Many guys in the HBD-o-sphere worship Alpha males and are totally ashamed of their own nerdiness. I find this annoying because back when I was in high school (I’m now in my 30s) I was somewhat popular with the “cool” kids because they loved my impersonations of the teachers, but I always wanted to hang out with the nerds. To me nerdiness represented intelligence. I viewed nerds as more highly evolved and genetically superior. The problem was I don’t look like a nerd, and nerds were interested in talking about HARD sciences and science fiction, and I was interested in the social sciences and horror films.
But it’s not surprising that nerds feel inferior to “alphas” because according to J.P. Rushton’s theory, as humans became more evolved, they developed a K reproduction strategy (lower birth rates but higher survival rates) and with that came lower self-esteem, because if you only mate with one woman, you don’t need the ego to pursue numerous partners. Further, as humans migrated North, there was more need for technological intelligence to build shelter, tools and clothing and less need for the social IQ to pickup women, so the social part of the brain began to shrink, to make room for more technical processing.
The low self-esteem combined with scrawniness, glasses and social obtuseness makes nerds feel they can’t score with women but it doesn’t have to be that way.
Economist Peter Orzag is an example of a guy who is a complete stereotypical nerd, yet always has a gorgeous woman on his arm, and is ranked by the media as one of the sexiest guys in Washington.
The SFGate gushed:
Any dude who can snag ABC newscaster Bianna Golodryga while banging wealthy shipping heiress Claire Milonas, and running the country’s budget is a man.
This must infuriate the dumb jocks who probably shoved him in his locker in high school.
One reason women like him is that he’s extremely self-confident, and women don’t expect that from a nerd so they’re pleasantly surprised. If you’re a nerd, a little bit of alpha goes a long way.
I’m friends with a guy who despite being tall and athletic, never had much success with women. One Halloween he was desperate for a costume so he dressed up like a nerd with exaggerated glasses and a pocket protector. To my utter astonishment, women at the very upscale bar we were at could not stop hitting on him. It occurred to me that women grade guys on a curve. When he was a jock he was only average in height and athleticism for a jock so women ignored him, but when he became a nerd he was in the top 10%.
Pumpkin Person 
>n=1 sample sizes and my personal experience with people mean something
Lol
“I viewed nerds as more highly evolved and genetically superior.”
And you’re the only one who does. Because these words are ridiculous, biologically speaking.
People with higher IQs have sex at a later age than people with lower IQs.
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php
Let’s say, for arguments sake, that the measure of ‘superiority’ and ‘more evolved’ (lol) is reproduction. Who reproduces more? Tall all you want about muh money, muh this, muh that. But at the end of the day that’s why we strive for accomplishments.
Idiots are out breeding muh high IQ ‘genetically superior/more evolved’ humans. Guess they’re not that after all.
Those words need to be excised from evolutionary biology. Well, you’re a social science major so I guess it’s appropriate for you.
Those words need to be excised from evolutionary biology. Well, you’re a social science major so I guess it’s appropriate for you
At least I had a major. You attend a diploma mill.
I don’t need college to be successful in life. I’m very successful without it. I do it because I gave a lot of free time and want to expand my knowledge. And I am going for a hard science degree. So ya. Nice one there.
And hard sciences and sci-fi > social sciences and horror.
“so the social part of the brain began to shrink, to make room for more technical processing”
Source?
And I am going for a hard science degree.
The only hard science you know is the science of getting yourself hard, with your hand.
Blah blah blah. I don’t need to talk abkht my sex life on (what is supposedly) an HBD blog. What would that bring to the conversation? Absolutely nothing.
Now address my comments please.
Because these words are ridiculous, biologically speaking.
There’s nothing ridiculous about the term “more evolved”.
It implies progress. Don’t say ‘no it doesn’t’, because it’s clear you’ve not done a lot of reading into this subject other than Rushton’s little blip in REB. You say “In order to determine who is more evolved than who, you need to look at the evolutionary tree. If you’re the first branch, and you don’t do anymore branching, then you are less evolved than higher branches.” (lol)
Completely reading it the wrong way, but what do I know I’m just a lowly bio major undergrad talking to a guy with a social science degree.
Learn how to read a damn phylogeny. I’m embarrassed for you when I read things like that.
You don’t even know what an evolutionary tree is. The wildly popular Xenosystems blog read my ground-breaking theory and read your critique and concluded I was right and that you missed the point.
“You don’t even know what an evolutionary tree is.”
Phylogenies are family trees.
‘Ground-breaking theory’. Point me to where he concluded that you were right and that I ‘missed the point’.
Phylogenies show genetic relatedness, and they can be used for a whole bunch of other things to show relatedness, how traits arise, etc.
You need to read this.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-008-0035-x#Sec8
You don’t even know what an evolutionary tree is.”
Phylogenies are family trees.
But what do the splits on the tree mean? Do you even know?
‘Ground-breaking theory’. Point me to where he concluded that you were right and that I ‘missed the point’.
He wrote THIS (linking to my post) is more interesting than IT SEEMS (linking to your critique). In other words, my theory SEEMED wrong to you, but there is more to it then meets the eye
You need to read this.
I used to believe those clichés too, until I created a new theory.
“But what do the splits on the tree mean? Do you even know?”
Speciation events/common ancestors. From the backwater Berkely.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_05
“He wrote THIS (linking to my post) is more interesting than IT SEEMS (linking to your critique). In other words, my theory SEEMED wrong to you, but there is more to it then meets the eye”
Reading phylas wrong is groundbreaking, and continuing to read phylas wrong even when corrected is groundbreaking. Got it!
“I used to believe those clichés too, until I created a new theory.”
LOL. Remember the other day when I kept pressing you about information for the testosterone article and you conitnuously used the appeal to authority fallacy saying ‘you think you know more about this field than researchers in it’? That’s exactly what you’re doing here. You, a social science major, is using your intuition and completely reading the trees wrong. Your ‘theory’ makes no sense because you’re reading the phylogeny wrong. But you’re too stubborn to admit you’re wrong because you have a ton of emotional investment/time in your little (wrong) pet theory.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evotrees_interpretations
Keep disregarding authoritative sources with your little snide comments, which, again, makes you look so intellectually honest. You. Are. Reading. Them. Wrong.
Shoot an email to some evolutionary biologists and ask them if they read tress like that. Ask anyone who you respect. I’d love to see the response. Then you can continue your crusade believing that phylas show ‘more evolved/superior’ organisms, even when being shown 6 trillion times how wrong you are because you completely read the trees wrong. “Splits this, Splits that!!” Even when shown you’re wrong as fuck. That is hilarious.
Speciation events/common ancestors. From the backwater Berkely.
A split in a tree simply means the population split, but yes that correlates with speciation.
And what is speciation? The evolution from one species to another.
So what does it mean to be descended from multiple splits?
It means your descended from multiple speciations
And if speciation = evolution
Then more speciation equals more evolved
This is basic logic and no amount of links can debunk it
“A split in a tree simply means the population split, but yes that correlates with speciation.”
Speciation can occur on anywhere in the line, not only at a node. Read Speciation by Jerry Coyne.
“It means your descended from multiple speciations”
You do know that not all phylogenies are the same right?
Go ask Jerry Coyne what he thinks about your theory. This is someone who you can directly ask and he will most likely respond to you.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/
“This is basic logic and no amount of links can debunk it”
You don’t even know basic logic. To you, logical arguments are ‘opinions’, so nice to know that this is your ‘opinion’.
Will you ask Jerry Coyne the question, or shall I send a few biologists some emails tomorrow?
“A split in a tree simply means the population split, but yes that correlates with speciation.”
Speciation can occur on anywhere in the line, not only at a node. Read Speciation by Jerry Coyne.
1) You already admitted that splits represented “Speciation events/common ancestors”
2) Of course evolutionary change can occur anywhere on the line, but speciation type events CORRELATE with population splits because these prehistorically were typically caused by one or more subgroups of a population experiencing evolutionary novelty. Do you deny this?
You don’t even know basic logic. To you, logical arguments are ‘opinions’, so nice to know that this is your ‘opinion’.
I just told you my logic. Tell me what you think is wrong with it,
Will you ask Jerry Coyne the question, or shall I send a few biologists some emails tomorrow?
Threatening to email biologists? Shaking in my boots. LOL!
“You already admitted that splits represented “Speciation events/common ancestors””
Speciation can occur anywhere on the line buddy.
“but speciation type events CORRELATE with population splits because these prehistorically were typically caused by one or more subgroups of a population experiencing evolutionary novelty. Do you deny this?”
Nope. And I’m literally telling you, as you said yourself, that speciation and phenomenal phenotypic change can occur anywhere on the line (that’s if that specific phylogeny is made in that way). Making phylogenies is very complicated, honestly you have a rudimentary understanding of it. You can say anything you’d like about muh theory, and you can think you know more than a researcher, but you’d be doing the same thing you said to me the other day “you think you know more than these researchers in their specific field?”
You’re looking for something, you’re going to find it. Have you heard that phrase before??
“I just told you my logic. Tell me what you think is wrong with it,”
” if speciation = evolution
Then more speciation equals more evolved”
This implies progress. I’ve told you this countless times. I could provide a quote from a nice tome I’m reading at the moment that goes into evolutionary ‘progress’, but I’m not near my books at the moment.
It takes one counter example to falsify something.
What you’re saying was addressed in the paper I linked previously. You can say ‘it’s not your responsibility to read every paper’, however that makes you look intellectually dishonest while you parrot the same falsities that were previously addressed in the paper I linked.
“Threatening to email biologists? Shaking in my boots. LOL!”
You’re a social ‘science’ major. I’m a personal trainer and nutritionist. Why not email people whose specific speciality is speciation to see what they think of your theory? Jerry Coyne is an expert on speciation. And the people who wrote the papers on misconceptions on evolutionary trees (that current college biology majors have, from their intuition were shown how they were incorrect with their assumptions on trees just by looking at them.
But hey man, if you want to believe fantasies because they fit your viewpoints, you’ll be looking or something and finding it all the time, whether it is real and relevant or not.
That is not science.
You already admitted that splits represented “Speciation events/common ancestors””
Speciation can occur anywhere on the line buddy.
Where it can occur, and where it tends to occur, are two different things. Do you understand that?
“but speciation type events CORRELATE with population splits because these prehistorically were typically caused by one or more subgroups of a population experiencing evolutionary novelty. Do you deny this?”
Nope. And I’m literally telling you, as you said yourself, that speciation and phenomenal phenotypic change can occur anywhere on the line (that’s if that specific phylogeny is made in that way). Making phylogenies is very complicated, honestly you have a rudimentary understanding of it.
