A while back I had estimated that H. Erectus had an average IQ of 55 based on the fact that they had the tool making ability of a 1979 Western seven-year-old, but more recently I had down graded them to an IQ of 40, based on my assumption that they had the symbolic IQ of 40.
My logic was that their tool making ability only represented their spatial IQ, but a symbolic IQ of 40 dragged down their COMPOSITE IQ to 40.
Brief comment on composite IQs
Statistically naïve readers might be wondering why a spatial IQ of 55 and a symbolic IQ of 40 equals a composite IQ of 40, and not a composite IQ of 48 (the average of 55 and 40). The answer is that IQ is just a measure of where you rank compared to neurologically normal Northwest Europeans and ranks CAN NOT be averaged to give composite rank, unless the two sub-rankings correlate perfectly. So if you rank super low in BOTH cognitive domains, then your rank order in the COMPOSITE of both domains will be LOWER than the average of the two, because impairment at BOTH domains is so rare that it pushes your composite way down in the pecking order. The opposite is true for people who excel in BOTH domains; their composite IQs are HIGHER than the average of each subscale.
Why the apology?
So why am I apologizing to H. erectus? Because I was wrong to assume their symbolic IQ was only 40. That assumption was based on the fact that they couldn’t draw AT ALL, thus suggesting they had extremely impaired understanding of symbols or representations. People who can’t draw ANYTHING obtain an IQ of only 19 on the Draw-a-man test (corrected for old norms), however correcting for culture bias (H. erectus lived in the wild), I raised it to about IQ 40.
How did I know they couldn’t draw? Because as far as we know, they never drew a single thing in the nearly 1.9 million years they walked the Earth. However a friend suggested that perhaps they could draw, they just never had the IDEA of drawing. Inventing the idea of drawing is much more difficult than drawing, so if they never had the idea in the first place, I can’t assume they were too dumb to execute the idea.
Thus there’s no evidence that H. erectus had a symbolic IQ as low as 40, and the only hard evidence of their IQ remains their tool making ability which equates to an IQ of 55. Since this is the only data point, I have no choice but to tentatively accept it as their IQ. And frankly it makes a lot more sense than IQ 40, which is getting into chimpanzee territory.
How much IQ is needed to have the IDEA of drawing?
So while it takes an IQ of only 40 TO draw, how much IQ is needed to come up with IDEA of drawing, if it never existed in your world before? If you believe in the controversial field of HBD, then perhaps the lowest IQ people in the World are the Bushmen with a genetic IQ of perhaps 72. Yet even they appear to have come up with the idea of drawing as evidenced by their ancient rock art, so unless a more advanced people taught them this skill, then a population with a mean IQ of 72 is capable of inventing drawing.
What about Neanderthals?
So what about Neanderthals who also never drew? Earlier I wrongly suggested this implied they too had a symbolic IQ of only 40 (commenter Melo to his credit strongly disagreed) and yet I also speculated that they must have had a much higher spatial IQ to have survived in Northern Europe. Overall I pegged their mean IQ to be 62.
I still roughly agree with this estimate, but my logic was wrong. Better logic is as follows: They were more technologically advanced, more evolved, and bigger brained than H. erectus, so they probably an overall IQ above 55 (H. erectus level); yet they apparently never had the IDEA of drawing, so they were probably lower than Bushmen (perhaps genetic IQ 72 if you take HBD seriously). Thus, splitting the difference gives an IQ of 64.
Pumpkin Person 
Damn… PP, the celebrity, the super rich, the playboy has nothing else to do on Christmas day.
damn it’s gettin’ hot in here!
[photo redacted by PP, Dec, 26, 2016]
Can you redact this. Its disgusting.
Done
black lesbians have peaked.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=black+lesbians&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=7&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cblack%20lesbians%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bblack%20lesbians%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBlack%20lesbians%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBlack%20Lesbians%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBLACK%20LESBIANS%3B%2Cc0
so phil isn’t only non-white. he’s also gay.
typical.
Merci
Interesting to see the way genius is portrayed in film as of late.
So we have this guy mention in the movie that he can’t read people’s facial expressions and is homosexual but bosses everyone around including millitary men.
And then this guy donating money to Magic Africa.
The question then becomes – why are smart people portrayed by media as sinister.
The psychopath Zuckerberg thing flopped horribly in Superman recently anyway.
If you’re casting sinister, do it properly. Go balls deep.
This is who I always felt was a nailed on Lex Luther.
And Day Lewis is a perfect Professor Moriarty for the Sherlock Holmes stuff.
Casting. Lights. Camera. Action.
He approves.
Nailed on Lex (didn’t copy through for some reason)
By the way you can tell which Hollywood stars like Trump.
They just don’t comment on the matter.
3D Chess Grandmaster.
>better logic
>”more evolved”
lol
Really nasty stuff.
I draw the line on attacking women like that unless they attack me. Tucker needs to think about who he invites on the show to beat up. That’s like beating up a confused pony.
Teen Vogue needs to fire her though. Female teenagers shouldn’t be exposed to writing about how great abortion is or anything that pushes Zion’s evil mischief. If I had a daughter I would be taking control of all media and ‘education’ she’s receiving up to and including barring the internet and burning her textbooks.
The Necromancer is out of control.
Philosopher i had to moderate your most recent comment for advocating violence. That’s unacceptable. Please don’t do that again or I’ll have to start screening all your comments
Redact that bit then.
I don’t have time to edit your comments. Just be more careful next time or all your future comments will be screened.
He posts too many comments about Homo Judas.
He posts too many comments about Homo Judas
Yes he is obsessed.
PP: My obsession with Québec and why you should think it’s the best place in Canada where it also fulfills your blog themes very well:
1) French Canadian students score the highest in math tests in all of Canada.
2) French Canadian students are also the most adaptable.
3) French Canadians are tribal — they want to kick all of the Anglos out of Québec.
4) French Canada has the most PhD graduates, therefore the smartest students are in Québec.
My reasons to love Québec:
1) Low gini coefficient
2) A poor man’s Paris
3) The prettiest province in Canada
3) It has the best Spanish language bookstore in all of North America. I cannot even find one in New York City anymore. NYC is prole, because there are more night clubs than there are bookshops.
You don’t have to convince me. I agree that Québec is an exceptionally classy place.
Yes, and they dislike Jews. So is there a correlation? I find my own — the Spaniards to be a classy people too, and they dislike Jews a lot. Jews are the opposite of classy.
Don’t be so anti-Semitic. It’s not so much that Jews lack class, but rather Jews have power, and classy people don’t worship power, because doing so makes you a slave and an Uncle Tom.
Jews lack class. They’re prole.
Elite Jews are phony and crass and prole Jews just lack any class.
But so do many Americans and whites of the Anglo Sphere. Italian Americans are rather prole too, but different a kind of prole from Jews.
Just look at America and especially NYC, it’s very prole. Such proleness also attracts Jews.
Montréal is the most unique city in North America, perhaps in the entire New World. It’s a battleground between the Anglo Proles and the French Canadians. In other cities especially American ones, conflicts arise from racial and class struggles, but Montréal signifies a different of type of human pathology. There is a battle for linguistic and cultural dominance.
Both Mugaboo and Santo Clauso will like Québec, simply because it’s the most anti-semitic region in North America, where as Videla’s hometown of Bueno Aires is its counterpart of the Southern Hemipshere.
Both Mugaboo and Santo Clauso will like Québec, simply because it’s the most anti-semitic region in North America,
How do you know? Did you do a poll?
There are always swastikas drawn on Jewish owned property and it makes the news. Furthermore, many pro-Israel rallies/propaganda are usually met with fierce opposition in Montréal. In the US, people generally leave Jews alone. Jews are safer in Ontario and British Columbia than in French Canada.
“yet they apparently never had the IDEA of drawing, so they were probably lower than Bushmen (perhaps genetic IQ 72 if you take HBD seriously). Thus, splitting the difference gives an IQ of 64.”
They did have an idea of what drawing was but they still weren’t intelligent enough to do it, the never made pictures but they did make symbolic carvings, body paint, and jewelry.
This means they did have a concept of drawing they just didn’t have enough intellectual mastery of their niche.
Something like these are more time consuming and complex than simple ornamentation and lines in rocks.
https://www.google.com/search?q=lion+man+cro+magnon&espv=2&tbm=isch&imgil=WC0BmlDYPRQ1eM%253A%253B_xPLRKXfdlnm0M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fatlanteangardens.blogspot.com%25252F2014%25252F04%25252Fthe-cro-magnon-invasions.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=WC0BmlDYPRQ1eM%253A%252C_xPLRKXfdlnm0M%252C_&usg=__xoi65Z7TvukoG5o0AzZ7AUKXSa8%3D&biw=1455&bih=700&ved=0ahUKEwiGl6z1lJDRAhVDSSYKHQChBRwQyjcINw&ei=VClgWIadNMOSmQGAwpbgAQ#imgrc=WC0BmlDYPRQ1eM%3A
Speaking of neanderthals,I’ve been looking into your population/climate theory quite a bit lately. And I think I’ve finally synthesized it’s errors and simplifications and made some adjustments.
First the sociality that triggers encephalization may be caused by 2 main drivers, or better for you to understand; what makes a cold cliimate so inhospitable is: Resource allocation, and climatic variability.
According to your estimates north africans and arctic peoples have genetic IQs of about 90, if we take a look at this climate map of the world we can clearly see that north africans and arctic peoples both share environments of differing thermal extremes. North africans live in deserts with searing hot temperatures during the day and freezing at night. Arctic folk like the inuit live in the sheer cold all year long. This pattern seems to follow any country, the highest IQ countries are all temperate locations with the slight variation between them due to climatic variability. Example being china and europe with china having slightly more variability and therefore slightly higher IQ’s. The reason temperate environments do the best is because it is the easiest to sustain a civilization in. Population density promulgates constant cultural refinement.
https://www.google.com/search?q=climatic+variability+map+world&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ4PSX6Y_RAhWk4IMKHQQuBWIQ_AUICCgB&biw=1455&bih=700#imgrc=HcQDVn_4TW0tBM%3A
How does this tie in with neanderthals? Below is a population density map as shown north africa and the arctic have virtually the same population density. There is a difference between population size, density, and genetic isolation. higher population density means higher mutation rate, so does a lower population size because it encourages inbreeding. Australian aborigines lived in a demanding environment but they were genetically isolated and their population density was small. Having a higher population size and lower density is probably the slowest way evolutionary change happens. Because populations in more resource deprived environments cannot sustain high density populations, they use mobility as compensation so that Ideas can be transferred quickly. This is all quite parsimonious with r/k selection theory(not rushton’s retarded version). Whereas in this individuals who can learn better, and innovate more are preferred over pragmatic and dogmatic persons. This selects for neotenous traits.
This is when the climatic variability hypothesis begins to crumble. If neanderthal’s numbers and density had inexplicably increased exponentially(i guess through what philosopher calls negro magic) They still would have never acquired the proper mental facilities to compete with us. Because despite the fact that every population besides the bushmen traveled into new territory only two went past the 100 IQ threshold, and you can see why at closer observation. Simply put, nobody but asians and whites had any meaningful competition when they migrated into new territory
There were mass extinctions when native americans and aborigines made it to their new homeland. They occured in eurasia too, but there are key differences.
In eurasia the native animals already had one hominid that was an apex predator to worry about, so they clearly already had a fear of humans when we arrived, while animals on other continents did not. On top of that when homo sapien first arrived in europe they greeted the only other hominid who held a candle to it’s intelligence, meaning the most difficult survival challenge was in eurasia. We had to fight ourselves. Which is the downfall of neanderthals who probably caused similar mass extinctions when they first trekked into the snowy tundra of europe, they had no challenges there was no pressure on social organization because gathering their meat was easy, it’s why the only thing that barely grew was their visual cortex to help see better. So when they did finally have competition they were completely obliterated. It explains why asians and whites are the most intelligent, they faced the most survival challenges when they left africa, the cold barely affected shit, they already knew how to make clothes and they had already mastered fire, the only challenge was the animals and other hominids. The other populations didn’t have to worry about shit. It’s why populations size wouldn’t of helped nenaderthals.
There are some criticism that I want address before you can state them:
If we take malnutrition into account we would have to subtract at least 13-20 points from the IQ of north africans but this is fallacious. Inuits and other arctic people use guns and others modern technologies, so it becomes hard to draw the line between modern and hunter gatherer, you could suggest that the arctic people’s environment has made them intelligent enough for modern tool application through demand of necessity, but then it would become circular logic because then That would only further give me more reason to not subtract points from north africans.
The genetic IQ of arctic populations may be higher unless you agree with Cochran that seal fat and high protein is enough sustenance.
Outstanding analysis. Nothing to add except:
“The genetic IQ of arctic populations may be higher unless you agree with Cochran that seal fat and high protein is enough sustenance.”
He is 100 percent correct.
It was alright, i feel as though it was very simplified I hope he doesn’t have trouble understanding some of the concepts I was trying to convey, because my vocabulary at times was pretty vague.
