exam that was set in 2015 asked about some contemporary policy conundrums, like which features of the euro zone may have contributed to its sovereign debt crisis, most of the paper sought to test students’ knowledge of tricky, algebra-heavy models. Three-hour pontifications on a single topic have been ditched in favour of a compulsory dissertation in which original empirical analysis is encouraged.
Cambridge Economics
This goes to Robert’s point about controversial subjects being turned into limp wristed sophistry. Whereas, philosophy does it with words, economics does it with math.
Psychology is by far the worst victim. You can’t study interesting phenomena because its racist. Which is a tautology, because you can’t study racism itself because its racist.
Zion.
out of touch with reality.
the problem with psychology isn’t political correctness, it’s that it’s like margaret thatcher. “there’s no such thing as society.”
psychology’s phenomena are mostly meaningless outside a given time and place. the exceptions are brain damage and retardation.
Another genius insight from the McDonald’s U Phd in Hamburger Psychiatry Programme.
Hamburgers are hard to study for psychological phenomenon because they have no minds. You can’t generalise your knowledge of humans from looking at hamburgers taste in your mouth.
that’s nice mssr philosophe. what would be even nicer is if you had something to say.
the functions of academic psychology and economics are the same, ideological.
yet you believe in the word games of one and not the other.
believe in neither.
deutschland erwache…you have nothing to lose but your chains.
psychology’s phenomena are mostly meaningless outside a given time and place. the exceptions are brain damage and retardation.
We always knew you were exceptional!
mugabe’s fantasy…
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-22/weight-watchers-campaign-touts-oprah-winfrey-losing-40-pounds
I fail to see how Oprah is a “good person” for this. Pushing bullshit garbage to the low information, low IQ populace that eat up anything that a celebrity does? Hahaha. What they don’t tell you is that Oprah has the best trainers and nutritionists in the world (not better than me though). And the prole morons suck it all up because muh Oprah.
I wonder how many people’s metabolisms will be destroyed due to this garbage? So sad. Welp, I guess I’ll get some more clientele in a few months. I fix a lot of bullshit that other idiots have pushed on people and this idiot Oprah pushing this garbage on the low information public is bullshit and taking advantage of people’s ignorance—something that I do not do.
I am sure Weight Watchers is a hell of a lot better than the garbage you push.
RR’s review contains a citation of a study which purports to show what i claimed on peepee-tard’s blog a while ago: japanese americans are taller than japanese japanese. peepee insisted this wasn’t true.
she’d have to as japanese americans are not smarter than japanese japanese and thus the nutrition theory of the flynn effect is proved to be retarded.
He cites a 1957 study by Stanford anatomist William Walter Greulich which found that Japanese Americans grew up to be considerably taller than their cousins in the old country.
You are one dumb motherfucker. The study was in 1957. Only 12 years after Japan was nuked.
So here’s an epistemology problem you might want to think about.
We know Dildos has X, Y, Z attributes.
We know Marsha has X attribute only.
Now the stat theory says Dildos is too small a sample to represent the population at large…of what?
In this case the population is: Long term females readers of Pumpkins blog on the study of IQ/HBD.
But note, not just any HBD blog. The blog itself its tight filter: F1 Female who lurks in comment thread F2 the blog is value judgement neutral, F3 attracts a male clientele much different from other similar types etc
So it could be Dildos is representative of women who frequent Pumpys comm section, even though she may be the only female sample.
So maybe Marsha has Y, Z attributes
Or a derivative of Y,Z – Y’, Z’
And likewise, any attribute Marsha has, G, H.
Dildos may have, adjusted for age.
Maybe.
The flip side is the male clientele is a hodgepodge. So maybe the female side is not Gaussian either. Maybe not.
Yeoowsa. Marsha is maybe right that I oversimplified A-S. Just reading about a physicist with aspergers who also has psychotic schiz.
But it mentions he’s excellent in music so that might explain the schiz.
Under what conditions can someone have schiz and autism.
– Environmental pressure
– Extreme barbell neuro proclivities
– Misdiagnosis
– The theory holds in weak form
– The theory is wrong and needs to be replaced
Yeoowsa. I’m looking a bit silly today.
Contrary to popular belief, I don’t really mind being wrong. For example, psychopathy never really fit into the conception well. But its closer to schiz, than autism.
Why? – Blacks demonstrate schiz and psychopathy more than east asians.
East Asians are disgustingly nice people – J’approve. I’m not insanely against the idea of high skilled East and South Asian immigration for that reason.
As JS says though, asiatics have far lower empathy than whites – how else do you explain the caste system or what Mao/Pol Pot/Jon Un/Hirohito did to their own people?
To my recollection no Western elite has ever butchered their own people systematically. Russians aren’t included because it was the (((Bolsheviks))) that did that and Stalin was a borderline asiatic from the caucuses.
And even today the slow cooking butchering is being done by (((them)))).
Hahaha when you type in chemical engineer into Jewgle many of the photos are of blacks.
It’s like we’re living in 1984. Except our rulers are Middle Eastern tribe
(((They))) really are the smartest people in human history. I wouldn’t be surprised they really did destroy the Egyptians with ‘plagues’, before destroying Rome and moving onto the Germanics.
Maybe we should call them the locust people.
**My classics knowledge isn’t great, but when did Rome fall after it adopted (((Christianity))))?
Rome fell due to the Nords, the so-called ‘mastah race’. The barbarians from north were a main cause. They also were too big.
In Europe, Italy has the best looking men.
mssr philosophe is right…the barbarians are under zion’s control…mind control.
^ I shouldn’t have to say this is tongue-in-cheek.
Deal with it. You tryin to have my second kid 😜
It’s hard to find a hi IQ female to reproduce with in
Cincinnati
Mikey you are a good looking guy. I’m sure you can find a high IQ woman in Cincinnati.
Damn!
my football man crush is totti. just like mssr philosophe. he looks like a male model but is also a great footballer.


women killed themselves over rudolph valentino.
if you like girly men, you’ll love montgomery clift.
damn!
but steve knows what women really want.
Montgomery is very handsome. Doesn’t look too girly
My type is masculine
Italian
British
Damn it just got hot in here!
Monty Clift was considered a ‘sensitive man’ of the 50s. By today’s standards his aesthetic is possibly an action star.
Mel Gibson is my man Hollywood crush.
Can’t wait to see Hacksaw Ridge when it comes out here. If he gets an oscar it will be the greatest Hollywood comeback of all time.
In Italy, they (locals) took me for Italian because of my tan and black hair. Also, some thought I was Romanian, probably because of my round face and small eyes. Lol.
my sikh cabbie mistook me for british because i knew something about sikhs.
The effect would be similar if there was a prolonged evolution in a place that was not excavated, is not known to archeologists, and the people from this place entered “mainstream archeologists grounds” 50k years ago.
It can even be a place not possible to dig – like under sands of a dessert, or currently under sea.