My understanding of it is vastly more advanced than yours.
You can say anything you’d like about muh theory, and you can think you know more than a researcher, but you’d be doing the same thing you said to me the other day “you think you know more than these researchers in their specific field?”
I am confident that there are researchers in the field who would agree with my theory if I had the opportunity to explain it to them.
You’re looking for something, you’re going to find it. Have you heard that phrase before??
I explained my logic; tell where you think I went wrong.
” if speciation = evolution
Then more speciation equals more evolved”
This implies progress. I’ve told you this countless times. I could provide a quote from a nice tome I’m reading at the moment that goes into evolutionary ‘progress’, but I’m not near my books at the moment.
“More evolved” is a neutral statement that doesn’t saying anything about whether more evolution is progressive or not. The reason it implies progress to many is because many people believe evolution is progressive. But these are two separate arguments and you can’t seem to tell the difference.
It takes one counter example to falsify something.
What you’re saying was addressed in the paper I linked previously. You can say ‘it’s not your responsibility to read every paper’, however that makes you look intellectually dishonest while you parrot the same falsities that were previously addressed in the paper I linked.
It makes you look intellectually vapid when all you can do is provide links instead of stating crisply what’s wrong with my logic and why.
You’re a social ‘science’ major. I’m a personal trainer and nutritionist. Why not email people whose specific speciality is speciation to see what they think of your theory?
Because of the tens of thousands of people who have read my blog, the only ones who have questioned the theory are a personal trainer and a lawyer. If actual biologists condemned my theory as I explained it, then I might be concerned.
Jerry Coyne is an expert on speciation. And the people who wrote the papers on misconceptions on evolutionary trees (that current college biology majors have, from their intuition were shown how they were incorrect with their assumptions on trees just by looking at them.
They were simply saying that IN THEORY evolution can occur anywhere in the tree which I agree with. But my argument is more subtle and you can’t debunk it which is why you’re so dependent on expert opinion.
But hey man, if you want to believe fantasies because they fit your viewpoints, you’ll be looking or something and finding it all the time, whether it is real and relevant or not.
If you want to keep trashing ideas you don’t understand, you’ll continue to stay ignorant and closed minded
“Then more speciation equals more evolved”
No, more speciation = more differentiation without implications about one clade being more advanced or backwards than the other. This differentiation appears mainly through genetic drift, whereas natural and sexual selection play a lesser role. But natural selection caused by a new pressure doesn’t make an organism more advanced than natural selection caused by an older pressure.
However, we’re all more evolved than our parents because of the new mutations that appear with each instance of reproduction. But the younger offsprings aren’t genetically advanced than their elders just because their individual mutations appeared a couple of years later. And we’re not more advanced than our parents.
However, we’re all more evolved than our parents because of the new mutations that appear with each instance of reproduction. But the younger offsprings aren’t genetically advanced than their elders just because their individual mutations appeared a couple of years later. And we’re not more advanced than our parents.
You just contradicted Race Realist who asserts more evolved = more advanced
As far as I recall RR has always said evolution meant genetic change in the most neutral sense.
As far as I recall RR has always said evolution meant genetic change in the most neutral sense
He explicitly just said in this thread and elsewhere that “more evolved” implies progress. I explained to him that these are two separate questions:
1) is A more evolved than B?
2) Are more evolved things generally more advanced (in some sense)?
He incorrectly thinks that merely asserting that A is more evolved than B, as you did, means A has progressed more than B.
Please quote him.
and P, just a piece of advice.
If you want to be a credible alpha male, don’t use capital letters when you want to HIGHLIGHT a part of your text. It looks womanly HYSTERICAL or downright CHILDISH.
Evolution = genetic change
The sole measure of a population’s level of genetic evolution is its genetic diversity.
Afrosapiens exactly. Remember how most evolution occurs when natural selection is weak or non existent?
Afrosapiens exactly.
LOL! You realize he contradicted you, right? Even though that was not his intention.
“Afrosapiens exactly. Remember how most evolution occurs when natural selection is weak or non existent?”
Yes, I remember that. We’ve always understood each other here.
Afro, I have stated numerous times that more evolved implies progress. If PP wants to cite randos, I can as well. Someone left a comment on my blog stating that that’s what it means as well.
“Afro, I have stated numerous times that more evolved implies progress. If PP wants to cite randos, I can as well. Someone left a comment on my blog stating that that’s what it means as well.”
Just to make sure we’re reading on the same page.
PP misunderstands the meaning of “more evolved” and confuses it with “more progressive” when “more evolved” actually means experiencing more genetic diversification.
Just to make sure we’re reading on the same page.
PP misunderstands the meaning of “more evolved” and confuses it with “more progressive”
No, it’s RR who does that.
I explicitly stated that more evolved and more progress are two separate concepts. Whether they’re related or not is a separate question but let’s resolve one argument at a time or we’ll get overwhelmed
when “more evolved” actually means experiencing more genetic diversification.
Interesting theory; explain
See:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#c5
Most phylogenies’ branch lengths don’t indicate any change.
However, advanced students may be interested to know that in the specialized phylogenies where the branch length does mean something, a longer branch usually indicates either a longer time period since that taxon split from the rest of the organisms on the tree or more evolutionary change in a lineage
Specialized phylogenies. Ie, what PP is looking for in the phylogenies he cites he is going to find it. Unless specified, branch length is meaningless. But what do I know? I’m just a lowly nutritionist and personal trainer, not a high and mighty social science major.
The misconception that a taxon on a short branch has undergone little evolutionary change probably arises in part because of how phylogenies are built. Many phylogenies are built using an “outgroup” — a taxon outside the group of interest.
Keep using your intuition, PP. When numerous biologists have written numerous papers talking about your intuitive misconceptions. The backwater Berkeley has them all with neat little pictures too.
But you can still keep your assumptions and intuitions about phylogenies, you’d be wrong though, and misleading people.
And my favorite:
MISCONCEPTION: Taxa that are nearer the bottom or left-hand side of a phylogeny evolved earlier than other taxa on the tree.
CORRECTION: It is the order of branching points from root to tip on a phylogeny that indicate the order in which different clades split from one another — not the order of taxa at the tips of the phylogeny. On the phylogeny below, the earliest and most recent branching points are labeled.
What do they know though? PP knows more, his searching for something and finding it means more than people who literally only study phylogeny!
I’ll respond to your comments later this afternoon PP, but I admit when my knowledge is limited and then defer to the relevant people.
By the way, here’s a new paper featuring Herculano-Houzel and the measurements of dolphins body and brain measurements compared to other cetaceans, revealing great diversity.
http://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/454797
Seems we will have an actual answer on the long-finned pilot whale soon. I guarantee that her scaling rules will hold.
lengths don’t indicate any change.
I’m not arguing that the length of the branch indicates the degree of change except that shorter branches tend to be descended from more splits and splits are correlated with change
However, advanced students may be interested to know that in the specialized phylogenies where the branch length does mean something, a longer branch usually indicates either a longer time period since that taxon split from the rest of the organisms
Exactly
The misconception that a taxon on a short branch has undergone little evolutionary change
I don’t argue that.
And my favorite:
MISCONCEPTION: Taxa that are nearer the bottom or left-hand side of a phylogeny evolved earlier than other taxa on the tree.
CORRECTION: It is the order of branching points from root to tip on a phylogeny that indicate the order in which different clades split from one another — not the order of taxa at the tips of the phylogeny. On the phylogeny below, the earliest and most recent branching points are labeled.
My theory isn’t based on whether you’re on the left or right of the tree nor is it based on when you branched off per se; but rather on how many splits you’re descended from, so you’re attacking a straw man RR
“Interesting theory; explain”
This is not a theory, this is a syllogistic fact.
If evolution means genetic change, a more genetacally more diversified population has experienced more genetic change, as a result, it is more evolved. Not meaning more progressive though. Bacteria evolve faster than humans, insects too.
You’re right on one level but wrong on another.
Yes a more diversified group has done more evolving at the within group level but not nessecarily at the between group level.
In other words if bacteria has undergone so much change; it wouldn’t still be bacteria would it? By definition if you’ve changed you’re no longer the same thing.
Evolution means genetic change regardless of the consequences of change in the genome.
You can say white skin is an evolution of the ancestral black skin, but blacks have still undergone more neutral (or non-neutral, we don’t know) genetic change and are as a result more evolved.
In the same way, a mutation that causes a very incapacitating condition is an evolution of the ancestral healthy gene.
Newer branches on a phylogenetic tree don’t mean that a population has undergone more evolution than the source population, it means their last common ancestor has lived after the last common ancestor of the original lineage.
Evolution means genetic change regardless of the consequences of change in the genome.
If the change is inconsequential then by definition it’s limited to neutral DNA which by definition changes at a random rate or it couldn’t be used to estimate splitting off dates
You can say white skin is an evolution of the ancestral black skin, but blacks have still undergone more neutral (or non-neutral, we don’t know) genetic change and are as a result more evolved.
That’s only true at the within group level
In the same way, a mutation that causes a very incapacitating condition is an evolution of the ancestral healthy gene.
Correct
Newer branches on a phylogenetic tree don’t mean that a population has undergone more evolution than the source population, it means their last common ancestor has lived after the last common ancestor of the original lineage.
Technically you’re right that a parent population can be as evolved or even more evolved than the descendant population, but generally speaking extant parent populations resemble an ancestral form of the descendant population
“If the change is inconsequential then by definition it’s limited to neutral DNA which by definition changes at a random rate or it couldn’t be used to estimate splitting off dates”
No. Genetic evolution is independent from phenotype. The most used genetic markers in population genetics are neutral markers in the Y chromosome and mtDNA. For instance we say East Asians branched off from the ancestral lineage some 30,000 years ago. But they didn’t become mongoloid at that time, 30,000 years ago is when their last common ancestor lived. The time estimates are estimated from the average mutation rate of each locus.
“That’s only true at the within group level”
No, when you compare two groups, one that is diverse and another that is more inbred, the most diverse is more evolved even if it appeared earlier on the phylogenetic tree.
“Technically you’re right that a parent population can be as evolved or even more evolved than the descendant population, but generally speaking extant parent populations resemble an ancestral form of the descendant population”
Among humans, branches represent bottlenecks (losses in genetic diversity, hence losses in evolution) due to migration. The most evolved population are the bushmen, the least are Native American.
But humans are one of the species that have undergone the least evolution in the animal kingdom.
No. Genetic evolution is independent from phenotype.
No NEUTRAL genetic evolution might be independent of phenotype (assuming one considers neutral genetic change to be evolution), but selected genetic change codes for phenotype, almost by definition.