It’s something I’ve pondered before but forgot. Ice age europe was home to a wide range of extremely intelligent animals, like wolves, bears, and mammoths. Neanderthal was the second most intelligent hominid, and was an apex predator, who made meals of all those examples, which is a testament to their own intelligence. Elephants have a lengthy memory, and are disputably self conscious, Wolves hunt in packs and have incredibly phenotypic plasticty, bears have been known to cover their own tracks from hunters.
When homo erectus first made it to europe(and became antecessor, heidelbergensis, and neanderthalis) the organisms present had never before encountered members of the homo genus and were consequently wiped out. Anecdotally I’ve heard that native americans and aborignes were able to simply walk up and butcher an animal because the creatures had no natural fear of humans. This explains why less selective pressure was applied on the frontal and parietal lobes of neanderthals. The demands for survival just weren’t strong enough to cause a necessity for more complex social structures(at least not on homo sapien’s level), if the corrective brain size of theirs is infact 1,100 cc that means their “symbolic” IQ would only be 2 Sd’s above the average homo erectus(assuming 98 is 1 sd like pumpkin said) while their spatial would be 3 or 4. Cro magnon would be ahead by 3 or 4 sd in both categories. Homo erectus already knew how to use fire before they went into europe and they already had complex social groups for effective hunting, All they needed were clothes and a bigger visual cortex and they were set. The simple observation of what the cold did to the neanderthals is enough to debunk it as the causation of racial discrepancies. In fact Cro magnon would’ve been nothing without first going through millions of years of evolution in africa, if all the cold does is add a visual mass than it’s pointeless, african hominids developed brain mass that was more evenly distrubuted which is a much more preferably method of encephalization
Cro magnon had to fight offa new climate, neanderthals and human fearing, but dangerous animals . Every other population had docile animals and a new climate. That was it.
When it comes to the variability selection hypothesis, it only works if the new environment is actually challenging. Cold climates aren’t the best either, because they stunt propagation of beneficial mutations. Temperate ones are best, because they have enough variability to be challenging but are also not complete hell holes. You can’t build a 5 star hotel in the antarctic. Chance doesn’t dictate much, population size has little affect, population density however promotes cultural learning at a continuous rate, and it is what selects for increasingly neotenous and progressive traits over the course of human evolution. It explains why we are so plastic to our environment. Pumpkin is unfortunately wrong. Populations size!–> high intelligence, instead high population density—> high intelligence—-> sustainment of high population size
This pattern seems to follow any country, the highest IQ countries are all temperate locations with the slight variation between them due to climatic variability. Example being china and europe with china having slightly more variability and therefore slightly higher IQ’s. The reason temperate environments do the best is because it is the easiest to sustain a civilization in.
Actually East Asian and Europeans had the second and third coldest ice age environments to adapt to. Their high IQs are very consistent with cold climate theory.
Okay, ask yourself why ice age/arctic climates are hard to survive. I outlined two in my above posts. Other environments, particularly deserts share the same characteristics, the populations that were not genetically and socially isolated, developed IQ’s equivalent to their northern counterparts. Your data even confirms this.
Europeans and Northeast asians were the only ones to compete with other similarly intelligent hominids, and animals. It would probably help if you read my whole post, or at least digested it better.
Okay, ask yourself why ice age/arctic climates are hard to survive.
Because creating warm clothing, fire and shelter is unbelievably difficult and so is finding food in the freezing cold (you must hunt large animals instead of merely gathering plants).
I outlined two in my above posts. Other environments, particularly deserts share the same characteristics,
But much of Africa was tropical forests and grasslands, not deserts, and primates had tens of millions of years to get used to it; it was not a novel challenge like ice age Eurasia.
the populations that were not genetically and socially isolated, developed IQ’s equivalent to their northern counterparts. Your data even confirms this.
The populations that were geographically isolated all have low IQ relative to their climates, and that’s because they were cut-off from beneficial new mutations. So bushmen, pygmies and Australoids were isolated and thus did not become as smart as other negroid looking people who had trade and slave relations with the middle east and thus gene flow. Native Americans and Artic people were geographically isolated and so did not become as smart as the Mongoloids of East Asia, who had access to genetic mutations in the rest of Eurasia.
Neanderthals were genetically isolated in Europe, so did not have access to mutations of all the diverse evolving tribes of Africa.
Europeans and Northeast asians were the only ones to compete with other similarly intelligent hominids, and animals.
Africans had to compete with archaic humans and hunt animals that were used to being human prey
It would probably help if you read my whole post, or at least digested it better.
It’s a lot to digest. If your argument is that complicated, it’s probably violating Occam’s razor.
“it was not a novel challenge like ice age Eurasia.”
“Survival isn’t a novel challeng.”—PumpkinPerson, 2016
Dude when the Ice Age ended, the climate completely changed in Africa.
Also look at a climate map of Africa to see how many different climates it has. You’re obsessed with the cold winter theory and cold temperatures.
I apologize in advance for the long reply.
“Because creating warm clothing, fire and shelter is unbelievably difficult and so is finding food in the freezing cold (you must hunt large animals instead of merely gathering plants).”
We already knew how to use fire and make clothes before we went into Europe providing shelter is as easy as finding a cave or just digging literally anywhere where deep snow is. My friends and I have done it before. The reason cold climate selects for g Is what I already stated: Resource allocation. It was originally your Idea, but I’ve spent the past few days perfecting these concepts and synthesizing them into an evolutionary outline.
Resource allocation and other similar problems are what drive evolutionary change, Humans use large social groups and complex social networks to solve these novel issues. These social structures require a massive amount of brain power to properly uphold. Individuals who learned quicker, were more plastic/neotneous, who took care of their children longer, who matured slower, who were more k selected would survive to pass on their genes, because they were the most innovative of their kind.
This further bolsters my claim that temperate climates are the best for encephalization, East asians are less inventive/ curious, they are also much more resilient to environmental changes, so despite their neoteny they may not be nearly as plastic as Whites and this could be from asians having a more variable climate
“But much of Africa was tropical forests and grasslands, not deserts, and primates had tens of millions of years to get used to it; it was not a novel challenge like ice age Eurasia.”
Well of course an arctic environment selects for g quicker than a tropical one. My point was to show that populations whom evolved in two different environments with equally sparse resources had the same genetic IQ and this shows that the causation is independent of actual temperature. Technically this means that tropical climates should have similar IQ’s to temperate ones, but temperate ones still have more seasonal variability and are not disease/parasite ridden, making the sustainment of populations easier.
Second race realist demonstrated in his map(and so did I) that africa is not just one constant climate, neither is most of the world, anyone moving out of east africa would have subjugated to novel selection pressures.
“The populations that were geographically isolated all have low IQ relative to their climates, and that’s because they were cut-off from beneficial new mutations. So bushmen, pygmies and Australoids were isolated and thus did not become as smart as other negroid looking people who had trade and slave relations with the middle east and thus gene flow. Native Americans and Artic people were geographically isolated and so did not become as smart as the Mongoloids of East Asia, who had access to genetic mutations in the rest of Eurasia.
Neanderthals were genetically isolated in Europe, so did not have access to mutations of all the diverse evolving tribes of Africa.”
Bushmen are not isolated in any real way. They’re dumb because other groups had more novel problem solving to accomplish, they just got left behind. the same goes for pygmies and interesting quote about them:
“New evidence suggests East and West African Pygmy children have different growth patterns. The difference between the two groups may indicate the Pygmies’ short stature did not start with their common ancestor, but instead evolved independently in adapting to similar environments, which adds support that some sets of genes related to height were advantageous in Eastern Pygmy populations, but not in Western Pygmy populations”
Native american’s already had the intelligence equivalent to asian and european populations when they went over to america. The reason they didn’t produce much is because they were the youngest race, lacked domesticatable animals that eurasians had easy access to, and were invaded by europeans before they even had a chance.
Inuits and other arctic people are nomadic hunters, being mobile is a compensation for low population size and density, it accomplishes the same task of cultural learning/sharing that breeds ideas for new innovation, and it shuffles the gene pool around.
http://www.evoanth.net/2016/10/18/staying-mobile-secret-success/
Im sorry pumpkin but population size just doesn’t cut it as an excuse. Honestly I already said all this in my first post, I understand you’re a busy man but if you’re going to entertain my intellectual ramblings then you should read all of it, before you comment. It makes both of us look better.
“Africans had to compete with archaic humans and hunt animals that were used to being human prey”
Neanderthals and denisovans were still miles ahead of erectus, rudolphensis, and the hobbit people in terms of intelligence. Eurasians were the only ones to face off against neanderthals. Can you deny that conflict is a driver of tenchnology? Can you deny that the only animal that is still a challenge to us mentally is another human being?
It’s not like today where the smartest live in comfy homes. No back then the smartest were also the warriors and the hunters. The selection pressure for intelligence must of been enormous.
“It’s a lot to digest. If your argument is that complicated, it’s probably violating Occam’s razor.”
It’s not complicated bud, it just seems like it because the text is long. Occam’s Razor only applies if both hypothesis have equal rational/empirical footing. My thesis is simply a more detailed and accurate version of you and rushtons. In fact it’s gotten to the point that this may even be a theory.
Your IQ estimates of ancient hominids are retarded. Are they population means with large SDs ? In this case even an IQ of 40 or 55 could have produced some IQ 80 individuals about to show signs of behavioral modernity in almost 2 million years. Or are you estimating the maximum limit to these species’ intelligence ?
Your answer is not really important since this post is more fantasy than reality.
Your IQ estimates of ancient hominids are retarded.
Everything looks retarded to the retarded. In actuality my estimates are good, although they’re not entirely mine. It was scholar Thomas Wynn who concluded that H. erectus’s tools required the cognitive ability of a Western 7.5 year-old in the 1970s. From there it’s a small step to estimate its IQ.
Are they population means with large SDs ?
They are means. SD is unknown.
In this case even an IQ of 40 or 55 could have produced some IQ 80 individuals about to show signs of behavioral modernity in almost 2 million years. Or are you estimating the maximum limit to these species’ intelligence ?
There’s no doubt some H. erectus had IQs well above 80, but it probably took a critical mass of smart people to achieve behavioral modernity.
“It was scholar Thomas Wynn who concluded that H. erectus’s tools required the cognitive ability of a Western 7.5 year-old in the 1970s. From there it’s a small step to estimate its IQ.”
I hope you didn’t forget to correct for the Flynn effect, lol. In my opinion, Thomas Wynn gave a vague estimate that shouldn’t be taken literally, he just evaluated their tool making ability, not their intelligence as a whole, and the gap between technology and intelligence can be enormous.
“They are means. SD is unknown.”
The means are unknown too.
“There’s no doubt some H. erectus had IQs well above 80, but it probably took a critical mass of smart people to achieve behavioral modernity.”
If there were Homo Erectuses with IQs above 80, they would have left signs of superior intelligence in their 2 million years of existence. Moreover, if HBD was right, about IQ being naturally selected, Homo Erectus would have reached a much superior genetic IQ if some individuals had homo sapiens level intelligence. 2 million years is well enough for intellectually superior homo erectuses to totally replace the less endowed ones, see how quickly racial traits became fixed in populations in less than 20,000 years of current climatic conditions.
I hope you didn’t forget to correct for the Flynn effect, lol.
I didn’t
In my opinion, Thomas Wynn gave a vague estimate that shouldn’t be taken literally, he just evaluated their tool making ability, not their intelligence as a whole, and the gap between technology and intelligence can be enormous.
It’s a very rough estimate but it’s the only estimate we’ve got. If you have a better estimate feel free to supply it, but simply pissing all over this estimate does not advance any theory. One day when the genes for IQ are discovered, it might be possible to get a precise estimate of H. erectus’s average IQ from DNA samples but that’s at least five years away.
“They are means. SD is unknown.”
The means are unknown too.
I believe Wynn inferred from his research that the average H. erectus had the mental capacity of a 1970s Western 7.5-year-old. That inference might be wrong for many reasons, but it’s a starting point.
“There’s no doubt some H. erectus had IQs well above 80, but it probably took a critical mass of smart people to achieve behavioral modernity.”
If there were Homo Erectuses with IQs above 80, they would have left signs of superior intelligence in their 2 million years of existence.
Not necessarily. They were living in a culture where the average IQ was supposedly 55, so they lacked the cultural support to do anything historic with their intellect.
Moreover, if HBD was right, about IQ being naturally selected, Homo Erectus would have reached a much superior genetic IQ if some individuals had homo sapiens level intelligence. 2 million years is well enough for intellectually superior homo erectuses to totally replace the less endowed ones, see how quickly racial traits became fixed in populations in less than 20,000 years of current climatic conditions.
That’s a good point. Geneticist Spencer Wells says that from 1 million years ago, to about 65,000 years, there’s a long period of cultural stasis where stone tools and other artifacts shows virtually no improvement. Then suddenly after 65,000 years ago, the archeological record shows radical improvement. So either intelligence did not improve for 935,000 years, or it did improve but was not reflected in technology, or Wells is wrong. These are the kinds of fascinating questions I am trying to answer.
There was plenty of cultural innovation before 65,000 years ago….
Behavioral modernity started around 130-170 kya, in response to sparse food resources caused by glaciation. Early homo sapiens clung to the coasts exploiting marine resources, fueling a growing brain with nutrition enriched fish and shell fish. They developed microlithic technology to help combat the new harshness of the environment, near the end of the glacial period body ornamentation became prominent. They started with body jewelry and painting and worked their way to engraved ochre slabs. They are similar but slightly more artistic than the neanderthal ones, which were smaller and contained no ochre or pigment. After MIS6 ended around 130 kya, cultural refinement became more stagnant(still gradual) and no notable innovations appeared until 50,000 years ago when cro magnon appeared in europe and created the aurignacian culture in response to competition with neanderthals.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/295/5558/1278
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223833969_Blade_technology_and_tool_forms_in_the_Middle_Stone_Age_of_South_Africa_The_Howiesons_Poort_and_post-Howiesons_Poort_at_Rose_Cottage_Cave
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Stone_Age#Evidence_for_modern_human_behavior
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11576304_An_Early_Bone_Tool_Industry_from_the_Middle_Stone_Age_at_Blombos_Cave_South_Africa_Implications_for_the_Origins_of_Modern_Human_Behaviour_Symbolism_and_Language
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5902752_Early_human_use_of_marine_resources_and_pigment_in_South_Africa_during_the_Middle_Pleistocene?enrichId=rgreq-deea88e756805510d807e59ecf0f9af8-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzU5MDI3NTI7QVM6OTg0NzI4NTQyOTQ1NDVAMTQwMDQ4OTE2NzE3Mg%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
No one’s disputing that there was occasionally modern behavior over 100,000 years ago, but prior to 50,000-65,000 years ago, I think it was rare. After 50,000 years ago, it was extremely common. Why do you think the Upper Paleolithic is defined as starting 50,000 years ago? To reflect that radical change.
You said:
“Geneticist Spencer Wells says that from 1 million years ago, to about 65,000 years, there’s a long period of cultural stasis where stone tools and other artifacts shows virtually no improvement. Then suddenly after 65,000 years ago, the archeological record shows radical improvement. So either intelligence did not improve for 935,000 years, or it did improve but was not reflected in technology, or Wells is wrong”
and then said:
“No one’s disputing that there was occasionally modern behavior over 100,000 years ago”
So you kind of were trying to dispute it.
There has always been technological improvement(except maybe in the oldowan)
Homo erectus’ tools: the Acheulean, are separated into 3 modes because of their progressional transition towards complexity and efficiency.
Technological evolution has been mostly gradual with random bursts here and there due to climatic shifts causing abundance of resources to plummet. The last burst was during the last glacial maximum at 30,000 years ago. The aurignacian culture appears at 45,000 years when humans first appear in europe. Meaning climate was not the main propeller of this specific mental increase.
Sorry wells is wrong.
It’s actually interesting I’ve been researching more into tool kits discrepancies between hominids. Acheulean technology doesn’t even appear in europe until 500,00 years ago but once that starts a plethora of innovations or improvements start appearing in europe leading to the mousterian, the mousterian reaches africa and Homo sapiens invents aterian technology.
It seems to be a back in forth game of culturallearing and gene flow after homo erectus makes it into europe.
“It’s a very rough estimate but it’s the only estimate we’ve got. If you have a better estimate feel free to supply it, but simply pissing all over this estimate does not advance any theory.”
Lol, is there seriously a theory that needs to be advanced ?
“One day when the genes for IQ are discovered, it might be possible to get a precise estimate of H. erectus’s average IQ from DNA samples but that’s at least five years away.”
It’s been five years away for 20 years now…
“I believe Wynn inferred from his research that the average H. erectus had the mental capacity of a 1970s Western 7.5-year-old. That inference might be wrong for many reasons, but it’s a starting point.”
I’m just a layman but it’s obvious that 7.5 year-olds are much smarter than homo erectus, children are smart. They know little but they have better learning abilities. In developing countries you see children doing incredible things with very little for their survival.
“Not necessarily. They were living in a culture where the average IQ was supposedly 55, so they lacked the cultural support to do anything historic with their intellect.”
I’m not talking about incredible breakthroughs. Things as simple as painting circles on rocks in 2 million years is what we should expect from a species that had some individuals with homo-sapiens cognitive ability.
“So either intelligence did not improve for 935,000 years, or it did improve but was not reflected in technology, or Wells is wrong. These are the kinds of fascinating questions I am trying to answer.”
You’re not trying to answer questions, you’re simply making up numbers and building theories around them.
Here’s a paper for you pp.
Placing intelligence into an evolutionary framework or how g fits into the r–K matrix of life-history traits including longevity
First, I describe why intelligence (Spearman’s g) can only be fully understood through r–K theory, which places it into an evolutionary framework along with brain size, longevity, maturation speed, and several other life-history traits. The r–K formulation explains why IQ predicts longevity and also why the gap in mortality rates between rich and poor has increased with greater access to health care. Next, I illustrate the power of this approach by analyzing a large data set of life-history variables on 234 mammalian species and find that brain size correlates r=.70 with longevity (.59, after controlling for body weight and body length). A principal component analysis reveals a single r–K life-history factor with loadings such as: brain weight (.85), longevity (.91), gestation time (.86), birth weight (.62), litter size (.54), age at first mating (.73), duration of lactation (.67), body weight (.61), and body length (.63). The factor loadings remain high when body weight and length are covaried. Finally, I demonstrate the theoretical importance of this approach in restoring the concept of bprogressQ to its proper place in evolutionary biology showing why, over the last 575 million years of evolutionary competition of finding and filling new niches, there has always been (and likely always will be) broom at the top.
Click to access rKLifeHistories.pdf
lol, going to write on this by the end of the week
PP, how many neurons does a human brain have?
Hmmm…
Equal Numbers of Neuronal and Nonneuronal Cells Make the Human Brain an Isometrically Scaled-Up Primate Brain
These findings challenge the common view that humans stand out from other primates in their brain composition and indicate that, with regard to numbers of neuronal and nonneuronal cells, the human brain is an isometrically scaled-up primate brain.
While supporting several independent stereological estimates, our results challenge the values so often cited in the literature and suggest that, with regard to brain cellular composition, humans are just scaled-up, large primates.
Our notion that the human brain is a linearly scaled-up primate brain in its cellular composition is in clear opposition to the traditional view that the human brain is 7.0 times larger than expected for a mammal and 3.4 times larger than expected for an anthropoid primate of its body mass (Marino, 1998). However, such large encephalization is found only when body-brain allometric rules that apply to nonprimates are used, as stated above, or when great apes are included in the calculation of expected brain size for a primate of a given body size.
Click to access 10.1002%40cne.21974.pdf
It’s gorillas and orangutans who have bigger brains for their bodies.
And number of neurons is around 86 billion. What’s expected of a brain our size with our average bodies. Our brains are nothing spectacular. The human brain conforms to scaling rules observed for 6 other primates.
A brain built of 100 billion neurons using the brain scaling of rats, a brain of 100 billion neurons would weigh 45 kg and body mass would be 109 tons. While using the primate scaling, a brain of 100 billion neurons would weigh 1.45 kg and belong to a body weighing 74 kg, suspiciously what humans are…. The human brain is constructed with the same rules as other primate’s brains. We are no different.
What’s your point Race Realist?
I think it’s interesting how the brains, when broken down into soup as Herculano-Houzel calls it, that the all the brains scaled to the expected body size. Interesting how humans are no different and this paper challenged a few common beliefs about brain size.
The human brain is MANY times larger than expected for a primate of our size. For example gorillas are three times bigger than people, yet our brains are three times bigger than theirs. I’m not sure what the point of the paper is; perhaps that the ONLY exceptional thing about or brains is its brute size.
Read the paper and you’ll get the answer.
Indeed, the inclusion of great apes (Marino,
1998) in the primate species (Herculano-Houzel et al., 2007)
that we compare to humans would increase the body size expected of our species, with a brain of 1,509 g, from 77 kg
to 216 kg, and decrease the expected brain size for a body
of 70 kg from 1,247 g to 557 g. One piece of evidence in
support of the possibility that gorillas and orangutans,
rather that humans, are outlier species in terms of body size
is that, whereas in most primate species, humans included, the brain represents about 2% of total body mass (Marino, 1998), the brains of gorillas and orangutans, at about 500 g
(Semendeferi and Damasio, 2000), represent at most 1% of
a body of 50 kg, and only 0.5% or less in typical male
gorillas of 100 kg or more.
I just showed you that that human brain is a linearly scaled primate brain, which is in clear opposition to the view that the human brain is 7 times larger than a mammal and 3.4 times larger than an anthropoid primate of its body mass. See above about gorillas.
The human brain isn’t special and follows the same scale that human brains follow. Neuronal analysis is in direct opposition of the human brain bring 7 times larger for its body size.
Read the paper.
Indeed, the inclusion of great apes (Marino,
1998) in the primate species (Herculano-Houzel et al., 2007)
that we compare to humans would increase the body size expected of our species, with a brain of 1,509 g, from 77 kg
to 216 kg, and decrease the expected brain size for a body
of 70 kg from 1,247 g to 557 g.
So they admit that when they compare us to ALL primates, including the great apes, our brains are exceptionally huge for our bodies. You have no argument.
They said that gorillas have bigger brains for their bodies.
More important than the exact number of neurons in the human brain, however, are the implications of how this number compares with that expected for a primate brain of human proportions. We have shown before that a brain with about 100 billion neurons built according to the cellular rules that apply to scaling rodent brains would weigh 45 kg (Herculano-Houzel et al., 2007), well above the largest known whale brain. Humans of 70 kg of body mass built according to these rules would be expected to have a brain of only 145 g, instead of 1,500 g. That is, humans do indeed have a brain that is about ten times larger and holds seven times more neurons than predicted for a nonprimate mammal of its body size.
Since people never click on links I’ll quote relevant parts when needed.
They agree with that. But the deviation occurs when the brain is broken down into the soup, as noted above.
The human brain is a scaled up primate brain.
The human brain is a scaled up primate brain.
If by scaled up, you mean a really big primate brain, then I agree. But the key point is that it’s far, FAR bigger than you’d expect for a primate of our body size, as the paper admits.
“If by scaled up, you mean”
Linearly scaled primary brain. Ie it’s not weird nor unique. Read the paper in full please so you can know what I’m talking about.
Did you understand the paper? Then you should be able to explain what you’re talking about. It’s weird in that it’s so huge for our body size, but I don’t know if it’s weird in any other sense
“Did you understand the paper?”
The size of human brains is bigger than gorillas, but comparing neuronal and nonneuronal brain cells, humans ain’t special and show the amount that would be expected for human brain size. The findings ‘challenge the common view that humans stand out from other primates in their brain composition.”
Great apes’ bodies are bigger than what would be expected from their brain size; that’s what we have to look at. The point is, the human brain is a linearly scaled primate brain. The outlier, as said in the paper, is great apes since their body size is bigger than expected for their brain size; we humans fall into the expected range. That’s the point.
Great apes’ bodies are bigger than what would be expected from their brain size;
The bottom line is that compared to mammals in general, humans have HUGE brains for our bodies. Compared to primates in general, humans have HUGE brains for our bodies. Compared to apes in general, humans have HUGE brains for our bodies. This study is trying to cherry pick the data by comparing us to non-ape primates, by arbitrarily dismissing apes as outliers, even though they’re primates too and can not simply be excluded from the data. It’s pseudoscience.
You have a bad habit of getting conned by every bit of nonsense that appears in an academic journal. Please don’t read any studies unless I tell you to. If anything important gets published, I’ll mention it on this blog.
“This study is trying to cherry pick the data”
No it’s not. It’s using a technique to measure the amount of neurons in the brain and, surprise, humans are not special in that regard. As I said, great apes are the outliers in brain size. Read the paper.
“You have a bad habit of getting conned by every bit of nonsense that appears in an academic journal”
I have this bad habit of actually reading new things and expanding my horizons. I buy and read a new book every week.
“Please don’t read any studies unless I tell you to”
lol, I’m alright. I’ll read what I please.
“If anything important gets published, I’ll mention it on this blog.”
What books do you read? Have you read anything by Gould? Which of Darwin’s books have you read?
You have a bad habit of completely disregarding everything new shown to you and not even taking to any of it. You’re pretty close-minded.
You’re pretty close-minded.
No I’m fastidious.
So fastidious, yet you’re just blowing this off, along with everything else I show you, and continue to have tunnel vision for whatever you believe. Much fastidiousness.
So fastidious, yet haven’t replied to the technique that calls into question humans having brains seven times bigger than other mammals. Hmmm….because it threatens a belief of yours. That’s why. Read Herculano-Houzel’s book. You claim to be fascinated with the brain, yet how many books on the brain have you read? How many books on the brain have you read by people not names Rushton, Jensen, or Lynn? Can you answer these questions I ask about what kind of books you read or will you continue to evade them? If you don’t answer, I’ll assume you only read Rushton, Jensen, and Lynn and I’ll assume you do have tunnel vision and will only read and take to ideas they hold and won’t take to new information that contradicts it because you have such an emotional investment to it.
So fastidious, yet haven’t replied to the technique that calls into question humans having brains seven times bigger than other mammals. Hmmm
I did respond. You didn’t understand my response. When there’s a 30+ IQ gap between people, abstract communication becomes impossible. We’re never going to agree about anything HBD related. The IQ gap is just too great.