For instance we say East Asians branched off from the ancestral lineage some 30,000 years ago. But they didn’t become mongoloid at that time, 30,000 years ago is when their last common ancestor lived. The time estimates are estimated from the average mutation rate of each locus.
Correct, but the evolutionary split increased the odds that we’d see an evolutionary change because:
1) one gene pool had split into two
2) splits generally happen because a change in the environment of one or both populations had occurred, and environmental novelty stimulates evolution
No, when you compare two groups, one that is diverse and another that is more inbred, the most diverse is more evolved even if it appeared earlier on the phylogenetic tree.
The more diverse population has had more evolution within its group, but its group itself could be less evolved.
Among humans, branches represent bottlenecks (losses in genetic diversity, hence losses in evolution) due to migration. The most evolved population are the bushmen, the least are Native American.
They’re more evolved relative to their population’s common ancestor, but they could be LESS evolved relative to the species common ancestor. See the difference?
But humans are one of the species that have undergone the least evolution in the animal kingdom.
Relative to the SPECIES common ancestor, but not relative to our KINGDOM’s common ancestor. You’re confusing two different levels of analysis.
“No NEUTRAL genetic evolution might be independent of phenotype (assuming one considers neutral genetic change to be evolution), but selected genetic change codes for phenotype, almost by definition.”
False, evolution describes change of the genome whether it affects neutral or functional alleles. Evolution is not restricted to natural selection. In fact, natural selection is a small factor of genetic change. It happens when one mutation appears to be functional and advantageous in a given environment. But mutations appear in every newborn or in reaction to pathogens and nutrients.
“1) one gene pool had split into two
2) splits generally happen because a change in the environment of one or both populations had occurred, and environmental novelty stimulates evolution”
No, it causes a shift in allele frequencies but it doesn’t accelerate the mutation rate of the new lineage.
“but its group itself could be less evolved.”
If you define “less evolved” by the fact that the common ancestors of the older lineage are identified by older gene variants. But their decendents still carry a larger number of novel variants than the inbred group.
If you separate a very small group of Africans and send them to Antartica, After 10,000 years. They’ll be identified by common ancestors that carry more recent gene variants than Native Americans, but they’ll be so inbred that their gene pool will show very little evolution.
“They’re more evolved relative to their population’s common ancestor, but they could be LESS evolved relative to the species common ancestor. See the difference? ”
Ues, I know what you mean but among humans, the ones who are more related to archaic hominins are Eurasians with 4-8% DNA from denisovans and neanderthals.
“Relative to the SPECIES common ancestor, but not relative to our KINGDOM’s common ancestor. You’re confusing two different levels of analysis”
No, I don’t think so. We’re not the newest species on earth if you are shifting the definition of evolution to newness.
“I’m not arguing that the length of the branch indicates the degree of change except that shorter branches tend to be descended from more splits and splits are correlated with change.”
Then one course to take this argument is to clearly define “more evolved”, as you said more change, but seeing how evolution truly means genetic change which, then splits themselves means divergence.
So better diction for your trends would be for groups with more splits (depending on the chart specialization) are more likely to show novel traits due to the new possibilities implied of their genetic divergence, such as being in a new environment with new pressures.
That’s more on the possibilities open for their divergence rather than the divergence itself but, as you said, correlation.
However, then one needs to consider point of novel traits and success in evolution. Basically, well, that they one higher likelihood to pass on genes.
“I viewed nerds as more highly evolved and genetically superior.”
Yet RR pretty much debunk your reason based on the significance of being able to pass on your genes in Evolution. Thus current trends complicates that assertion.
Therefore, in order to argue that despite their higher success that the non-nerds are superior you would have to attribute their Novel-Nerd traits to being a product of “progress”.
If anything, non-social introverted Nerds specifically (not high IQ people as a whole) are dysgenic, my take as restricting potential to survive in a environment in a population context.
Yet RR pretty much debunk your reason based on the significance of being able to pass on your genes in Evolution. Thus current trends complicates that assertion.
We no longer have survival of the fittest to any meaningful extent in much of the World so genetic fitness is no longer always correlated with evolutionary superiority in the conventional sense. Also, nerds might not be that genetically fit at the individual level, but that doesn’t mean they’re not at the group level.
Edit: I meant to say that the “if non-nerds were inferior…..”.
And technically, novel traits alone only mean “superior” if they serve a purpose in a New environment and it’s pressures.
For example, we can basically say (in theory, for the sake of not digressing in the legitimacy of HBD due to AS’s presence) that Eurasia relative to Africa supported novel traits in the spectrum of behavior and overall IQ.
However, though many arguments are thrown at Africans that they remained “closer to the earlier race”, that may depend on only on what actually traits we are looking at but also the contextually eugenic purpose they served in their environmental survival. In other words, Nerds being worn food in that context.
Hell, that kind of unsocial introvertedness likely contributed to Europe’s k- selected Neanderthal to die out.
Again, unless you appeal to progress in support of of the Novel traits meaning genetic superiority, there’s not much to stand on.
“We no longer have survival of the fittest to any meaningful extent in much of the World so genetic fitness is no longer always correlated with evolutionary superiority in the conventional sense.”
Uum…..seeing how still evolve and that K-selected individuals are at risk at population replacement, yes, it’s STILL survival of the fittest.
That’s was the basis of K-Selected traits having any meaning because, as you said, due to their survival rates but now that’s not good enough.
So fitness is still relevant.
“Also, nerds might not be that genetically fit at the individual level, but that doesn’t mean they’re not at the group level.”
Uum…again the K-selected traits given them survival over Birth rates is what giving r- selected individuals the leg up in reproduction thus passing on their genes.
Otherwise, how do you define “superior”?
“Where it can occur, and where it tends to occur, are two different things. Do you understand that?”
Yes I do. You understand that. You do understand that the only trees that have branch lengths that mean something (as far as I know) are phylograms, right? Are the trees you’re using phylograms? Might wanna check that out.
“My understanding of it is vastly more advanced than yours.”
Says the guy who thinks inferior and superior are descriptors in evolutionary biology. Says the guy who believes that natural selection—a process repeated anew every generation—is ‘progressive’. ha
““More evolved” is a neutral statement that doesn’t saying anything about whether more evolution is progressive or not. The reason it implies progress to many is because many people believe evolution is progressive. But these are two separate arguments and you can’t seem to tell the difference.”
I see where you’re coming from. You don’t see where I am coming from. They can be separate, but I treat them as one argument. ‘Progress’ follows ‘more evolved’. They ‘progressed’ into ‘more evolved’ species. People believe evolution is progressive because they have an anthropocentric view of evolution with humans ‘at the top’. This is patently wrong.
“It makes you look intellectually vapid when all you can do is provide links instead of stating crisply what’s wrong with my logic and why.”
It’s the best I can do with my 66 IQ, I’m sure you understand that.
This can be easily settled:
Choose two organisms that speciated from a common ancestor. Then find out their traits. Then count which differ and which was the cause of drift, selection, mutation and gene flow. Choose Africans and Europeans or Asians. This will prove your point. You’re making bold claims; now back them with evidence. I’ve asked you to do this in the past.
What kind of phylogeny is the tree Cvalli uses that you love to use so much?
“Because of the tens of thousands of people who have read my blog, the only ones who have questioned the theory are a personal trainer and a lawyer. If actual biologists condemned my theory as I explained it, then I might be concerned.”
What the hell does this mean? For the record, Will agrees as well. I’ve shown a Ph.D. bio friend this and he couldn’t stop laughing. But he doesn’t know anything. He didn’t go through years of schooling or anything; you clearly know more than a Ph.D.
Even then, what the hell does that even mean? You have like 8 regular commenters out of thousands of people who read this blog. What does that small of a sample of commenters tell you about anything? Absolutely nothing.
“They were simply saying that IN THEORY evolution can occur anywhere in the tree which I agree with. But my argument is more subtle and you can’t debunk it which is why you’re so dependent on expert opinion.”
Dude, you know the tree is an abstraction right? You can put what you’d like to find into it and twist and turn it anyway you want to attempt to have it ‘prove’ your argument; but science doesn’t work like that.
I admit when my knowledge is limited (something others here should do instead of pretending they know it all). In regards to my literaly field, I destroyed your ‘blacks are stronger than whites’ argument.
Anyway, take my challenge. You have a theory, now put it to work. Unless you can think of a better way to infer this, be my guest. But put it to the test.
“If you want to keep trashing ideas you don’t understand, you’ll continue to stay ignorant and closed minded”
You’re so funny man. I admit when I am wrong. I’ve done so countless times on this blog. You, on the other hand, have never admitted you were wrong, even when shown countless times. I’m ignorant, yet you believe that Kinsey data on penis size means something (which was a horribly flawed study). Sure thing man!
“evolutionary superiority”
I’ll take arbitrary for $500, Alex.
“I’m not arguing that the length of the branch indicates the degree of change except that shorter branches tend to be descended from more splits and splits are correlated with change”
This only holds weight if it’s a certain type of tree. You can’t just look at all trees/clados/phylas/etc and say “See!!! It’s there!!!” because each one has a specific purpose.
“but rather on how many splits you’re descended from”
OK. Now put it to the test and compare two organisms from the same common ancestor and count traits that derived from natural selection and the three other modes of evolution.
“No NEUTRAL genetic evolution might be independent of phenotype (assuming one considers neutral genetic change to be evolution), but selected genetic change codes for phenotype, almost by definition.”
False, evolution describes change of the genome whether it affects neutral or functional alleles.
Which is why I said “assuming one considers neutral genetic change to be evolution”. But keep in mind that if the genetic change does not show up in the phenotype, it’s not evolution by some definitions because evolution is the process by which new forms of life develop and new forms have traditionally been defined by appearance and function.
Evolution is not restricted to natural selection. In fact, natural selection is a small factor of genetic change. It happens when one mutation appears to be functional and advantageous in a given environment. But mutations appear in every newborn or in reaction to pathogens and nutrients.
But many of these have no measurable effect on phenotype
“1) one gene pool had split into two
2) splits generally happen because a change in the environment of one or both populations had occurred, and environmental novelty stimulates evolution”
No, it causes a shift in allele frequencies but it doesn’t accelerate the mutation rate of the new lineage.
But a shift in allele frequency is a genetic change and often a morphological one, paving the way for a new form of life to emerge.
“but its group itself could be less evolved.”
If you define “less evolved” by the fact that the common ancestors of the older lineage are identified by older gene variants. But their decendents still carry a larger number of novel variants than the inbred group.
Well they contain more variants period because they’re more genetically diverse but do you think you as an individual black man have more novel variants than your Jewish fiancé or that a greater percentage of your genotype, let alone phenotype, is novel?