Now please stop arguing with me or I’m going to start screening your comments.
“When there’s a 30+ IQ gap between people, abstract communication becomes impossible. We’re never going to agree about anything HBD related”
Seriously? Hahaha. You’ve not even answered anything, just gave vague answers whenever someone introduced something new to you. And here you go using the “gap” between us to say something. What’s that mean? Nothing at all. It doesn’t mean anything at all to the conversation. IQ, IQ, IQ, it’s all about IQ! That’s a cute attack man, but it doesn’t say anything. It seems you want people to agree with you and get upset when people don’t.
“Now please stop arguing with me or I’m going to start screening your comments.”
“agree with me or else.” “Only read what I tell you to read.”
Yea, I think I’m done commenting here. It seems you only want people to agree with you and get mad when people challenge the great Lynn, Rushton, or Jensen. I like speaking to open minded people who will change their mind once presented new evidence, not people who have a *ahem* religious fervor involved with their ideology.
A bid you adieu PP.
One more thing. Come to think of it, I don’t think I’ve ever seen you change your mind on something big. You’re too entrenched in Rushton, Lynn, and Jensen and anything that says the opposite of what they say is one hundred percent wrong. No other source is correct other than those three. Herculano-Houzel’s papers show that the human brain ain’t that special, and is a scaled up primate brain. But still say it’s wrong even when I’ve shown toy the truth when the brain is made into this soup.
Good luck pp. I hope you learn to be more open minded to new information. That’s a huge negative for you by the way. You need to fix that, you’re not right with everything you say and you have to change you views when presented with raw information, lest you look like a religious cult leader….
And cut the crap with your snide comments about my intelligence buddy you’ve not responded to it because you can’t. You know I’m right.
I may pop my head in in a few months. See ya around everyone. Stay safe.
One more thing. Come to think of it, I don’t think I’ve ever seen you change your mind on something big. You’re too entrenched in Rushton, Lynn, and Jensen and anything that says the opposite of what they say is one hundred percent wrong.
That’s not true, I used to think the 3 point per decade Flynn effect was caused 66% by nutrition; now I think it’s caused 33% by nutrition. Lynn thinks it’s caused 100% by nutrition. So no, I don’t agree with them on everything; they don’t even agree with each other on everything. Unlike them I don’t consider the Raven Progressive Matrices a valid measure of intelligence in black Africa. I’m actually off the scale when it comes to open-mindedness; that’s not what this is about.
And cut the crap with your snide comments about my intelligence buddy you’ve not responded to it because you can’t. You know I’m right.
It’s nothing personal, but I just don’t have time for long drawn out pointless arguments that don’t go anywhere. For example, I systematically debunked all your arguments about evolution not being progressive over and over, ad infinitum, for weeks, and when I was done, you were still repeating the same argument you started with. We were back at square one. When I argue with other people there’s a progression to the argument. We gradually find common ground; not 100%, but at least 50%. But with you the gap never closes. There’s a HUGE communication barrier.
Have a good life!
C’mon pumpkin really? You realize how dickish that was to say right? I don’t think you’re clos eminded pumpkin, i think you just have cognitive dissonance.
I doubt your intelligence is that far off from race realists, you debate with us the most. The insinuates we are at similar mental levels.
His is 110 aint it, what’s yours?
What are your thoughts on Herculano-Houzel’s paper Melo?
If you’re aski.ng me if I know that human brains are basically just large chimp brains then yes. The only real difference is our little extra mass in the frontal and parietal lobes.
Adam benton made a good post on it:
http://www.evoanth.net/2012/07/03/humans-have-giant-chimp-brains/
There are some criticisms.
“the small sample size, with only 7 non-human primate species being examined and only 1-3 members of each species being studied.”
“A bigger concern I have (and did not list earlier, what a twist!) is that other research is revealing other changes to the human brain that would not be picked up by just counting cells. SRGAP2 mutations, for example, seem to have changed the very cells themselves! As such there may well be “hidden” differences between humans and primates.”
“I’m actually off the scale when it comes to open-mindedness; that’s not what this is about.”
You disagree with a few minor things. Maybe you’re not close-minded but suffer from cog diss. Who knows.
“It’s nothing personal,”
I don’t take anything on the internet personally. Discussions are supposed to be about what is written, not about the man/woman behind the screen. Right? Or am I wrong?
“I just don’t have time for long drawn out pointless arguments that don’t go anywhere”
I have tons of free time. I know how to structure my day for maximum free time. I love long, ‘pointless’ arguments because they’re never ‘pointless’. I always learn something new.
“I systematically debunked all your arguments about evolution not being progressive over and over, ad infinitum, for weeks, and when I was done, you were still repeating the same argument you started with”
O rly? Point this out for me.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/10/11/open-thread-oct-11-2016/comment-page-2/#comment-36347
“When I argue with other people there’s a progression to the argument.”
‘Progression’, hey I get this reference!
“We gradually find common ground; not 100%, but at least 50%. But with you the gap never closes. There’s a HUGE communication barrier.”
Because on evolutionary progressiveness you’re wrong. I’ve shown you how you’re wrong countless times. You’ve yet to answer if you’ve ever read anything by Gould, whether books or articles. No inherent drive towards complexity, it’s passive, not driven, etc.
By the way, you saying that H. floresiensis is the only primate to have a shrunken brain is wrong. It’s noticed in a ton of primates buddy.
http://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7007-8-9
But this paper isn’t by Rushton, Lynn Or Jensen so you’ll disregard it.
By the way:
“I did respond. You didn’t understand my response. When there’s a 30+ IQ gap between people, abstract communication becomes impossible. We’re never going to agree about anything HBD related. The IQ gap is just too great.”
Yet I own two businesses and employ ten people. I work for myself and you work for the government. Hmm…
By the way, you saying that H. floresiensis is the only primate to have a shrunken brain is wrong. It’s noticed in a ton of primates buddy.
http://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7007-8-9http://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7007-8-9
Actually the paper states:
Our results confirm that brain expansion began early in primate evolution and show that increases occurred in all major clades
Brain shrinkage is the exception that proves the rule
I know it says that. I read the whole thing, two times actually. It talks about decreases in brain size in other primates in their study. Read it.
Does the saying “the exceptions that prove the rule” mean anything to you?
I never said anything about that. You literally said to me a few months back that H. floresiensis is the only example of “reverse evolution” in brain size. It’s not. Far from it, actually.
never said anything about that. You literally said to me a few months back that H. floresiensis is the only example of “reverse evolution” in brain size. It’s not. Far from it, actually.
I must have been referring to within a specific taxa. Obviously they’re not the only example in the whole animal kingdom.
PP and Melo check out this paper:
Human Evolution Expanded Brains to Increase Expertise Capacity, not IQ
Why do modern humans have larger brains than earlier people such as Homo erectus? As large brains cause problems in childbirth, infancy and locomotion, the advantage they offer must be substantial. This advantage might be associated with increased IQ, but there is a problem: evidence from MRI volumetric surveys, microcephaly and hemispherectomy shows that there exist individuals with psychometrically normal IQ but Homo-erectus-sized brains. Why did evolution increase brain size (with its associated costs) when humans (as these individuals demonstrate) can have normal IQ without bigger brains? I propose that the advantage may be related to increased capacity for an aspect of intelligent behaviour not measured by IQ tests but critical to the survival of our simple hunter-gatherers ancestors: the capacity to develop expertise.
Click to access Skoyles%20Human%20evolution%20expanded%20brains%20expertise%20not%20IQ.pdf
Human Evolution Expanded Brains to Increase Expertise Capacity, not IQ
OH MY GOD a scientist said it must be true!!!!!!!!!!
Dude, can you read a paper and think differently about something or not? I didn’t post it here to definitively say something, just that it was an interesting take is all.
Not to beat a dead horse but evolution couldn’t possibly be progressive. Evolution is all dependent on mating patterns and environmental pressures. Meaning it’s completely situational. Animals will redevelop primitive traits if the environment demands it.
You just arbitrarily label certain traits as progressive because they are either: novel, or more complex than the previous one . There is no purpose within evolution, and the “trend” you see is is due to statistically inevitability.
I don’t even think we disagree pumpkin I think Your terminology just turns me off. It just implies that you think evolution has direction. I’m sure this isn’t really the case.
I don’t even think we disagree pumpkin I think Your terminology just turns me off. It just implies that you think evolution has direction. I’m sure this isn’t really the case.
I’m not saying evolution has a goal. I’m not saying evolution has purpose. But you can have direction without intention. This is a very tough concept for even most biologists to grasp.
“evidence from MRI volumetric surveys, microcephaly and hemispherectomy shows that there exist individuals with psychometrically normal IQ but Homo-erectus-sized brains. Why did evolution increase brain size (with its associated costs) when humans (as these individuals demonstrate) can have normal IQ without bigger brains? ”
That’s a fallacious comparison Homo erectus had differently organized brains than us, and lacked the frontal lobes we have.
Secondly they should take gut size into consideration, I don’t think homo erectus cooked all of their food.
Philosopher brought up an excellent point about blood flow to the brain as well. Humans have 6 times the expected amount.
Also I think you have cognitive dissonance as well. And may be why you’ve been posting so many anti HBD sources lately. You’re grasping at whatever you can to denounce pumpkin’s theories.
You’re not wrong though, evolution isn’t progressive and I’m surprised this is even a debate on the blog.
You two need to smoke some weed.
Melo, yes. Cooking meat shrunk our stomachs.
“Also I think you have cognitive dissonance as well”
How? I’d like to correct anything negative about my thought processes.
“And may be why you’ve been posting so many anti HBD sources lately”
Wha anti-HBD sources? I just read new papers and books that are the opposite of what I believe all the time. i read at least one new book per week. Everyone should always read things they disagree with to see if the other viewpoint makes some sense.
It’s not about anti-HBD sources, it’s about the truth and weighing both sides. Herculano-Houzel’s research is very very interesting. Her technique shows that our brains ain’t nothing special.
“You’re grasping at whatever you can to denounce pumpkin’s theories.”
No I’m not. I read books by nueroscientists on the brain, brain size and cognition. Neuroscience is very interesting to me. One of my lady friends has a degree in nueroscience and she tells me tons of cool things about the brain daily. I love the brain and I want to know what makes us ‘us’. That’s why I expand my horizons and read new things.
“You’re not wrong though, evolution isn’t progressive and I’m surprised this is even a debate on the blog.”
When I first saw PP say that ‘evolution is progress’, that was the first I heard of it and thought “that can’t possibly be right’. How can a selection process that occurs anew every generation be progressive? It changes based on environment.
“You two need to smoke some weed.”
Way ahead a ya there. What do you think I’m doing now? I took a few weeks off work.
“Yet I own two businesses and employ ten people. I work for myself and you work for the government. Hmm…”
Oh really ? PP’s a civil servant ? What job exactly ? I suppose he’d be in real trouble if his employer knew about his spreading racist bullshit on the internet. Now I really doubt he’s as rich as he claims to be. He says he has a diploma in the social sciences, I see very few jobs that make good money with that kind of qualification in the public sector. Or maybe we just don’t have the same definition of good money, that should be expected with a prole who grew up watching horror movies and Oprah shows.
Now, to contribute to your argument, I’m 100% on RR’s side. His approach is a thousand times more scientific than PP’s, though we seldom agree on the implications of the studies that we share. But we’re still able to learn from varied sources, we can sustain long debates that never get personal although I’m a black guy and he’s a Nazi,unless he was really born in 1988, then he’s just a white supremacist.
PP, why have you got this need to get so obnoxious, presumptuous, scornful and stubborn ? Why do you censor people in such shady ways ? Why do you lie about your life and how gullible do you think we are ? I mean, when you say you are a celebrity, are we supposed to believe it ? Or when you said you’d receive some facts of life goodies, come on dude, they weren’t sent from Zambia… You should have posted the selfies by now if it’s true.
Oh really ? PP’s a civil servant ?
Oh God no. I’m an independent technical consultant that works with the federal government, among other organizations. I also do completely unrelated work in polling.
What job exactly ? I suppose he’d be in real trouble if his employer knew about his spreading racist bullshit on the internet.
An apartheid loving black man who worships the French elite and refused to marry a black woman, instead choosing a woman from the TOP of the HBD hierarchy, is calling others racist? LOL! I’ve been with more black women than you’ll ever be with.
“I’m an independent technical consultant that works with the federal government, among other organizations. I also do completely unrelated work in polling.”
Alright, that’s a decent job. But it’s hard to believe you are a millionaire or that you’re admitted in your local elite’s exclusive circles. I wonder if your job can get you admitted in your local Rotary Club, have you even thought about applying ?
” An apartheid loving black man who worships the French elite and refused to marry a black woman, instead choosing a woman from the TOP of the HBD hierarchy, is calling others racist? LOL! I’ve been with more black women than you’ll ever be with.”
Don’t be ridiculous, you know I’m disgusted by the only two apartheid regimes that have existed, South Africa and Jim Crow America, the same regimes that forbade inter-marriage and instilled the notions of racial loyalty that you’re still defending.