If you separate a very small group of Africans and send them to Antartica, After 10,000 years. They’ll be identified by common ancestors that carry more recent gene variants than Native Americans, but they’ll be so inbred that their gene pool will show very little evolution.
Which is why I use number of splits as a proxy for evolutionary development, not newness per se (though the two are correlated).
“They’re more evolved relative to their population’s common ancestor, but they could be LESS evolved relative to the species common ancestor. See the difference? ”
Ues, I know what you mean but among humans, the ones who are more related to archaic hominins are Eurasians with 4-8% DNA from denisovans and neanderthals.
All races supposedly have archaic genes and it’s a trivial amount. .
“Relative to the SPECIES common ancestor, but not relative to our KINGDOM’s common ancestor. You’re confusing two different levels of analysis”
No, I don’t think so. We’re not the newest species on earth if you are shifting the definition of evolution to newness.
But we are the newest species and most branched (splits) species within our genus. There are much, much newer and more branched species than us, but the higher level taxonomic categories they belong to are low on the evolutionary tree which is why the level of analysis matters.
Uum…..seeing how still evolve and that K-selected individuals are at risk at population replacement, yes, it’s STILL survival of the fittest.
That’s was the basis of K-Selected traits having any meaning because, as you said, due to their survival rates but now that’s not good enough.
So fitness is still relevant.
Fitness is still relevant but SURVIVAL of the fittest is less relevant. K-selected individuals are being replaced because they don’t breed, not because they can’t survive.
Relevant thread. PP, you’re not the OP, are you?
“Fitness is still relevant but SURVIVAL of the fittest is less relevant. K-selected individuals are being replaced because they don’t breed, not because they can’t survive.”
Then on what basis are they superior, because of their survival rates? That’s again render pointless if they can’t reproduce their genes on a significant scale, making it pointless in evolution.
And seeing how this is still genetic competition since they are being replaced, it is relevant.
“Fitness is still relevant but SURVIVAL of the fittest is less relevant. K-selected individuals are being replaced because they don’t breed, not because they can’t survive.”
You have a funny way actually on separating man from nature from a genetic point of view, specifically evolution.
The basic endgame is what type of organism can the most prosperous generation to thus influence their species, and that still applies to humans.
How it worked with civilization development was with more K selected individuals having better cooperative functions to survive with each other, R selected ones with the numbers of offspring they produced.
In the context of certain human societies K managed to manipulate their environment and support many through survival and eventually conquer lands of other people, either with genocide or assimilation.
Problem, in this scenario it would be Whites experimentally who would be superior, not Asians, as you claim, who are more R-Selected. The Same would be applied to H. Sapiens and neanderthals as I’ve said before.
Now due to R strategy winning in modern conditions, such populations are winning currently.
Unless you explain otherwise what “superior” is in evolutionary terms, then my point still stands.
“Fitness is still relevant but SURVIVAL of the fittest is less relevant. K-selected individuals are being replaced because they don’t breed, not because they can’t survive.”
You have a funny way actually on separating man from nature from a genetic point of view, specifically evolution.
The basic endgame is what type of organism can the most prosperous generation to thus influence their species, and that still applies to humans.
But NATURAL selection, when STRICTLY defined refers to the environment deciding who gets to live and die. That’s no longer a major variable in many countries because almost everyone is able to live. Evolution is now determined almost exclusively by self-selection and sexual selection.
How it worked with civilization development was with more K selected individuals having better cooperative functions to survive with each other, R selected ones with the numbers of offspring they produced.
Another way of looking at it is K evolved through natural selection while r evolved through a form of sexual selection.
Relevant thread. PP, you’re not the OP, are you?
No but it sounds like whoever wrote that, or his “buddy” has been reading this blog
PP, you may be surprised to know that Gould believed that humans were K selected and said a few things talking about ‘progress’ in terms of human evolution in his 1977 book “Ontogeny and Phylogeny”, written four years before “Mismeasure of Man”. Haven’t read that book yet though.
I saw it in Michael Ruse’s book “Monad to Man: The Concept of Progress in Evolutionary Biology”.
https://www.amazon.com/Monad-Man-Concept-Progress-Evolutionary/dp/0674032489
I strongly recommend you read it. It is outstanding.
Anyway, I’ll post the quotes in a bit. He interviewed Gould for the book as well (I believe the interview was either in 1988 or 1996).
I have my book. Excuse the length, every word matters:
“Critical to our interests is that although Gould was intending to address fellow professionals, perhaps because of the atypical nature of the book, he left little doubt (for all that he noted the controversial status of the idea) that he saw K-selected organisms as somehow higher than those selected to have lots of offspring but provide very little parental care (r-selected).
Evolutionary trends toward greater size and complexity from the classical subject matter of “progressive” evolution as it is usually conceived—the slow and gradual fine tuning of morphology under the continuous flow of natural selection. These trends display three common features marking them almost inevitably as primary products of K-selected regimes:
1. A primary role for morphology and adaptation—usually leading to increased complexity, improvement in biomechanical design, or at least the continual exaggeration of specialized structures with clear functions.
2. A general tendency to increasing size—Cope’s rule . . .
3. In most cases, a delay in the absolute time of maturation . . . Larger animals with a generally increased level of morphological differentiation almost surely mature later than their much smaller and more generalized ancestors. (Gould, 1977b, 34)
Moreover, as a kind of climax to the book, we find that humans are one of evolution’s success stories:
I have been trying to deemphasize the importance of morphology while asserting the importance of life-history strategies. In particular, I have linked accelerated development to r-selective regimes and identified retarded development as a common trait of K strategists . . . I have also tried to link K selection to what we generally regard as “progressive” in evolution, while suggesting that r selection generally serves as a brake upon evolutionary change. I regard human evolution as strong confirmation of these views. [Emphasis RR’s] (Gould, 1977b, 399)
Even the very examples underline the point. The “profound” differences between chimpanzees and humans are reflected in the former’s ability to type the Iliad, rather than the latter’s inability to swing through trees.
…
These views as such hardly make Gould a progressionist today, especially since he has modified his thinking since his early support for the founder principle. But the past has a nasty way of showing its forgotten (or suppressed) face. For all his protestations, Gould had just edited a highly progressionist popular book on evolution, covering the history of life from the primitive to a stunning bare-breasted Cro-Magnon beauty (Gould, 1993). Of course, no one thinks Gould is thereby changing his mind, and now endorsing a simplistic view of life’s history, but—especially given that this is a book for the general reader—it does show how vividly how difficult it can be to eradicate progressionist thinking from the public domain. One suspects that, the popular works have a much greater overall effect than the more learned discussions. The simple fact here is that humans did come many years after the Precambrian acritarchs (primitive fossils that first appear in the record about 2 billion years ago, and Gould’s example of very early life), and so it is very tempting to present the early and late organisms without comment. But the message of progress does get transmitted. For instance, why choose Cro-Magnons? Why not choose something less attractive, like wat-hogs? Not much of a progressionist picture here, except one supposed to wart-hogs. (Actually, if one looks carefully at the arcritarchs that Gould presents, one sees that they are relatively sophisticated. Some have rather nasty spines sticking out, presumably adaptations to make them less attractive to predators. In a way, one could have easily taken the acritarchs and used them explicitly to make a point about the non-progressive nature of the record!) (Ruse, 1996: 503-505)”
I personally love his arguments in “Full House”:
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/11/12/complexity-walls-0-400-hitting-and-evolutionary-progress/
Being a baseball fan and a huge evolution nerd, I read this book in less than a week. Read “Full House”, it’s outstanding.
What are your thoughts?
I wouldn’t be surprised if Gould was a closet progressionist who hid his true views to advance his political and careerist goals.
“Which is why I said “assuming one considers neutral genetic change to be evolution”. But keep in mind that if the genetic change does not show up in the phenotype, it’s not evolution by some definitions because evolution is the process by which new forms of life develop and new forms have traditionally been defined by appearance and function.”
By this definition, the human phylogenetic tree is not an evolutionary tree because none of the branches is a new form of life reflecting migrations. Phenotypes appeared much later. Current day races are very recent and they are ready to change again whenever new pressures select for new traits. But the phylogenetic tree would remain the same.
“But many of these have no measurable effect on phenotype”
Some do, they are (along with environment) the reason why two MZ twins are never perfect copies of each other.
“But a shift in allele frequency is a genetic change and often a morphological one, paving the way for a new form of life to emerge.”
No, the main source of change in allele frequency is random genetic drift. This can cause a change in phenotype called a founder effect, the Ashkenazi diseases are a result of a founder effect for instance. But genetic drift isn’t the same as natural selection for a phenotype.
“do you think you as an individual black man have more novel variants than your Jewish fiancé or that a greater percentage of your genotype, let alone phenotype, is novel?”
The number of novel variants we have depends on the number of generations that lead to us. So we are supposed to have approximately the same proportion of novel variants. The only difference is that the variants that identify me as black are older than those that identify her as a North African Jew. But it’s a very small fraction of our respective genomes, it is also a small time difference and the majority of the aforementioned variants are neutral.
“Which is why I use number of splits as a proxy for evolutionary development, not newness per se (though the two are correlated).”
Look at hominids in general.
-Neanderthals descends from homo heidelbergensis who descends from homo erectus.
-Humans descend from homo rhodensis who descends from homo erectus.
Same number of splits, humans are a lot newer than neandertjals. Which one is the most developed ? We can’t tell from either newness or number of splits, the two aren’t relevant factors. The only relevant factor is knowing which populations has alleles with dramatic effects in terms of phenotypic change to such an extant that it comes to replace all of the other lineages or to confine them into a restricted niche.
“All races supposedly have archaic genes and it’s a trivial amount.”
Eh no, Eurasians have a deficit in fitness due to Neanderthals relative to Africans. If Africans have Archaic admixture, it is probably archaic varieties that were more closely related to homo sapiens than Neanderthals.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160606103654.htm
“Which is why I said “assuming one considers neutral genetic change to be evolution”. But keep in mind that if the genetic change does not show up in the phenotype, it’s not evolution by some definitions because evolution is the process by which new forms of life develop and new forms have traditionally been defined by appearance and function.”
By this definition, the human phylogenetic tree is not an evolutionary tree because none of the branches is a new form of life reflecting migrations. Phenotypes appeared much later.
How do you know when the phenotypes appeared? But regardless of when, it’s an evolutionary tree in the sense that the end-point of all the branches are different products of human evolution. To me an evolutionary tree is just a family tree on an evolutionary time scale.
Current day races are very recent and they are ready to change again whenever new pressures select for new traits. But the phylogenetic tree would remain the same.