I worship the French elite ? Yep, I’m very proud of my background. Why wouldn’t I ?
I never refused to marry a black woman. I was with a Jewish girl at the time me and her were ready for marriage, I could have been with any type other girl. And we give no fuck whatsoever to your HBD hierarchy and Jim Crow mentality, it’s not even part of our system of thought.
And as usual, PP’s always in the superlatives, you could have fucked with all of Africa and I wouldn’t give a damn. I’ve been with the number of black women I was meant to be with, I’m fine with this.
Please don’t answer if you plan to censor me once I’ve touched a nerve.
Alright, that’s a decent job. But it’s hard to believe you are a millionaire
I don’t recalling discussing my net worth, except to say it’s gone way up.
or that you’re admitted in your local elite’s exclusive circles.
I deal with a lot of extremely sensetive technical information so important people are very friendly to me, believe me.
I actually have the opposite problem. Feeling compelled to attend exclusive events when I’d much prefer to stay home & blog
Don’t be ridiculous, you know I’m disgusted by the only two apartheid regimes that have existed, South Africa and Jim Crow America, the same regimes that forbade inter-marriage and instilled the notions of racial loyalty that you’re still defending.
But you support the appartheid against the Palestinians
I worship the French elite ? Yep, I’m very proud of my background. Why wouldn’t I ?
Because your liberal parents didnt adopt you so you could be an elitist Oreo. They were hoping for a proud liberal black man who would marry a black woman and empower the black community. Instead you’re taking all the money you inherited from them and marrying it into a race even richer than their own, thus making the richest race richer while your only people live in poverty
You’re a liberal parent’s worst nightmare. A traitor to both your race and your adoptive family! Even my liberal Jewish friends are disgusted with you. You lack the subtlety to understand how much of an embarrassment you are.
“I don’t recalling discussing my net worth, except to say it’s gone way up.”
You said you we rich, it’s hard to consider someone rich if they’re not a couple of millions worth.
“I actually have the opposite problem. Feeling compelled to attend exclusive events when I’d much prefer to stay home & blog”
Impossible, firstly because these events make you meet lots of very insightful persons, secondly because you can expand your network of helpful acquaintances. You wouldn’t want to miss an exclusive event to be blogging instead unless you’re very dumb. And I hope you have other conversation topics besides Oprah, HBD and horror movies.
“Because your liberal parents didnt adopt you so you could be an elitist Oreo.”
My parents raised me to be just like their white nephews. They don’t know what an Oreo is, and if they did, they would just call it assimilation and be proud that I never had identity issues.
“They were hoping for a proud liberal black man who would marry a black woman and empower the black community.”
Ridiculous, firstly because parents want their children to be happy. Secondly because that’s not their mindset at all. When I was a teen, my parents had me and my sisters attending dating parties we call “Rallye” expecting that I’d find a girl from a catholic old money family, especially one girl they’ve put around me since I was very very young. I fucked a lot but never planned to marry at this age.
My older sister is married to a Swiss German and my parents seemed to be much more comfortable with him than with my younger sister’s boyfriend who’s a Muslim Senegalese.
If I wanted to marry a black girl, it would have been very difficult, not solely because of the numbers but because in many cases, Africans marry within their ethnic group, have special traditions, or at least ask you to convert to their religion which is very seldom Catholicism. My Jewish girl is a secular Jew, she celebrates Christmas and doesn’t eat Kosher, plus she has had views on me and knew I was black long before I knew about her religious background.
“You’re a liberal parent’s worst nightmare. A traitor to both your race and your adoptive family!”
You’d rather stop being the parody of a Jim Crow liberal.
“Even my liberal Jewish friends are disgusted with you.”
Don’t care about your imaginary liberal Jewish friends, I’ve got my liberal and non-liberal Jewish friends and in laws and they even invite me to parties and holidays in Israel, they must be really embarrassed, lol.
What I see here is a hater who’s just mad that most women he wouldn’t even dare to dream to be with literally fall for handsome black guys.
What I see here is a hater who’s just mad that most women he wouldn’t even dare to dream to be with literally fall for handsome black guys.
No i think that’s great, but not when it results in rich educated blacks marrying non-blacks. That takes capital out of the black race where it’s desperately needed & gives it to priveliged races, thus increasing inequality
I was even more pissed off when Michael Jackson left all his money to a bunch of non-black kids
When you grow up, you’ll understand that marriage is not a militant act and has very little to do with political considerations. And don’t worry, there is an increasing number of rich and educated Africans who are having even more rich and educated Black African kids, in the long run most of the rich youth of this world will be Black or South Asian.
Afro I was born in 1988. I used to look into National Socialism but I’ve moved away from politics. I’m much more interested in human nature, I really could care less about politics as individuals can’t affect them and it really is a waste of time in my opinion.
If anything I’m much more lolbergtarian/an cap again. I like that stuff in theory, but I doubt it’ll work in reality.
“Afro I was born in 1988.”
Ok, but you’re probably aware that adding 88 to “race realist” has strong connotations. You could have chosen your ZIP code or pretend you were born in 1989.
“I really could care less about politics as individuals can’t affect them and it really is a waste of time in my opinion.”
It depends on what you are advocating for, I’m very implicated in various civil society organizations (lots of charities, some lobbying, one youth think tank and the Rotary Club) and I do it with the certitude that we’re making a difference in the long run even though I’m not part of a political machine per se.
I should have thought that over before making it. Oh well. My argument matters more.
I get what you’re saying about what you do. In that way, it may turn into a may may or may be a Lamarckian trait that gets passed down and turn into something good. Don’t get me wrong, I do advocate for non-political things but it has to do with my line of work. Left/right, both the same.
“It’s not about anti-HBD sources, it’s about the truth and weighing both sides. Herculano-Houzel’s research is very very interesting. Her technique shows that our brains ain’t nothing special.”
I wasn’t talking about that paper. There’s nothing wrong with challenging predisposed thoughts but after a while of learning about something it becomes easy to discern whats worth a read and what isn’t.
“Way ahead a ya there. What do you think I’m doing now? I took a few weeks off work.”
Thank god I’m not the only stoner here.
“Don’t get me wrong, I do advocate for non-political things but it has to do with my line of work. Left/right, both the same.”
There are lots of non-partisan causes. I’ve been confronted many times to people’s ignorance about activism (especially young people), hunting for new recruits is real hard work in non-profits, that’s why I hate cyber-SJWs, If you’re a warrior, get off your couch or you’re just an attention whore. I’m not talking about you.
Now as far as you’re concerned, if you have ideals that don’t involve exterminating people, expelling, segregating or sterilizing them, I guess you can find a non-partisan organization that’s gonna be in line with your goals, especially in the US where activism is much more culturally embedded than in France, here we’re more into rioting and endless strikes as a means of expression.
“I wasn’t talking about that paper. There’s nothing wrong with challenging predisposed thoughts but after a while of learning about something it becomes easy to discern whats worth a read and what isn’t.”
I’m open to being wrong on things I believe are one hundred percent right on. Any theory is falsifiable, if not it would not be scientific. Moreover, talking about directionality in evolution is not even scientific. It’s for axiology.
It’s funny, I go to the bookstore every week and pick a book from the biology section to read. I’ve read 4 books in a row that make a point to bring up that there is no direction or to evolution. Herculano-Houzel (neuroscientist) writes on page 92 of “The Human Advantage: A New Understandinig of How Our Brains Became Remarkable”:
We have long deemed ourselves to be at the pinnacle of cognitive abilities among animals. But that is different than being at the pinnacle of evolution in a number of important ways. as Mark Twain pointed out in 1903, to presume that evolution has been a long path leading to humans as its crowning achievement is just as preposterous as presuming that the whole purpose of building the Eiffel Tower was to put the final coat of paint on its tip. Moreover, evolution is not synonmous with progress, but simply change over time. And humans aren’t even the youngest, most recently evolved species. For example, more than 500 new species of cichlid fish in Lake Victoria, the youngest of the great African Lakes, have appeared since it filled with water some 14,500 years ago. (Herculano-Houzel, 2016)
Also, I’m reading this other book called ‘Population Wars: A New Perspective on Competition and Coexistence” and he goes on a five page rant against teleological evolution.
Afrosapiens, I don’t care about segregation, sterilization, or expulsion. If people want to willingly sterilize or remove themselves from the country, that’s up to them.
Ironically, what I do helps left-wingers pushing ‘fat acceptance’, though I look at it from a completely scientific point of view to better help the people that I work with.
An apartheid loving black man who worships the French elite and refused to marry a black woman, instead choosing a woman from the TOP of the HBD hierarchy, is calling others racist? LOL! I’ve been with more black women than you’ll ever be with.
Even I’ve been with more black women than Afro, and I’m a chick! Afro is an Uncle Tom.
“LOL! I’ve been with more black women than you’ll ever be with.”
Oh so you do like dark chocolate.
His is 110 aint it, what’s yours?
I would seriously doubt if Race Realist could make the triple digits on any valid IQ test. His SATs equated to an IQ of 66. He blames his bad schooling, but c’mon. I would have scored higher at age six.
“I would seriously doubt if Race Realist could make the triple digits on any valid IQ test. His SATs equated to an IQ of 66. He blames his bad schooling, but c’mon. I would have scored higher at age six”
For the sake of argument, let’s say this is true. What does the have to do with my arguments? Absolutely nothing.
If it’s true that RaceRealist “only” has an IQ of 110, it proves that intellectual curiosity and fastidiousness can compensate for a “somewhat” low IQ. I’ve learned more from RaceRealist’s comments than from almost anyone else on this blog.
IQ isn’t knowledge or at least the compartmentalization of knowledge, it’s the potential of knowledge
IQ is a philosophical construction describing a set of human functioning subjectively important in modern society. It’s a construction in that it’s describing that main factor, g, but how we describe it is meaningless. The g factor in and of itself is another abstraction we use for the interaction of the many genes, environmental effects and other neuronal brain networks correlated with the seat of intelligence, the prefrontal cortex.
“Even I’ve been with more black women than Afro, and I’m a chick! Afro is an Uncle Tom.”
Now we determine a person’s worth by the number of black chicks they have fucked ?
I doubt anyone here has gotten as many girls as I did when they were 24, let alone black girls. And reading retarded comments about my marriage from unmarried people in their 30s and 40s is rather funny. Stop hating and put a ring on it.
My god this comment thread is cancerous.
melo if you think I’m denying the existence of a g factor, I’m not.
Neuroanatomic areas underlying the g factor could be found across the entire brain including the frontal, parietal, temporal and occipital lobes, shows that this factor is present throughout the brain and all are correlated with g and work together in concert to manifest intellectual ability. (Colom et al, 2006)
Click to access 00b7d51bc7dc0e7168000000.pdf
In verbal and spatial conditions, the frontal cortex revealed greater activation for high-g in comparison to low-g, supporting the idea that g reflects functions of the frontal lobe. (Newman and Just, 2005)
This paper shows evidence that the ‘seat’ of general intelligence is the lateral prefrontal cortex (LPFC)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3392686/
Here’s the citation for the second paper.
Click to access Newman_Sternberg-chapt-2005-intelligence.pdf
Do Sephardics have the same wealth and IQs as Ashkenazi Jews?
PunpkinPerson here’s a paper you’d like,
Conclusion: Mean group differences in scores on cognitive-loaded instruments are well documented over time and around the world. A meta-analytic test of Spearman’s hypothesis was carried out. Mean differences in intelligence between groups can be largely explained by cognitive complexity and the present study shows clearly that there is simply no support for cultural bias as an explanation of these group differences. Comparing groups, whether in the US or in Europe, produced highly similar outcomes. (Dragt, 2010)
http://dare.uva.nl/cgi/arno/show.cgi?fid=176083
“This is a very tough concept for even most biologists to grasp.”
Because it’s a philosophical question, not one for biology but philosophy of biology. Science can see whether evolution has a direction, but not where the direction goes. And I’ve shown from McShea 1998 that there exists a passive drive in complexity.
But the overall answer is answered by philosophy, not science.
And I’ve shown from McShea 1998 that there exists a passive drive in complexity.
McShea’s results were not statistically significant. I showed that in multiple evolutionary trees, populations descended from the most splits had the biggest brains on average.
“McShea’s results were not statistically significant. I showed that in multiple evolutionary trees, populations descended from the most splits had the biggest brains on average.”
Right, but the ‘trend’ was in a decrease in complexity, not an increase. Moreover, ‘complexity’ is something that’s extremely hard to define satisfactorily.
You should look at amount of neurons in the brain, not how big the brain is, even relative to the body. The amount of neurons in the cerebral cortex is the indicator for intelligence, and that’s what humans have, more than any other animal no matter the brain size. The neurons in the cerebral cortex are what give us our intelligence.
And muh splits, muh splits, read:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-008-0035-x#Sec8
The paper I linked on 23 extinct and 37 current primate species are how phylogenies are used. Read it.
“McShea’s results were not statistically significant. I showed that in multiple evolutionary trees, populations descended from the most splits had the biggest brains on average.”
Right, but the ‘trend’ was in a decrease in complexity, not an increase.
Gibberish
You should look at amount of neurons in the brain,
I’ve looked. There are zero in yours.