In theory all populations can dramatically change without changing the phylogenetic tree but in practice major changes tend to be stimulated by radical environmental shifts like a desert or river running through a formerly fertile land mass or a migration of one subset of a population, and those would create new splits in the evolutionary tree.
“But a shift in allele frequency is a genetic change and often a morphological one, paving the way for a new form of life to emerge.”
No, the main source of change in allele frequency is random genetic drift. This can cause a change in phenotype called a founder effect, the Ashkenazi diseases are a result of a founder effect for instance. But genetic drift isn’t the same as natural selection for a phenotype.
But founder effects change the average phenotype, thus creating a new form of life. For example if a bunch of basketball players got randomly stranded in the forest, after enough generations they’d be considered a new race of tall people, even though their height had nothing to do with selection pressures and everything to do with genetic drift.
“do you think you as an individual black man have more novel variants than your Jewish fiancé or that a greater percentage of your genotype, let alone phenotype, is novel?”
The number of novel variants we have depends on the number of generations that lead to us. So we are supposed to have approximately the same proportion of novel variants. The only difference is that the variants that identify me as black are older than those that identify her as a North African Jew. But it’s a very small fraction of our respective genomes,
It’s also a very small fraction of the genome that separates two very different species.
“Which is why I use number of splits as a proxy for evolutionary development, not newness per se (though the two are correlated).”
Look at hominids in general.
-Neanderthals descends from homo heidelbergensis who descends from homo erectus.
-Humans descend from homo rhodensis who descends from homo erectus.
Same number of splits, humans are a lot newer than neandertjals. Which one is the most developed ? We can’t tell from either newness or number of splits, the two aren’t relevant factors.
Well they’re tied for number of splits but humans have the edge on newness. And it makes sense that they should be tied because for the first 150,000 years or so of human existence, we seemed no more sophisticated than Neanderthals
The only relevant factor is knowing which populations has alleles with dramatic effects in terms of phenotypic change to such an extant that it comes to replace all of the other lineages or to confine them into a restricted niche.
Once we have sophisticated genetic knowledge that is easily accessible to all, my tree splitting method will be obsolete just like once we developed MRI scans, measuring brain size from hat size became obsolete. But until then it serves as a rough and ready and incredibly easy proxy for evolutionary development.
“All races supposedly have archaic genes and it’s a trivial amount.”
Eh no, Eurasians have a deficit in fitness due to Neanderthals relative to Africans. If Africans have Archaic admixture, it is probably archaic varieties that were more closely related to homo sapiens than Neanderthals.
Being closely related to H. Sapiens != being more evolved than Neanderthals.
Afro, him saying that humans have ‘the most splits’ is completely speculative conjecture. He literally doesn’t know that, nor can be know that.
And I’ve got a few sources on archaic admixture in Africans. I’ll link it later. If you search Google you should be able to find them.
And Afro, yep. Eurasians have a 1 percent decrease in fitness from the bottleneck coming OoA and another 1 percent decrease from interbreeding events with Neanderthals. Very interesting paper. I read the full paper. Also wrote about it on my blog when the paper came out.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if Gould was a closet progressionist who hid his true views to advance his political and careerist goals”
Highly, highly, doubtful. Behe wrote in “Wonderful Life”:
If mammals had arisen late and helped to drive dinosaurs to their doom, then we could legitamately propose a scenario of expected progress. But dinosaurs remained domininant and probably became extinct only as a quirky result of the most unpredictable of all events—a mass dying triggered by extraterrestrial impact. If dinosaurs had not died in this event, they would probably still dominate the large-bodied vertebrates, as they had for so long with such conspicuous success, and mammals would still be small creatures in the interstices of their world. This situation prevailed for one hundred million years, why not sixty million more? Since dinosaurs were not moving towards markedly larger brains, and since such a prospect may lay outside the capability of reptilian design (Jerison, 1973; Hopson, 1977), we must assume that consciousness would not have evolved on our planet if a cosmic catastrophe had not claimed the dinosaurs as victims. In an entirely literal sense, we owe our existence, as large reasoning mammals, to our lucky stars.
And his argument in Full House directly goes against (what he possibly) may have said/thought in Ontogeny and Phylogeny.
I strongly doubt he was a progressionist. Two of his books written after Ontogeny and Phylogeny directly refute that contention.
So he may have changed his views.
I will provide more quotes later. Michael Ruse also interviewed E.O. Wilson as well.
And it’s also worth noting that Gould wrote Ontogeny and Phylogeny in 1977 when biologists still used r K theory. They do not use it anymore.
“But NATURAL selection, when STRICTLY defined refers to the environment deciding who gets to live and die. That’s no longer a major variable in many countries because almost everyone is able to live. Evolution is now determined almost exclusively by self-selection and sexual selection.”
Congrats, all you did was point out equivalents in artificial environments we created since even in self-selection you have winners and losers. However, your definition of natural selection by context of the environment by simply being “live or die”.
Natural selection creates pressure where certain phenotype variants of genes are favored over others, thus passing them on. You talking simply on the matter of “live or ie” is survival, not evolution, so if anything that makes R selected people irrelevant.
You are confusing a sustained and fulfilled lifespan with genetic legacy.
BTW, natural selection is just one aspect of evolution that favors fitness, not the exclusive.
“Another way of looking at it is K evolved through natural selection while r evolved through a form of sexual selection.”
Since both are forms of breeding, both are forms of sexual selection. Yes, K is a form of selection that stems from the environment but so is R since their based on which course is best suited for their environments, not simply gene variants that are favoured.
Congrats, all you did was point out equivalents in artificial environments we created since even in self-selection you have winners and losers. However, your definition of natural selection by context of the environment by simply being “live or die”.
Natural selection creates pressure where certain phenotype variants of genes are favored over others, thus passing them on. You talking simply on the matter of “live or ie” is survival, not evolution, so if anything that makes R selected people irrelevant.
You are confusing a sustained and fulfilled lifespan with genetic legacy.
No, I’m just making a distinction between two different types of selection:
1) competition to survive
2) competition to reproduce once you survive
It used to be thought by some scientists that only #1 was involved in evolution, but scientists reluctantly agreed that #2 was needed to explain the evolution of certain traits that had no survival value like a peacock’s feathers. I wont even get into #3.
All I am saying is that our modern environment has turned off #1 and it’s now all about #2 (and sometimes #3). The laws of SURVIVAL of the FITTEST no longer applies and the fittest are no longer the FITTEST.
To Pumpkin,
Actually I’m wrong, neither are actually selection types but rather strategies.
However, their selection TYPES would basically by monogamy versus Polygamy.
(and sometimes #3)
I didn’t read the whole discussion, but what are you refering to as #3 ?
I didn’t explain #3 in the discussion, but I’m thinking in terms of helping others who share your genes survive (i.e. ethnic genetic interests, etc)
“No, I’m just making a distinction between two different types of selection:
1) competition to survive
2) competition to reproduce once you survive
It used to be thought by some scientists that only #1 was involved in evolution, but scientists reluctantly agreed that #2 was needed to explain the evolution of certain traits that had no survival value like a peacock’s feathers.”
And what I was saying that Survival is merely a mean in evolution to continue your legacy in nature, whereas the Philosophical relation of “survival” and “fitness” is that the continuation of the fittest lineages.
And who would be the “fittest” is decided by who prevails the best either under adaptation through coded DNA to environmental forces for survival (Either natural or self selection), through sexual attraction to earn a mate (sexual selection) to essentially reproduce and pass on genes.
All you did your previous post was replace natural selection as if there was no other force that selects traits, which is what society in human civilization does so #1 isn’t really “gone”, it’s just substituted.
Hint- not everyone in society has the same rate of survival by lifespan and the gap hasn’t been the same through history, yet now it’s at the point that the live a decent amount past being able to breed allow that offspring to reproduce, so on and so forth.
“I wont even get into #3.” Please do, it will likely come to that eventually.
“All I am saying is that our modern environment has turned off #1 and it’s now all about #2 (and sometimes #3). The laws of SURVIVAL of the FITTEST no longer applies and the fittest are no longer the FITTEST.”
And now there is a new fittest to replace them, thus genetic competition.
“I didn’t explain #3 in the discussion, but I’m thinking in terms of helping others who share your genes survive (i.e. ethnic genetic interests, etc)”
Jeez, seeing how that ALSO contributes to European population now on the risk of replacement via outbreeding altruism, that’s kind of shooting yourself in the foot.
And what I was saying that Survival is merely a mean in evolution to continue your legacy in nature, whereas the Philosophical relation of “survival” and “fitness” is that the continuation of the fittest lineages.
But the word fittest was chosen for a reason. In nature those were literally fit (physically and mentally); those who could run fastest, jump highest, think sharpest, survived long enough to reproduce. In other words reproduction was just a side effect of survival, but it was the traits that allowed for survival that really drove evolution. In a land where everyone survives, then evolution is no longer about superiority because almost anyone can make a baby. We still call such people the fittest because they’re still the ones passing on genes, but they’re no longer doing so for reasons related to fitness proper.
All you did your previous post was replace natural selection as if there was no other force that selects traits, which is what society in human civilization does so #1 isn’t really “gone”, it’s just substituted.
We still have winners and losers but the difference is, the losers now have a safety net so they reproduce as much or more than the winners.
To Pumpkinperson,
Furthermore, even by accepting your logic in the context of current situations, as I’ve said that actually supports my case making R selected people being able to survive irrelevant as they are no longer the fittest in human societies, thus R selected ones on the verged of succeeding.
If fitness didn’t matter in human evolution, then the current trend of replacement wouldn’t even be an issue.
But the ‘fittest’ don’t always survive. Those who are ‘fit enough’ do.
And now let’s get to the root of the argument—phylogenies aside.
You and I both agree that evolution is non-teleological. However, by you stating that there is ‘progress’ to evolution, you’re saying there is directionality in evolution.
Stating that there is ‘progress’ in regards to biology means that you are stating that there is a directionality for ‘progress’ to occur.
If evolution is progressive, then evolution is teleological.
Evolution is not teleological.
Therefore, evolution is not progressive.
RR
There’s definitely direction in evolution
Cheetahs evolved from slow to fast
Giraphe necks evolved from short to long
So that’s direction without teleology
So why can’t there be LONG TERM direction?
You agree that animals get more and more adapted to their specific environment
Why’s it so hard to believe they could get more & more adapted to environments in general or the environment that is earth
“But the word fittest was chosen for a reason. In nature those were literally fit (physically and mentally); those who could run fastest, jump highest, think sharpest, survived long enough to reproduce. In other words reproduction was just a side effect of survival, but it was the traits that allowed for survival that really drove evolution.”
No, Survival is a means for reproduction, thus being able to live to reproduce.
And no, fittest in evolution means who had the traits that were the best means to eventually reproduce in their environment, that could be either survival to reproduce or the rate they reproduce.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fitness
“In a land where everyone survives, then evolution is no longer about superiority because almost anyone can make a baby.”
Let me correct you, in a land where everybody survives it means that those who attain fitness through survival (the K selected ones) thus loses that fitness edge.
And again, define superiority.
“We still call such people the fittest because they’re still the ones passing on genes, but they’re no longer doing so for reasons related to fitness proper.”
That’s grounded in your warped definition of fitness in evolution. Your “fitness” is just naturally selected qualities of an individual to survive which isn’t even exclusive to R selection, what makes that unique is their longer development and lifespan among more introverted behavior generally.
Fitness, in the Darwinian sense of potential to create continuing generations, is indeed still relevant.
“We still have winners and losers but the difference is, the losers now have a safety net so they reproduce as much or more than the winners.”
So I take it this is your form of Superiority? Yes, it could work in r-selected societies but not other artificial societies.
RR Already went through that fallacy you made with colonialism in Africa for instance yet they didn’t live the same way as they did.
Even if we did use that as an indicator, then it would Europeans as the superior race by that logic rather than your proposed Asians by the support IQ, R selection, and Splits.
Thus, from an un PC worldview the historical “builders of the modern world” weren’t supported by the likes of Confucius’ or Laozi’s Ideals.
“But the ‘fittest’ don’t always survive. Those who are ‘fit enough’ do.”
And that brings up another good point about the “fittest”, or by PP’s standards, Nerds.
Yeah, they have a higher likelihood to influence society through innovations and ideas, in traditional Western culture anyway, but that really a niche rather than legit rank from a genetic point of view (hence PP’s use of genetically superior) because they genetically are currently the ones vulnerable in this knew context on the level of Darwinian fitness compared to those who rank “good enough”.
“There’s definitely direction in evolution
Cheetahs evolved from slow to fast
Giraphe necks evolved from short to long
So that’s direction without teleology
So why can’t there be LONG TERM direction?”
Because those are specific adaptation for specific environments in a specific point in time, what you are proposing is a long term evolution that conforms to the like of a “chain of being” despite being based in such variable conditions on the earth world wide.
“You agree that animals get more and more adapted to their specific environment
Why’s it so hard to believe they could get more & more adapted to environments in general or the environment that is earth”
Because they can and do lose those adaptations to past environments and “earth” is various environments and change through time.
Thus, adaptations (In the context of reacting to our environment is only one aspect of evolution as a whole) would change.
To Pumpkin person,
Basically, it’s like the black mice, white mice, gray mice scenario with camouflage and evolution.
Say in a general dark colored environment, a owl can see white mice better, the black and gray ones are more fit through survival.
But lets say it becomes a snowy environment, the white and some gray ones are more fit.
That’s who specific evolutionary trends doesn’t work in your non-teleological directional evolution by long term progress.
Now lets apply this to humans by Ks and Rs.
Resource rich environment, Rs work better in fitness via survival.
Resource poor, Ks work better in fitness through reproduction.
Environmental context.
“There’s definitely direction in evolution”
No there isn’t.
“Cheetahs evolved from slow to fast”
What would happen if, say, the cheetah’s environment do a 720 and turn completely different all the while changing the types of animals that live in the ecosystem. If speed isn’t useful in the new environment it will get selected against and the cheetah would gain new traits due to NS.
“Giraphe necks evolved from short to long”
Giraffe **
If an asteroid hit the earth and destroyed only tall trees, what would happen?
“So why can’t there be LONG TERM direction?”
Any so-called direction was stymied by the five mass extinctions. Progress towards what?
“You agree that animals get more and more adapted to their specific environment”
Yes.
“Why’s it so hard to believe they could get more & more adapted to environments in general or the environment that is earth”
“The environment that is earth” is so ridiculously broad. Is your measure of progress how many environments organisms can live in? Then look at bacteria. It’s ridiculous to equate evolution with ‘progress’.
The term descent by modification is a better term, anyway. ‘Evolution’ implies there’s a progression towards something. “Progress”. Progressing towards what?
Haha, it’s gonna be a great thread.
“Many guys in the HBD-o-sphere worship Alpha males and are totally ashamed of their own nerdiness.”
Don’t go believing you’re not one of these guys.
” I find this annoying because back when I was in high school (I’m now in my 30s) I was somewhat popular with the “cool” kids because they loved my impersonations of the teachers, but I always wanted to hang out with the nerds. ”
Lol, indeed. It takes a lot more than impersonating teachers to be part of the hype crowd. And no, you didn’t want to hang out with the nerds, you just had no choice.
We all experience hormonal explosion and sensation seeking when we’re in our teen years. Being cool is the key to fulfill these instincts. You can’t not wanting to be in the cool crowd.
“The problem was I don’t look like a nerd”
You probably don’t look like a jock either.
“But it’s not surprising that nerds feel inferior to “alphas” ”
Oh yeah ? As I remember, many of them looked down at us like we were childish goons disturbing them in their oh so essential quest for knowledge.
“This must infuriate the dumb jocks who probably shoved him in his locker in high school.”
There you go with your nerdy stereotypes. Jock =/= Dumb. I was a top student in my high school though I was 1 year younger than my school year. But I never spent my free time at the library except for some very important group assignments, that I sometimes had to do with geeks who struck me as not so bright once I got to discuss with them. My free time was spent on playing soccer often in front a classy bimbo audience. Otherwise I was good looking and nice and friendly to everyone although most nerds or not popular non-geeks like you were part of the decor for me.
All of your article is anecdotal and theoretical, you’re not telling what geeks have to do concretely to compensate for their obvious disadvantage. How should they run game, need I be scared that my girl leaves me for a scrawny ugly introvert with acne ?
“As I remember, many of them looked down at us like we were childish goons disturbing them in their oh so essential quest for knowledge.”
That is something I noticed. Nerds are incredibly stuck up. It wouldn’t surprise me if pumpkin was incredibly feminine. Dorks are cooler. I’d either be hanging with them, the blacks kids, or the metal heads/emos. I liked some of the jocks(they are dumb in a crystallized way) my bestfriend was one, but I didn’t really hang out with any of them, maybe their girlfriends lmao, but not them.
They didn’t like me, because:
1. I was an aforementioned stuck up nerd.
2. I was a cool nerd, Their women loved me, I could beat them up, and all my other friends were much older “bad kids” so even if they did get some balls and beat me down, they’d get their asses kicked by seniors.
3. Didn’t get good grades, but I would pass any exam/test with flying colors, my teachers were pissed, they’d still pass me. Jocks had to work harder to get the same result.
It wouldn’t surprise me if pumpkin was incredibly feminine
Actually my problem is I’m not feminine enough. The reason i suspect i have some autistic traits is that i have hyper-masculine interests: numbers, evolution, horror. My only feminine interest is Oprah but my reasons for watching her are psychologically very different from a typical Oprah viewer
Autism is an over-masculinization of the cognitive part of the brain; an over-reliance on male logic at the expense of female intuition
Autistics can be somewhat feminine in the emotional part of the brain in they can be way too nice and way too moral, but they seldom seem feminine because they’re intellectually so male
“Autistics can be somewhat feminine in the emotional part of the brain in they can be way too nice and way too moral, but they seldom seem feminine because they’re intellectually so male”
I have a similar issue. I’m nice to people, but only through ignorance, sometimes i’m very insensitive but not intentionally.
“It wouldn’t surprise me if pumpkin was incredibly feminine.”
Yes, I easily imagine him as the only dude in a group of emotionally fragile girls. It’s even possible that rumor had it that he was gay.
“Dorks are cooler.”
They were extras in my movie.
“I’d either be hanging with them, the blacks kids, or the metal heads/emos.”
We didn’t have race-based crowds, the metalheads were extras in my eyes too.
“I liked some of the jocks(they are dumb in a crystallized way) my bestfriend was one, but I didn’t really hang out with any of them, maybe their girlfriends lmao, but not them.”
I was a jock in the sense that I played soccer, looked good, dressed well, I was popular, got the hottest chicks and went to the hypest parties. But I was very serious with my school work, many of my friends were class clowns whereas I would stay quiet in class and throw one pertinent funny punchline out of the blue with my deep voice times to times. It wouldn’t annoy teachers and I only had praises on my report card. These class clown jocks weren’t alpha in hindsight, they became alpha when they became mature.
The nerds basically didn’t exist in my eyes, sometimes I would watch one and say to myself “dude, you should turn on the lights when you get dressed in the morning” or “how can he live with so much acne ?” but I didn’t take part in bullying, I could be an accomplice spectator though. I only dealt with geeks when I had schoolwork to do with them or when teachers decided each student’s seat.
Honestly, they aren’t that smart. They are childish, have obsessional interests and were absolutely stuck-up. Which in my eyes was a way to disguise their frustration. Like when they made fun of the bimbos while they would obviously have dreamed to just be noticed by one of them. They were also ridiculous when trying to act cool, or pretending they had an exciting life.
My crowd were the preppy jocks and classy bimbos, they were the majority at my high school which was an elite private Catholic institution where everybody was at least upper middle class. I’ve always had some cousins or one of my sisters in different grades. There were a dozen of familial “clans” like that at the school and we formed la crème de la crème of the social hierarchy, along with other rich kids.
Writing this brings back memories.
Yes, I easily imagine him as the only dude in a group of emotionally fragile girls. It’s even possible that rumor had it that he was gay
LOL! Rumour probably had it you were gay because you rub moisturizer all over your body three times a day, post half naked pictures on the internet, get hit on by gay photographers, and brag about all your jumbo jungle junk.
And I’m sure it’s not the first time you have a relationship with a girl like the one you have with Mar$ha. Something deep, but always platonic because you’re an asexual nice boy.
Lol, if you knew some black people, you’d know that moisturizer is part of our daily hygiene routine.
And lol again. Once I started modelling in high school and the news spread it multiplied my sex appeal by a factor of 1000. I could invite girls at shootings and castings, asking them to spend the night with me so that we wouldn’t miss the plane and all kind of tricks like that.
Jealousy makes you dumb PP.
Lol, if you knew some black people, you’d know that moisturizer is part of our daily hygiene routine.
I know TONS of black people, and I don’t know anyone who rubs moisturizer all over their body three times a day. If I even asked a random black guy whether they did that I’d probably get knocked out cause it’s almost the equivalent of asking “are you gay?”
As I type, my black co-worker can’t stop laughing at the idea that blacks do that. It’s the craziest thing she’s ever heard.
Lol, he must look dirty then because black skin becomes dry, whitish and dirty looking in temperate climates.