And muh splits, muh splits, read:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-008-0035-x#Sec8http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-008-0035-x#Sec8
The paper I linked on 23 extinct and 37 current primate species are how phylogenies are used. Read it.
I’ve debunked those arguments literally a dozen times now. You’re simply genetically incapable of grasping the concept.
“I’m not saying evolution has a goal. I’m not saying evolution has purpose. But you can have direction without intention. This is a very tough concept for even most biologists to grasp.”
Explain in more detail then. I’m pretty sure I grasp what you’re saying, I think it’s just your vague vocabulary causes confusion.
I assume we define evolution as any change in trait frequency due to external forces. If the outcome is not predetermined how can it possibly have direction? If it is indeed direction without intention where is it being directed to? Is this direction not almost completely dependent upon outside “environmental” factors? What exactly do you think we are missing here?
Melo it’s a philosophical question, not a question for science.
Explain in more detail then. I’m pretty sure I grasp what you’re saying, I think it’s just your vague vocabulary causes confusion.
Evolution is just trial and error. Genes randomly mutate, and if they’re successful, they thrive, otherwise they die out. If such a process continues for thousands of years, let alone, millions, let alone BILLIONS, as has occurred on Earth, it’s eventually going to lead to adaptations that are better and better adapted to more and more environments, until the optimum solution is reached: the ability to adapt itself, either in the form of intelligence, or some other equally versatile system.
If all you’re saying is that the “direction” of human evolution was towards bigger brain and body sizes than that’s not really news.
However, if your preponderance is to how primate lineage continuously encephalized instead of investing in energetically less expensive organs then you might have an argument.
Primates have always had larger brains and social groups, from there it was a constant feedback loop, especially when bipedalism emerged. Everytime resources were low the response was to increase social organization.
“a philosophical question, not a question for science.”
Ok, again, why the fuck are we entertaining this as a scientific article?
What specific philosophical question is this?
If I can I’ll clear it up right the fuck now, so you two will stop bitching.
“If all you’re saying is that the “direction” of human evolution was towards bigger brain and body sizes than that’s not really news.”
Right. But whether or not there IS directionality is a question for philosophy, not science. Science can say whether there is a ‘trend’ in complexity or decreases in complexity, but it can’t say whether or not there IS concrete directionality in evolution.
“However, if your preponderance is to how primate lineage continuously encephalized instead of investing in energetically less expensive organs then you might have an argument.”
Brain and body gains were independent. And, as I said 6 gatrillion times, the authors of that paper said “For at least some of these cases it is likely that a reduction in brain size has occurred to meet the demands of the species’ changing ecological needs rather than being due to geographical isolation per se.”
Just like I’ve been saying. Without the correct amount of caloric energy, brains wouldn’t have gotten that big. Any catastrophe that greatly lowers the food supply will, over time if it stays the same, lead to a decrease in our brain size since selection would favor smaller-bodied and smaller-brained people over bigger-brained and bigger-bodied people since the amount of caloric energy needed for survival will be much greater than for people with smaller brains and bodies.
Questions like this can be said talking about telelogy and evolutuon:
“Birds have wings so they can fly” and “trees exist so birds can land on them.” Who the hell cares about *why*, when *how* is much more interesting (and relevant) to evolutionary discourse?
There is no mystical “why” reason why these things exist. They just do. Birds evolved wings over time. Trees evolved over time as well. Birds just happen to use trees to land on.
The golden question is: “How can a selection process that’s repeated anew every generation possibly be teleological?”
Systems of biology that are end-seeking are thought to be end-directed, something that Darwinism makes no use of in its models. Outside biology – indeed, outside science – you can use external teleology all you like, but it does not work as an explanation of any phenomena other than those that are in fact the outcomes of agents like stock brokers. And even there, teleology is not always useful, for which stock brokers (or cabal of stockbrokers) desired the goal of the 1987 crash, or the 1930 depression? External teleology is useless in science, and any science that attempts to be teleological will shortly become mysticism.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html
So then why isn’t pumpkin convinced?
I don’t know. Teleology is mostly used be theologians and theists, not really by evolutionists.
“Evolution is just trial and error. Genes randomly mutate, and if they’re successful, they thrive, otherwise they die out. If such a process continues for thousands of years, let alone, millions, let alone BILLIONS, as has occurred on Earth, it’s eventually going to lead to adaptations that are better and better adapted to more and more environments, until the optimum solution is reached: the ability to adapt itself, either in the form of intelligence, or some other equally versatile system.”
Oh I had it right the first time. A lion can use it’s teeth and claws to cut meat but a human can just create a knife.
As I said before it’s just a statistical inevitability.
The end result of such a process would indefinitely lead to a maximal/infinite being.
As in human intelligence is still an extension of a biological mechanism: The brain. Intelligence is potential to mentally adapt but humans are still limited in their potential physical adaptation, a cure for this is a non material body. Thoughts themselves are already metaphysical i.e pure potential energy that is released through everyday actions.
A being of infinite potential energy/singularity/ infinite density.
The magnitude of it’s kinetic catylism would be enormous enough to create a universe.
Then again I’m pulling this out of my ass and having too much fun in the process. Does sound good though and your implications are interesting.
As I said before it’s just a statistical inevitability.
Exactly! I’m so glad you get it.
why the red man lost the new world.
[photo redacted by PP, Dec 26, 2016]
I thought native americans had bigger dicks? Also I’m surprised pumpkin hasnt moderated that picture yet.
Thanks for catching that. It’s gone now. Mug of Pee is such a homosexual.
Lmao how did you not catch that? I’m just scrolling through comments and then BAM! Dicks everywhere.
Hahaha.What a fuckin spit show.
Vox Day posted something extremely insightful on the difference between very high IQ people and ‘brilliant’ (UHIQ) people. I think it sums up my own observations, but many may disagree.
VHIQ inclines towards binary either/or thinking and taking sides. UHIQ inclines towards probabilistic thinking and balancing between contradictory possibilities.
VHIQ seeks understanding towards application or justification, UHIQ seeks understanding towards holistic understanding.
VHIQ refines the original thought of others, UHIQ synthesizes multiple original thoughts.
VHIQ rationalizes logical conclusions, UHIQ accepts logical conclusions. This is ironic because VHIQ considers itself to be highly logical, UHIQ considers itself to be investigative.
VHIQ recognizes the truths in the works of the great thinkers of the past and applies them. UHIQ recognizes the flaws in the thinking of the great thinkers of the past and explores them.
VHIQ usually spots logical flaws in an argument. UHIQ usually senses them.
VHIQ enjoys pedantry. UHIQ hates it. Both are capable of utilizing it at will.
VHIQ is uncomfortable with chaos and seeks to impose order on it, even if none exists. UHIQ is comfortable with chaos and seeks to recognize patterns in it.
VHIQ is spergey and egocentric. UHIQ is holistic and solipsistic.
VHIQ will die on a conceptual hill. UHIQ surrenders at the first reasonable show of force.
VHIQ attempts to rationalize its errors. UHIQ sees no point in hesitating to admit them.
VHIQ seeks to prove the correctness of its case. UHIQ doesn’t believe in the legitimacy of the jury.
VHIQ believes in the unique power of SCIENCE. UHIQ sees science as a conceptual framework of limited utility.
VHIQ seeks to rank and order things. UHIQ seeks to recognize and articulate concepts.
VHIQ is competitive. UHIQ doesn’t keep score.
VHIQ asks “how can this be used?” UHIQ asks “what does this mean?”
Obviously a VLIQ person I can’t understand this. What language is this. Can somebody translate this into a a hybrid of hillbilly, valley girl, inner city slang, and various grunts.?
VHIQ reflective UHIQ meta-reflective
I can know… but then I can know how I know that I know.
Thinking correlates with understanding. Contemplating: ‘What is thinking?’ is a higher form of consciousness. It is wisdom above knowledge. (Gnosis)
I know how it is possible to know.
UHIQ
both
both
UHIQ
both?
UHIQ
VHIQ
UHIQ
VHIQ
VHIQ
VHIQ
both, science is the best way of understand anything about the universe.
both
UHIQ
Looky there I’m brilliant lol
This is my last post on this blog. I quit. Why? For the following reasons, which are not listed in order of importance:
1) All I’ve gotten from the blog is heartache, reading the various racist and sexist comments every fucking day. There’s no need to voluntarily inflict pain on myself. I’m not a masochist.
2) I don’t have time. This blog is good for killing time during Christmas break but I’m a very busy person most of the year. I need to focus on school, and then my job.
3) I don’t like the people. Here, I must confess that Mugabe is by far the worst. The others are mostly fine.
4) My input hasn’t been appreciated and won’t be in the future. I made a mistake by disclosing too much personal information. I’ve been viciously attacked repeatedly based on it.
5) I’m not a good fit for this blog. This blog is for the mentally ill (no offence Pumpkin). I’m way too normal, too successful, too nice, the wrong gender, etc.
“I’m not a masochist.”
Yes you are.
“My input hasn’t been appreciated and won’t be in the future. I made a mistake by disclosing too much personal information. I’ve been viciously attacked repeatedly based on it.”
You’re talking to the wrong people. There’s only like 3 crazy people here who just spam all the time
“I’m not a good fit for this blog. This blog is for the mentally ill (no offence Pumpkin). I’m way too normal, too successful, too nice, the wrong gender, etc.”
Honestly if the first people you gravitated towards was mugabe and philosopher when you first joined, then you may be the one who is mentally ill…no offense.
Ok I guess this is my last post.
I only engage with the Philosopher and Mugabe because I’m not interested in HBD, IQ, etc.. Don’t care at all, which is another good reason for leaving.
You won’t leave. I’ve told myself the same thing many times, been away for some months but there’s always a time when you are bored or sick and you end up to the dark side of the internet.
This blog is fun. PP writes alot of funny things, he writes some things good things with good insight in occasion, but say anything negative about the Holy HBD trinity (God (Jensen), the Son (Rushton), and the Holy Spirit (Lynn) and he gets irrational. There are more eresea) researchers out there than those three people.
Conversing on the dark side of the Internet is fun, I learn a lot I don’t know about you guys.
” I’m not interested in HBD, IQ”
Lol why were you even here in the first place then?
It’s too bad your leaving Deal with It! You’re one of the smartest people here. Your female brain gives you the social IQ to have insights that are completely missed by my other commenters and those insights will be missed
And if you’re not really female, it’s even more impressive that your brain can make such leaps
Stop attacking others & they’ll stop attacking you & if they don’t, I’ll screen their comments
Mug of Pee doesn’t understand. He thinks his attacks are funny/sexy
Sexy?
“3) I don’t like the people. Here, I must confess that Mugabe is by far the worst. The others are mostly fine.”
Mugabe is not the worst, he’s pretty smart, provocative, has good cultural references and no visible intellectual disability.
The worst are without doubt: PP, JS, Philosturbator and Santoculto, in varying order depending on their mood.
I forgot Marsha and Illuminatcat, real idiots too.
Don’t forget your cuck parents that dropped 150k euros on a random magic negro based on a tv crying baby docu-sales video funded by Jews. They are idiots in the most fundamental manner of genetics.
How’s the real parents and fam doing?
What is the greatest fear of a black man?
Being forced back to living among his kin
Don’t forget your cuck parents that dropped 150k euros on a random magic negro based on a tv crying baby docu-sales video funded by Jews. They are idiots in the most fundamental manner of genetics.
No his parents aren’t idiots at all. Yes, adopting a black kid is maladaptive on a genetic level, and yes they were influenced by Jewish propaganda, but it’s very adaptive on emotional level, in that it satisfies one’s affective empathy and desire for legitimate social justice.
Now rich black parents adopting a white or Jewish kid; they I agree they would be idiots, since they’re failures on both a genetic level, and on the level of higher ideals.
Higher ideals aren’t formed in a vacuum. Surprisingly, one may find that most ‘higher ideals’ have remained the same since age 8 with enough introspection.
The phrase ‘legitimate social justice’ is extremely problematic. In modern parlance, it essentially means increasing the privileges and rights of non-white people living among white people at the expense of white people, even though white people create the bulk of economic surplus and social infrastructure.
The phrase ‘legitimate social justice’ is extremely problematic. In modern parlance, it essentially means increasing the privileges and rights of non-white people living among white people at the expense of white people, even though white people create the bulk of economic surplus and social infrastructure.
Well whose fault is it that black people live among white people? Whites dragged them here in chains, kicking and screaming.
(((O_^_0)))))
“Come children, learn about social justice. Help the non-white Middle Eastern low empathy race of man. It is noble”
Look at Israel. They don’t believe in social justice.
They are followers of the fasces.
They are the first race to promulgate a Master Race theory in their holy books.
But nobody asks them to stay. And they don’t have to live among white people in white countries…HELOO DETROIT
But nobody asks them to stay.
Nobody asks whites to stay in North America either, yet they do. Whites forced their way into North America against the will of the Natives. Blacks on the other hand were FORCED to come against their will by whites. It’s bad enough they were uprooted once, and you think it’s okay to uproot them again?
No, but they were sold into slavery by their African brothers in any case. Many captives were victims of tribal warfare and garland wars.