My routine is once a day most of the year, twice in winter. I don’t know where you read I did three times. Anyway, have fun guys, hope you’ll get the as many hot chicks as me.
Co-worker ? Aren’t you self-employed ?
Co-worker ? Aren’t you self-employed ?
My consulting work is self-employed but my polling work is not.
Black people and lotion is a stereotype in the US too
https://globalgrind.com/3969657/its-not-a-black-thing-why-black-people-love-lotion-list/
http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/why-do-black-people-always-have-to-use-lotion.250113943/
http://www.theroot.com/is-using-lotion-a-black-thing-1790875755
Dat nigga next to you must be ashy as fuck.
I’d rather seem ashy as fuck than queer as folk
No, believe me, a clean looking skin is not queer at all. I can’t even imagine going out with an ashy skin.
I thought you work from home?
I thought you work from home?
Oh God No!
You literally said the other day that you are self-employed and work from home.
No I said I’m self-employed. I’ve never worked from home.
^^^^^ I didn’t write that.
I wrote
“….. LOL!
You literally said the other day you work from home.”
Why is what you wrote my name and picture? Where did muh comment go?
I’ll look at it later. Probably a technical fuckup in wordpress
“We didn’t have race-based crowds, the metalheads were extras in my eyes too.”
Dorks are basically stupid nerds. I did notice they were the most curious and kind. Metal heads are in a similar boat, but they get offended easily. It’s not race based, but when you are in a school that has very small percentage of blacks they tend to group together. I’ve been to five highschools and only one had a mostly black and hispanic population.
“but I didn’t take part in bullying, I could be an accomplice spectator though.”
That’s what put me off the most I think. If you’re a bully you’re probably only picking on them because they’re weaker then you which is in itself cowardly. I just couldn’t stand to see someone being ostracized because they were “weird”
That’s why I did everything in my power to steer away from the jock persona, but I was a lot like them. I was athletic, but in boxing, not football or basketball. I was smart, but i refused to do my teachers work unless it was a determinant in my passing. I was cool enough that I could relate to just about anybody but the sociopath in me didn’t want to conform to the preps and jocks whom I perceived as sort of a “ruling elite”
I fucked their chicks, and stomped on their interpretation of a “normal” person, through unorthodox, creative and perhaps arbitrary ways. So many people were shocked to see me in their honor classes but at the same time cussing out a teacher.
“Honestly, they aren’t that smart. They are childish, have obsessional interests and were absolutely stuck-up. Which in my eyes was a way to disguise their frustration. Like when they made fun of the bimbos while they would obviously have dreamed to just be noticed by one of them. They were also ridiculous when trying to act cool, or pretending they had an exciting life.”
Exactly. I was a lot like them. I had strange interests, but I was humorous and good looking enough that I didn’t get pigeonholed into any one particular group. Everyone knew me, before I knew them. Can’t tell you how many women were surprised to see me rolling around with the less desirables of school. They’d always assume I was with the other jocks. I was abnormal but I was confident with how I talked and walked, so people naturally gravitated towards that.
“My crowd were the preppy jocks and classy bimbos, they were the majority at my high school which was an elite private Catholic institution where everybody was at least upper middle class.”
Is it true that women in catholic school are especially thirsty?
“I did notice they were the most curious and kind. Metal heads are in a similar boat, but they get offended easily.”
Lol, metal heads are an offence. I didn’t notice dorks, they were just part of the bunch of anonymous people.
“It’s not race based, but when you are in a school that has very small percentage of blacks they tend to group together.”
Ok, it must be a US thing. In France, friend groups are color blind.
“That’s what put me off the most I think. If you’re a bully you’re probably only picking on them because they’re weaker then you which is in itself cowardly. I just couldn’t stand to see someone being ostracized because they were “weird””
Well, now that I’m an adult I see that it was extremely cruel but at that time, I wouldn’t have risked to beef with a friend or a friend of a friend who invited me to a party full of hot chicks to defend a nobody. And frankly, it didn’t bother me, I had very low consideration for the unfits. Fortunately, we grow up.
“I was cool enough that I could relate to just about anybody but the sociopath in me didn’t want to conform to the preps and jocks whom I perceived as sort of a “ruling elite””
LOL ! I never thought some people would have perceived guys like me as some sort of tyrannic establishment. But yes I agree, there is something feudal in the social dynamics of a high school.
“I fucked their chicks, and stomped on their interpretation of a “normal” person, through unorthodox, creative and perhaps arbitrary ways. So many people were shocked to see me in their honor classes but at the same time cussing out a teacher.”
You were definitely an eccentric. I was very respectful of authority. I did middle school in the military.
” I was abnormal but I was confident with how I talked and walked, so people naturally gravitated towards that.”
Yeah, you weren’t socially inept.
“Is it true that women in catholic school are especially thirsty?”
They don’t have this reputation in France. Girls in my high school were false prudes. Caring a lot about their reputation but getting real slutty behind closed doors. In France, traditionalist Catholics are the richest demographic, they are linked to the aristocracy and the old bourgeoisie. In the US they’re maybe Hispanic, Italian or Irish.
“Lol, metal heads are an offence.”
They’re aight. Like I said, they’re a little too hypocritical and overly sensitive at times.
“Ok, it must be a US thing. In France, friend groups are color blind.”
It’s not separated by race. Like I said I’ve been to mostly balck and hispanic schools and it’s the opposite. All the whites were in one friend group while the other racial groups were varied in respective cliques. However I have noticed blacks tend to have a sort of subliminal understanding of each other, at least in america.
It can be hard to blend in if you’re not black, you sort of have to be ballsy. That’s how I made friends with them. I also noticed the more quiet you are the more they assume you’re “about that life”.
“I wouldn’t have risked to beef with a friend or a friend of a friend who invited me to a party full of hot chicks to defend a nobody.”
That’s the thing, I didn’t surround myself with people like that, not always at least and when I did I wasn’t afraid to stick up for someone. You’d be surprised at how easy it is, there’s a difference between making a gay speech about how bullying is wrong and just saying “C’mon man, he aint worth it” You just got to know how to talk to people and you won’t look like a bitch.
Not to say I haven’t flipped on people for that dumb shit. I remember there was a highschool wrestler making fun of some aspy kid for doing what aspy kids do best: being weird. I just told him what I said above, he was picking on him because he was weak and I dared him to say it to me. He wouldn’t say shit the rest of that class. Then he tried being all buddy buddy after school, I told him to eat a dick.
“LOL ! I never thought some people would have perceived guys like me as some sort of tyrannic establishment.”
Depends on what you were like. From the sounds of it, we would’ve gotten along, but I probably would’ve guilted you by association at first, I don’t know.
“You were definitely an eccentric. I was very respectful of authority. I did middle school in the military.”
That was my biggest issue, I hated authority. What’s Military school like in france? Is surrendering taught as a good strategy in war?
“Yeah, you weren’t socially inept.”
Not entirely. I would say shit without thinking sometimes. I’d speak what I thought at the time was the truth, and some people didn’t appreciate it. I just had a wide variety of interests, so it was easy for me to make friends with others and talking to women was even easier for me. Which a lot of guys envied my ability to just casually walk up to a cheerleader and talk to them without hesitation
“They don’t have this reputation in France. Girls in my high school were false prudes. Caring a lot about their reputation but getting real slutty behind closed doors.”
Basically what I meant. Atheism has a positive correlation with IQ right? You said your school was pretty well off financially. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of students in catholic schools were closet “non-believers”
Are you catholic? Is that why you hate homos?
“You’d be surprised at how easy it is, there’s a difference between making a gay speech about how bullying is wrong and just saying “C’mon man, he aint worth it” You just got to know how to talk to people and you won’t look like a bitch.”
Yeah, I know what you mean. I was just not mature enough and I enjoyed watching misfits being mistreated somehow, it was really funny sometimes. Then I would carry on my daily activity not even thinking about what I saw.
“Then he tried being all buddy buddy after school, I told him to eat a dick.”
Lol.
“Depends on what you were like. From the sounds of it, we would’ve gotten along, but I probably would’ve guilted you by association at first, I don’t know.”
Just from seeing me, knowing my name and the people a hung up with, you would have found me arrogant, snobbish. My name is typically aristocratic, my cousins sisters and I well were well known to be among the top families in the school and the city as a whole so there was already a whole legend around people like me.
If you were in a class with me, I’d have interacted in a friendly way with you like I would have done with everyone, but we would probably not have been BFF. I got along with people in my classes, namely the big dudes and the bimbos but I was a bit aloof to the others, I had other social circles. However, you would have had my full validation if I saw you at some parties or other exclusive events out of high school.
“Is surrendering taught as a good strategy in war?”
Loool, I see where you’re coming from.
Lol, no we aren’t even taught military strategy. It is a regular boarding school where all the discipline is exerted on military personnel who bark on you for no reason, make you walk in line, salute the flag, where you rank below the most humble staff member who is entitled to humiliate you, where you do chores… It might not sound like a good experience when put like that but it is exceptional actually.
“Basically what I meant. Atheism has a positive correlation with IQ right? You said your school was pretty well off financially. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of students in catholic schools were closet “non-believers””
If you want something to compare, upper class Catholics in France are similar to Episcopalians in the US.
Our Catholicism was more a matter of moral values and familial tradition than actual religious fervor. There was a Mass every morning but attendance wasn’t compulsory. And only a very small minority of extremist Catholics went earlier in the morning for the Mass. These were austere folks from very traditionalist families, my friend and I never attended a Mass at school.
“Are you catholic? Is that why you hate homos?”
Yes I’m Catholic and it’s one of the reasons why I condemn homosexuality.
“I enjoyed watching misfits being mistreated somehow, it was really funny sometimes.”
I won’t lie sometimes it was funny, especially if that person had it coming.
” I’d have interacted in a friendly way with you like I would have done with everyone, but we would probably not have been BFF. I got along with people in my classes, namely the big dudes and the bimbos but I was a bit aloof to the others, I had other social circles. However, you would have had my full validation if I saw you at some parties or other exclusive events out of high school.”
Oh I was definitely at parties, I was usually the youngest one there though. Surprisingly, that would sometimes get me pussy.
“It might not sound like a good experience when put like that but it is exceptional actually.”
I’m sure it taught you a lot of mental discipline.
“Our Catholicism was more a matter of moral values and familial tradition than actual religious fervor. There was a Mass every morning but attendance wasn’t compulsory. And only a very small minority of extremist Catholics went earlier in the morning for the Mass. ”
Believe it or not, the white side of my gene pool is mostly Irish and french. My great grandmother thought she was part native american, but she supposedly took a dna test and it said she was actually african down the line somewhere. So I’m french and black, just like you LMAO.