And let’s be blunt, blacks dream of living among whites in Africa, Caribbean and other places. They stream here, then demand money and Oscars.
Blacks don’t demand equality of opportunity, but of outcome. #Oscarssowhite.
Blacks never considered that the reason they don’t win oscars beyond their 15% odd share of the population is the fact they are generally acting their own real life personalities in film.
The oscars is a good example of what happens when you follow your line of thought.
Most of us blacks in the United States can trace their ancestry in this country back before the point most whites can trace their ancestry (with the exception of maybe whites in the South), so blacks are entitled to this land and being treated as co-equals, regardless of their present-day status. Although i’m guessing the Philosopher would gladly send all blacks back to Africa…
Of course ancestors of the Puritans, Quakers, Pilgrims, etc, can trace their ancestry far back too (as per Albion’s Seed).
I still believe this is a man imitating a woman, because he/she seems too whiny, and I think they’re commenting ironically or something.
The comment where she called Pumpkin an alpha male made me choke on my tea.
The comment where she called Pumpkin an alpha male made me choke on my tea.
Yes, the truth can be quite humorous.
I was choking in agreement.
pumpkin can’t be intimidated.
Lol, Pumpkin Person, the alpha male that worships Oprah. ROFL.
“then again how you define what an alphamale is, is arbitrary anyway.”
Common attributes of an alpha male
-Tall, well built
-Masculine demeanor
-Deep voice
-Winner personality
-Naturally commands respect
PP obviously has none of the above attributes.
Lol, Pumpkin Person, the alpha male that worships Oprah. ROFL.
Just because I’m not repulsed by black women like you are, doesn’t mean I’m not alpha
Common attributes of an alpha male
-Tall, well built
-Masculine demeanor
-Deep voice
-Winner personality
-Naturally commands respect
PP obviously has none of the above attributes.
The only alpha trait you have over me is your big ol’ jungle monkey dick
“Just because I’m not repulsed by black women like you are, doesn’t mean I’m not alpha”
Lol, the only races I’m not attracted to are East Asians, Indians and blondes. And of course, obese women like Oprah are not my type.
“The only alpha trait you have over me is your big ol’ jungle monkey dick”
Then PP says he’s not racist. Lots of girls and some boys as well have told me I’m exactly what comes to their mind when they think of what a real man is. In fact, I was describing myself citing all the above alpha male attributes. If you were just in front of me, you wouldn’t think of calling me a monkey for one second, you’d be too nervous at any of my giant hands’ move.
If you liked black women you would have married one. Or maybe they just don’t like you. I guarantee most black woman would prefer me to you, despite your freakishly large python dick.
“If you liked black women you would have married one.”
If you liked women in general and women in general liked you, you’d have married one.
“Or maybe they just don’t like you.”
Please, I had some hot black chicks fighting over me in a club in Barbados a couple of years ago. If I tell you I’m everything most women want in a man, just imagine what I am to most black girls who tend to be attracted to black guys only.
“I guarantee most black woman would prefer me to you, despite your freakishly large python dick.”
Not the black girlfriends and sidechicks I had. Good you acknowledge my dick is bigger than yours, at least you’re realistic on one point. But you’re lying to yourself about the rest, you know I’m exactly the type of guy that makes you insecure about your manhood, and I’ve been this guy ever since I was 15.
Do you ever wonder why there’s so much questioning about your gender ?
Right?^ why is my comment moderated pumpkin? Was the truth not humorous that time around?
If you liked women in general and women in general liked you, you’d have married one.
Why the hell would I want to be married? I love the bachelor life. Not everyone’s as conservative as you, and buys into your Eurocentric philosophy that marriage is a sacred institution. You’ve been completely white washed. Sad.
Please, I had some hot black chicks fighting over me in a club in Barbados a couple of years ago.
Only because they didn’t know you. If they did they’d recognize you for what you are: a boring mediocre IQ narcissistic Eurocentric status obsessed right-winger who feels the need to brag about his penis size and “good looks” to anonymous men on the internet.
If I tell you I’m everything most women want in a man, just imagine what I am to most black girls who tend to be attracted to black guys only.
Are you getting an erection telling me this? Sorry Afro, I’m not into dudes.
I’m exactly the type of guy that makes you insecure about your manhood
I bet you masturbate to a photograph of yourself.
I bet you masturbate to a photograph of yourself.
Oh snap!
Afro grab your books, you just got taken to school!
the jewish ascendancy may be seen in the frequency of yiddishisms.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=7&case_insensitive=on&content=maven&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cmaven%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bmaven%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BMaven%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BMAVEN%3B%2Cc0
maybe the jews have peaked.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=antisemitism&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=17&smoothing=7&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cantisemitism%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bantisemitism%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BantiSemitism%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BAntisemitism%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BAntiSemitism%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BANTISEMITISM%3B%2Cc0
I’m sensing a lot of change.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/backing-swedish-far-rightist-trump-proxy-boycotts-top-israeli-official/
(((They))) will have to censor the internet eventually.
One of Obama’s greatest achievements was maintaining net neutrality. Look for that to be challenged again.
Whomever controls knowledge, has power.
compare to “popish”.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=popish&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=7&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cpopish%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bpopish%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BPopish%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BPOPISH%3B%2Cc0
Back in ’89, I simply slid into place
Buddy, buddy, buddy all up in your face
A lot of kids was bustin rhymes but they had no
taste
Some said Quest was wack, but now is that the case?
I have a quest to have the mic in my hand
Without that, it’s like Kryptonite and Superman
So Shaheed come in with the sugar cuts
Phife Dawg’s my name, but on stage, call me Dynomutt
When was the last time you heard the Phifer sloppy
Lyrics anonymous, you’ll never hear me copy
Top notch baby, never comin less
Sky’s the limit, you gots to believe up in Quest
Sit back , relax, get up out the path
If not that, here’s the dancefloor, come move that
ass
Non-believers, you can check the stats
I roll with Shaheed and the brotha Abstract
Niggaz know the time when the Quest is in the jam
I never let a statue tell me how nice I am
Comin with more hits than the Braves and the Yankees
Livin mad phat like an over sized Bam-bi
The wackest crews try to dis, it makes me laugh
When my track record’s longer than a DC-20 aircraft
So, next time that you think you want somethin here
Make somethin deffer, take that garbage to St.
Elsewhere
That is good good rap young man
Lie! Truth!
Why? Truth!
Lie Truth.
You from da hood?
Air are stupidly talented. Ridiculous.
Slide my guitar up and down baby.
543210 no. one. can. stop. me. to. go.
youll never see me again
Quintessential french coolness.
Heard these guys in Shoreditch last year. This is the spirit of bohemian london.
Brit pop – Redux. And better.
THEY IZ GONNA BE STARS
I can’t sleep. I’ll make a few posts. Maybe someone will find this interesting.
So, I was thinking about the negative impacts of diversity on a nation and thought to apply game theory to the subject.
It’s often charged that black people can’t create well run systems because they won’t cooperate. Why? Because they are either 1)too dumb or 2) too psychopathic. Factor 1 presupposes that cooperation is the rational thing to do and that by acting in an anti-social manner, blacks hurt themselves. As far as I can tell, this is Lion’s position. He’s big on the “low impulse control” hypothesis. (Btw this reveals something interesting about Lion’s mind but I won’t go there in this post.) However, cooperation may be only rational when one expects others to cooperate. This is the collective action problem in game theory. The simplest example of this problem is the prisoner’s dilemma. Two prisoners, A and B, have two options: 1) cooperate (stay silent) or 2) act selfishly (confess). Assuming that both prisoners go in blind with respect to the probability of the other’s actions, the rational thing to do is to be selfish. Why? Because if A cooperates and B is selfish, A gets screwed. If the tables are turned, A wins. Alternatively, if both A and B are selfish, the outcome isn’t as bad for A as if he had cooperated and B hadn’t. By acting selfishly, A can minimize his losses and maximize gains. If both cooperate, the result is decent but not the best for A or B.
Importantly, acting selfishly is rational only if A either 1) knows B will cooperate or 2) doesn’t know how B will act. On the other hand, cooperation is rational ONLY when A reasonably expects B to cooperate.
Let’s do a comparative analysis. In nation A (for ex, a random dirt poor African nation), the systems that maintain civilization (such as tax) are heavily compromised. At least some of this can be attributed to the lack of cooperation or in other words, the collective action problem. It follows that either factor 1 or factor 2 or both are in play. In nation B (let’s take the USA), these same systems are much more secure but on account of what? The citizenry at least in part. The two populations can be distinguished on several characteristics but for our purposes, let’s focus on race. Nation B has a slim white majority while A is 95 % black. ASSUMING THAT INDIVIDUALS ACT IN THEIR RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST, the lack of cooperation by a nation A’s individual is either due to 1) knowing that others won’t cooperate or 2) not knowing how others will act. I believe, in NEWER countries, both factors are in play. When a nation is formed, when civilization begins, nothing is known. One doesn’t know how one’s fellow man will behave and this lack of certainty makes it RATIONAL TO CHEAT THE SYSTEM. This speaks to element 2. When you cheat, your reputation for cheating follows you. Therefore, element 1 is a natural consequence of element 2. Since African nations are new, this may explain black peoples’ lack of cooperation.
However, it also has implications for other nations. What happens when you introduce diversity to a nation? I think at least some uncertainty is inevitable. How will the newcomers behave? How will my new neighbor from a war torn nation in the Middle East behave? It’s an unknown. This uncertainty may breed lack of cooperation.
Are people that exhibit low cooperation psychopaths or dumb or both?
There are at least two types of self-interest:
1) Individual interest
2) Group interest
In a classic formulation of the prisoner’s dilemma, cooperation is in the group interest. Thus, there is a conflict between the group interest and individual interest provided that the conditions that make being selfish rational obtain. So, if there is insufficient information, it may be in one’s self-interest to cooperate if he cares more about the group interest.
Pumpkin Person and others in the HBD community assume that black people behave better in white countries because they’re smarter either due to white admixture or selection of high IQ immigrants. However, there is another possible explanation. Perhaps, black people in white countries have lower rates of psychopathy. If the default state of things is insufficient information (kind of plausible in a large nation but not in a neighborhood), the explanation may be that blacks in white countries value group interest over individual interest while in Africa, their priorities are reversed.
However, there are many problems. How do you measure the possession of relevant information? How do you measure behavior? Maybe psychopathy can just be measured in a lab? Even if you observe priority inversion, it may be due to some other factor. Is caring/not caring for group interest a good enough proxy test for psychopathy?
There is one assumption you make in all this that doesn’t stand up empirically – black people behave better in white countries than Kinshasa. This is a tough one for me to explain because the empirics are not actually obvious to the autist or casual observer. Let me proceed.
1/4 of blacks will be in prison at some point. We also know blacks in other Western countries like the UK account for a disproportionate share of prisoners.
But here is the kicker – blacks in the US do more violent crime than their proportion of the population than blacks in the UK.
To the environmental proponent this is an example of a positive non-racist environment causing behavioral change. To the hereditist there is another answer which goes back to one’s ‘gut feelings’ on the fundamental force of the Dark Jungles of Kinshasa.
What explains this discrepancy?
You make an assumption that all blacks are equally psychopathic.
As blacks in the UK are too small a share of the population (c. 2%), but a much larger share in America (c. 15%), the sheer numbers of big time psychopaths is not only more important, but more evenly distributed across the country. In the UK most blacks are in London.
Thus small time psychopaths, may or may not cause crime. But with big time path gang leaders and others in their vicinity causing trouble, it becomes a race to the bottom of behaviour in internal black community game theoretic models.
This causes previously small time paths who are cancelled out by the white laws/env to revert to primordial Kinshasa. The Big Paths either cause tenuous rapists to rape in a gang, follow their lead in open season predation under Zion’s censorship of race stats or in a maelstrom of pain, rape out of growing up in an environment where most black women get raped.
The key is the distribution. Gangs in Croydon in london or the borough of Croydon are already known and most of the crime thusly caused is caused by these concentrated Big Paths and followers and apportioned to small number with a limited range of victims in the area.
Further police looking at data anticipate it and police the area accordingly.
Unfortunately in America, big time paths are more prevalent due to Jew media, breakdown of black families (something they never talk about, even though the numbers are huge of illegitimate black children), but purely geographic dispersion causing them to work their magic, get caught less, get policed less and positively charge the other lesser paths in the atmosphere,causing storms.
Much like high IQ jews then, it is not the 120-130IQ jewish lawyer or banker per se that causes grief…but the very superior jew deep state don or jew Illusion weaver philosopher for the goyim.
The tendency is seen in its extremity, never in its average article.
I have cracked it.
Homicide rates are much lower in Subsaharan Africa than in the African-American community where it is 35/100,000. This in spite of a very young and poor population, almost non-existent incarceration and very dysfunctional policing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
THASSS BECOSTH HOMEY THIDE AND RAPE ARE QUASI LEGAL IN AFRICA SMARTYPANTZ.
You’re talking about Africa, the continent where you get lynched for stealing at the market ? Africans have balls, they don’t watch people being raped or beaten and public spaces without acting like we do in France.
Africans have balls, they don’t watch people being raped or beaten in* public spaces without acting like we do in France.
HBD Chick, Jayman, Those Who Can See, et. al, have covered the topic of racial differences in “trust” relentlessly, and the topic has even been covered by mainstream scholars like Robert Putnam and Francis Fukuyama.
Low trust leads to greater preference for government interference, less common-weal orientation, and less involvement in community organizations. The next frontier applying game theory models that can simulate varying levels of trust in different populations (which I think some researchers have already started looking into).
By the way, violence alone is a poor measure of trust, although it does have a small correlation with it. So even if African-Americans are less violent compared to Africans (which I, like the Philosopher, don’t think they are), that doesn’t mean they’re more trustworthy.
The biggest irony is that even if white genes raised African-American IQ, they also likely received low-trust genes from their Scotch-Irsh/Irish counterparts in the South (some of whom were indentured servants who bred with blacks, or were slave owners). This may have had a cancelling out effect with regards to black violence.
And speaking to Africans, even though they have high crime rates (maybe or maybe not higher than African-Americans), they’re known for their high levels of civic involvement compared to other groups, especially in political or religious organizations. So you can be low-trust in one way, and high-trust in another.
https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2015/10/30/community-vs-communism/
Something like 40% of all black women in South Africa will be raped at some point in their lives.
We only know that because white people bothered to count.
You imagine these women are sisters and daughters to other black men.
HOMEYTHIDE AND WAPE SITTIN IN A TWEE, K-I-L-L-I-N-G. FUST THEY WOB, THEN THEY BEAT, THEN THEY SPIT WHORE MONTROSITEE.
Rape rates in the world.
And here ye, let it be said now in no uncertain terms what yields the coveting of the flesh (R-A-P-E):
1. Blacks/MENA among white women in the population.
2. Feminist white police paying more attention and counting rapes better.
3. Having Genghis Khans genes http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/least-ten-other-men-are-fruitful-genghis-khan/
…If Sweden’s police force was seconded to Africa, what colour do you think Africa would be overall – NIgerian Orange or Saffer Crimson?
Alright, off to the gym. Embargo now on basement trolling for the rest of today.
” A Man’s basement is where he has time to think about philosophy”
– Woody Allen.
“…If Sweden’s police force was seconded to Africa, what colour do you think Africa would be overall – NIgerian Orange or Saffer Crimson?”
What if Sweden’s police was seconded to South Korea ?
To be fair, and since it’s very difficult to count rape and sexual assault, here is a map of female sexual vulnerability.
Where are the countries where rape is rare ? I don’t see any on the map
Either it’s small islands in the Pacific or the Caribbean or they put the category to highlight the fact that countries where rape is rare are impossible to find.
The second map is better and coincides a lot with my theories on rape.
You know the scale they’re using can’t go from red to black? MENA people are pretty uncouth.
But Africa is another level again.
It may be glaringly obvious…
but it seems rape rates (rapes/capita) is a direct function of population density.
More rural/underdeveloped African countries, according to Afro’s chart, have rape rates lower than places like U.S., Brazil, etc.
This is caused by
1. Closer contact (more opportunity to rape)
2. The closeness of *community* in rural areas, a rapist is much more easily identified/caught/punished in rural areas.
P.S. the second map is better in Philburt’s opinion because it coincides with his existing beliefs?
LOL
No because its a better reflection of reality and deep down you know it. We are not debating country rape rates. We are debating the black propensity to rape and pillage. Keep up buster.
Philosopher would LOVE Ali G;
I do. He interviews Trump and Trump is socially intelligent enough to figure out he’s a troll pretty quickly!
Borat was a good laugh as well. I like!
Sasha Baron Cohen’s brother is the Cambridge psychiatry professor who is the world leader on autism.
Sasha studied law at Cambridge himself.
Jews r very smart. Maybe Simon should study Jewish intelligence someday. He must know stuff very interesting like whether jews are more prone to autism than whites say. If I had 5 minutes with Simon it would be enjoyable, in a non sexual manner.
I’m fixing a hole where the rain gets in
And stops my mind from wandering
Where it will go
Aquinas makes a great observation that there is a big difference between the existent and the truth.
Autists are obsessed with the former, and concerned with the later only as an avenue to the former.
Other than that, this book is the hardest slog I’ve had since Moby Dick.
The market is anticipating more handouts to the the rich.
If Trump mops up cheap labour, rips up outsourcing deals and keeps throttling government contractors that could countervail the tax cuts/dereg in market valuations.
I’m actually not against the idea of closing loopholes and lowering corp taxes as long as the social dumping of business – open borders – is wiped out. Better to concentrate the social pain in sales taxes than fragment it by letting in Yo Soy Coolie and Mumbango for pain that goes on centuries.
Most of the gentile business owners are too fucking greedy to figure out the real purpose of cheap labour – replacing gentiles.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
The way Zion sees white gentiles.
Haha, and we all thought the Matrix was some guy staring at a cave painting.
MUHAHAHAHAHAHHA.
“I’m actually not against the idea of closing loopholes and lowering corp taxes as long as the social dumping of business – open borders – is wiped out”
Understandable opinion, but it won’t go down that way.
Ann Coulter seems to think that if the non-White population goes down and the White population goes up, that the percentage that vote Democrat and Republican within each race will stay the same. But like most trannies she doesn’t have a triple digit IQ.
If open borders are wiped out then (poor) Whites will feel less ‘racially defensive’ and more ‘economically defensive’ and be driven to vote Liberal or Utilitarian, which benefits them.
We will still have the jew and black tag team problem even with illegal deporting. Ergo, whites in general will move more along Southern voting patterns as Zion gets bolder in its brainwashing and Magic Negro social force field is strengthened leading to more and more crime, riots and outrageous acts like the Oscars and NFL sitting down guy.
America worked best 80% + white. Thats the America the whole world looked up to. Not the Brazilified bastard America under Israel we have now.
http://atlantablackstar.com/2015/05/08/why-the-latest-protests-in-tel-aviv-is-damming-proof-that-brutality-against-black-people-is-a-global-struggle/
This is beyond satire.
#BlackLivesMatter….in Tel Aviv.
‘White’ policemen beating up Ethiopian jews.
Beyond Satire.
“Civil war and famine in Ethiopia prompted the Israeli government to mount these dramatic rescue operations. The rescues were within the context of Israel’s national mission to gather Diaspora Jews and bring them to the Jewish homeland.”
There are tears in my eyes.
The Jews. Such an unintentionally intentionally funny bunch of guys.
A survey found that 57% of Israelis consider a daughter marrying an Ethiopian unacceptable and 39% consider a son marrying an Ethiopian to be unacceptable. Barriers to intermarriage have been attributed to sentiments in both the Ethiopian community and Israeli society generally.[117] A 2011 study showed that only 13% of high school students of Ethiopian origin felt “fully Israeli”.
Mumbango for white daughters.
Tribalism for the Chosen One daughters.
Our maybe Rothstein for white daughters is the real oblique intent?
You people think I’m unhinged and blinded by hate for Jews. They enjoy humiliating people intellectually.The wikipedia writing is a comedic gold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Israel#Ethiopian_Heritage_Museum
You what would be poetic justice? Half of ethiopia claims Beta Israel heritage and a mass migration of ‘refugees’ ensues to Mordor. If some troll white guy can organise that I would marry him and have his babies, and name them all after him.
Ashkenazim in Israel are less intelligent or will become less intelligent, due to their frequent intermarriages with Middle Eastern Jews, if this is good news to you!
Pumpkin are you serious being me being one of the smartest people in this blog?
I might post until the end of Christmas break.
In my opinion, yes. Certainly one of the socially smartest.
If what you are writing in flashes is indeed, really you. Then I have no problem believing you were a philosophy undergrad, scored well in verbal GRE and are at a ‘top law school’.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/
I was also briefly a philosophy undergrad a long time ago.
Hence the name ‘The Philosopher’ for the education I should have had, rather than the drivel I actually got for employability reasons.
The Amerikan Republic (1978) was the name of a great movie a while back.
Basically the plot featured a white guy who volunteered in Africa returning home to find that his country had changed and forgotten him after his years of service.
After many years of suffering PTSD, seeing his marriage crumble and becoming dependent on alcohol, he finds purpose fighting institutional racism in America and becomes a vigilante.
Anyways, long story short, his gang of grey haired and noble African Americans and jewish financiers manage to loot and pillage downtown Wisconsin, set fire to the American flag and win a charged and emotional legal trial where he slams his fist on his female lawyer and tells the room they can’t handle the truth before declaring that he is black and therefore, outside of the real law of human nature as per the Constitution of Lord Zion’s Global Order.
And then the liberal character played by Susan Sarandon counsels him in prison to let go of his justified hate against white people for their unyielding racism and this being Hollywood, she falls in love with the trans-black man and adopt Afrosapiens and live happily ever.
THE END.
All kidding aside though, I think racism is a serious problem in our society, and corporations have struggled historically without diversity. For example, economists have shown open borders increases GDP by 470% and Brexit will lead to a Depression.
Think about it.
IBM gets the mainframe and becomes a tech industry pioneer and all that but Ginni Rometty takes it to a new level and jumps on any company like a bitch in heat in a debt fueled splurge.
Or Carly Fiorina at HP, or Mayer at Yahoo or Hilary at State.
People say most female executives and politicians are lesbians or psychopaths to make up for the testosterone imbalance, but they are not correct.
When Buffet said he wanted his company’s good enough to be run by ham sandwiches, smart people said: THAT IS GENIUS.
Ham sandwiches are the future of management and corporations and business and cool videos by low T latent homosexuals at Vice Media promoting rappers as sound businessmen because they know how to sell highly addictive crack and want to blow aforesaid rappers in their foam parties while wearing a butt plug becayse they’re faggots that never saw a strong non-white male they didn’t want to be the underside of.
Strong trolling.
I notice you get a lot of black commenters pumpkin. I would say its beyond probability that about 40% of the commenters are black over a 6 month period.
Must be all dat Oprah material.
This blog has a HUGE black following. It’s one of the things I’m most proud of.
What’s the secret to your success?
This blog attracts by and large relatively intelligent people. I don’t know if you’re getting at that aspect.
As for views on race in a sociological context, this blog isn’t really that Cucked either. It may be that their is a subtlety to views on race caused by the high IQs.
A lot of that (somewhat counter-intuitively) may have to do with PP’s talk of the wealth-IQ correlation and his (until recently) Libertarianism.
More left-wing economics in combination with “race realism” basically leads to a fascist view of things. High IQ Blacks feel the best way for them to survive, or their race to survive at all is by supporting a individualistic meritocracy.
*an*
we’re all witnessing:
1. the end of black dykes
2. that homosexuals are bad people
3. that all black people are retards
peepee’s blog makes ALL the points she’s tried to dis-prove!
New Latin terms for the sub-species of people in the Anglo-HBD Sphere:
The family of the Homo Proletarius – Anglo Proles
Homo Judas – Ashkenazim
Homo Gentilis – White Gentiles
Homo Niger – blacks
Homo Hispanium – Hispanics
Homo Mongolius – East Asians
Homo Indus – South Asians
Homo Arabus – Arabs
Why is Lion so obsessed with class? It’s off-putting. Is this a Jewish thing? White gentiles were snobs maybe around 50 years ago but Lion is a snob in 2016. If he had any class, he wouldn’t be so class-conscious.
Why is Lion so obsessed with class?
Many on the alt-right are anti-Semites who view America’s culture wars as Gentile vs. Jews. I think he’s trying to get them instead to view it as proles vs SWPLs so that they’ll become less anti-Semitic. It’s an example of the importance of categories, and how high verbal IQ people manipulate them to advance their ethnic genetic interests.
Jews are far from being SWPLs. Again, they’re more prole than SWPL.
The real finesse SWPLs are not Jews, but Whites. Lion’s recent post about the Santa Monica beach, where most of his commenters/commentators think the beach is SWPL, demonstrates that he and most of his followers are prole. The entire Los Angeles region in California is very prole. I mentioned Santa Barbara and San Diego, and those areas are genuinely for people with money.
It’s quite interesting when you look at the Jewish population by cities, we all know most Jews live in New York City, then it is followed by Los Angeles when it comes to American cities. More than 1/2 million Jews live in the City of Angels.
Now San Diego, a city south of Los Angeles only 1.5 hr by car when it comes to distance, is much nicer, more expensive and more “SWPL” and it only has ~ 88,000 Jewish residents more or less.
Santa Barbara, an expensive city north of Los Angeles with a population of 90,000, even less, about less than 1% of the population is Jewish, and it is also 1.5 hr away by car from Los Angeles.
So who’s really prole vs SWPL when it comes to Jews vs Whites?
JS, only Americans look up to French people. Canadians don’t have an inferiority complex vis-a-vis the Quebecois. Please stop fellating the French. It’s off-putting.
JS has swallowed more semen than Marsha and I combined. And Marsha is a prostitute!
Anglo Canadians look down on the French Canadians. — So it’s more like a superiority complex, but the ones who live in their territory have inferiority issues. And now Canada’s Prime Minister is French Canadian overseeing an entire country — so it gets interesting as to who has the inferiority vs superiority complex.