“Yes I’m Catholic and it’s one of the reasons why I condemn homosexuality.”
So you’re a black guy who believes in god? How surprising.
Seriously though, so you think god had an opinion on what fags should do with their butts?
“Oh I was definitely at parties, I was usually the youngest one there though. Surprisingly, that would sometimes get me pussy.”
Same for me, I had skipped a grade so I was one year younger than my classmates though no one noticed it. I could party with older people thanks to my cousins and my sister. But it was even better when I was a senior, my little sister and another cousin were in the first grade of high school, the would get me an unlimited supply of fresh new girls that were so excited about dating/fucking seniors. My senior year was unforgettable.
I considered that people were “part of us” from the moment when I saw them at an event out of high school. But I would invite some hot girls that I knew from high school so that they would become part of the crew. When I organized a party at my (parent’s) home, I would invite some cool guys that were in class with me regardless of whether they were “part of us” or no. The only thing I asked is that they remained decent when drunk or high.
“I’m sure it taught you a lot of mental discipline.”
Yes, it’s the best way to learn to become a man.
“So I’m french and black, just like you LMAO.”
Lol, what’s the other half of your ancestry ?
“So you’re a black guy who believes in god? How surprising.”
Sarcasm ? Most blacks on earth believe in a god or to some spirits. But in my case it is a very white religious tradition, as I told you before, it is sort of a French version of the Episcopalian church. Theses guys below are what I went through when I was a child:
You can see how far I come from… lol.
“so you think god had an opinion on what fags should do with their butts?”
Of course, and it’s not just god, it’s nature, it’s common sense, the only acceptable form of sex is heterosexual sex. Then I’m not a saint myself, I don’t spend days lecturing people about what’s right or wrong but if my opinion is asked, I say I don’t approve that.
“the would get me an unlimited supply of fresh new girls that were so excited about dating/fucking seniors. My senior year was unforgettable.”
My little sister went to this church gathering every Wednesday, all of her friends developed crushes on me. I ended up having sex with most of them.
I’m so ignorant when I’m drunk. Some people love it, some hate it. I stay high.
“Yes, it’s the best way to learn to become a man.”
Having a job will do that to you as well.
“Lol, what’s the other half of your ancestry ?”
Filipino. I don’t know if my father is full Filipino, they’re incredibly mixed ethnicity as it is. He’s actually from the Philippines he immigrated here when he was young.
“Sarcasm ? Most blacks on earth believe in a god or to some spirits.”
Yeah, it’s a pattern I’ve noticed too. Even among the more intelligent ones.
“Of course, and it’s not just god, it’s nature, it’s common sense, the only acceptable form of sex is heterosexual sex. Then I’m not a saint myself, I don’t spend days lecturing people about what’s right or wrong but if my opinion is asked, I say I don’t approve that.”
Well we aren’t the only species that practices homosexuality. I don’t really care what someone does as long as it’s consensual, but I’m not religious so I don’t have a reason to care.
What else do you take literally in the bible?
“My little sister went to this church gathering every Wednesday, all of her friends developed crushes on me. I ended up having sex with most of them.
I’m so ignorant when I’m drunk. Some people love it, some hate it. I stay high.”
I adjust my level of drunkenness to my goals in a party. Getting totally wasted when there is no sex at stake, being just slightly high when I’m chasing.
“Having a job will do that to you as well.”
LMAO, complete middle school dude.
“Yeah, it’s a pattern I’ve noticed too. Even among the more intelligent ones.”
It’s the same in all races I guess. The Jews, Presbyterians, Traditionalist Catholics and Episcopalians are religious elites. These are enlightened religions. The type of religion that must be negatively correlated with IQ is the fanatic/superstitious ones that we find in lower classes. In the case of my family, the church is also a social institution along with the Rotary Club, Country Club, professional clubs and stuff.
“What else do you take literally in the bible?”
I take all the supernatural facts in a metaphorical way, I believe the Bible isn’t the word of god but a human report of divine message. My religion influences my political views, I follow the social doctrine of the Catholic Church which is conservative on moral values but progressive in social policies. Being a Christian makes me charitable, egalitarian, thinking about the common good. As a Catholic I also confess my sins (and I have a lot to confess) which is an effort of introspection. In short a religion is a philosophy more than a belief in the origin of the world and other things that are contradicted by science.
Afrosapiens,
”Yes, I easily imagine him as the only dude in a group of emotionally fragile girls. ” You still think PP is a dude?. PP said she is not ‘feminine enough’. No male would ever say that…ever.
PP, I really dont understand why you pose as a dude. Nothing wrong with being female 🙂
You still think PP is a dude?. PP said she is not ‘feminine enough’. No male would ever say that…ever.
You guys are such Neanderthals. If your brain is too masculine you’d have no language or social skills.
“LMAO, complete middle school dude.”
I don’t understand how that is a valid response to my comment. Did I offend you? You were doing so good too. You’re supposed to be proving these stereotypes wrong not confirming them. Apparently your military school didn’t teach you enough self control.
How am I wrong though? Working in triple digit weather for over 8 hours a day will put some hair on your balls whether you believe it or not.
“The type of religion that must be negatively correlated with IQ is the fanatic/superstitious ones that we find in lower classes. In the case of my family, the church is also a social institution along with the Rotary Club, Country Club, professional clubs and stuff.”
I wonder if high IQ ashkennazi’s are religious.
“In short a religion is a philosophy more than a belief in the origin of the world and other things that are contradicted by science.”
Then why don’t you pick an actual school of philosophy lol? You’re basically going divine command theory, for your morality.
“My religion influences my political views, I follow the social doctrine of the Catholic Church which is conservative on moral values but progressive in social policies.”
Being against homosexuality is not socially progressive. At least not in america.
“I don’t understand how that is a valid response to my comment.”
You kind of implied that I was unemployed or that my job wasn’t a real man’s job.
“Apparently your military school didn’t teach you enough self control.”
Not specifically. It taught me deference to authority, it made me obsessed with hygiene and order, It also made me even tempered and stoic.
“How am I wrong though? Working in triple digit weather for over 8 hours a day will put some hair on your balls whether you believe it or not.”
I tend to believe that hard jobs kill the man and save the brute in people.
“I wonder if high IQ ashkennazi’s are religious.”
They’re religious like me. They’re enlightened, but they are attached to the traditions and the morality of their religion.
“Then why don’t you pick an actual school of philosophy lol?”
Catholicism is a school of philosophy, and it’s inspired by god.
“Being against homosexuality is not socially progressive.”
In France, socially progressive ideas are those that promote economic equality. Homosexuality is in the realm of morality. That’s why you find liberal pro-lifes here for instance.
“You kind of implied that I was unemployed or that my job wasn’t a real man’s job.”
Honestly I did not mean that at all. I was just trying to make a simple reply. I never went to military school but I’ve had a lot of jobs.
“I tend to believe that hard jobs kill the man and save the brute in people.”
Not at all. It taught me not to be afraid of hard work, it taught me that actually trying will get you places. I’m probably going to start my own landscaping business soon. It’s easy money.
“They’re enlightened, but they are attached to the traditions and the morality of their religion.”
Enlightenment is true knowledge, not the belief in a subjectively defined figurehead used as a cop out in the justification for “their” preferential versions of morality.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory
“Honestly I did not mean that at all. I was just trying to make a simple reply. I never went to military school but I’ve had a lot of jobs.”
Alright, it’s just fine.
“It taught me not to be afraid of hard work, it taught me that actually trying will get you places. ”
Yes but doesn’t it make you some sort of tough Darwinian ?
“Enlightenment is true knowledge, not the belief in a subjectively defined figurehead used as a cop out in the justification for “their” preferential versions of morality.”
I don’t deny science, but there is no morality in science. I also have metaphysical concerns that science does not answer.
“Yes but doesn’t it make you some sort of tough Darwinian ?”
Depends on what you mean. As an HBDer I already am darwinian by nature. If you mean by the amount of competition that takes place in prole jobs, then kind of. I’m at least 70% of an SD above the white mean, so it’s not that hard to move up.
“I don’t deny science, but there is no morality in science.”
There is if you look hard enough, but it’s not what most hope for. For example I don’t believe in an afterlife, but i do believe in the law of conservation of mass and energy.
“I also have metaphysical concerns that science does not answer.”
Well of course but faith just isn’t good enough for me, it seems too subjective. That’s why I look to math.
Pumpkin. Moderation. Please.
PP,
”You guys are such Neanderthals. If your brain is too masculine you’d have no language or social skills.”
Whats ”too masculinity” got to do with the absence of lang/social skills? Stop looking at everything through masculinity/feminity prism. And whats with the name calling? that definitely is neanderthal.
In fact PP is wrong saying masculinity and social skills are antonymous.
There is definitely a masculine type of social skills. Everything that deals with charisma, persuasion and leadership (Lawyers, CEOs, Politicians) are masculine attributes that women seldom master as much as men.
I don’t agree at all with PP’s views on masculinity. I’m under the impression that he’s trying to tell us how manly he is in spite of not being a macho.
LOL
Do you really think a guy who posts about Oprah every other day cares how manly he comes across?
Law, politics and business require a complex mix of cognitive, emotional & physical traits, some of which are feminine and some of which are masculine. And women are not accepted in certain roles even when they’re better
“Do you really think a guy who posts about Oprah every other day cares how manly he comes across?”
I think you usually don’t care. It’s only when people tell you that you’re an atypical type of man that you invent new definitions of manhood.
Personally, I never thought you were feminine. I find you immature, or as Mar$ha puts it: innocent. And I think nerdiness is immature masculinity, nerds have a masculine brain but lack the adult behaviors and thinking processes of socially dominant alphas.
“And women are not accepted in certain roles even when they’re better”
And where do patriarchy/phallocracy come from in the first place ? It can’t be strength alone, a lot of dominant males don’t have impressive bodies and women could find ways to dominate men if they had a natural inclination.
I think you usually don’t care. It’s only when people tell you that you’re an atypical type of man that you invent new definitions of manhood.
I wish I could take credit for inventing the masculinity model I described but after doing a google search I realized I was more influenced by Steve Sailer’s writings then I realized and have since added a credit in the post. It’s actually now a common idea that men who act nerdy/autistic are more masculine in certain ways. Haven’t you ever heard of S Baron-Cohen’s extreme male brain theory of autism?
And where do patriarchy/phallocracy come from in the first place ? It can’t be strength alone, a lot of dominant males don’t have impressive bodies and women could find ways to dominate men if they had a natural inclination.
Women also tend to be less ambitious than men, often preferring to be successful parents while men seek money and power. Women are less psychopathic, so don’t do some of the evil things men do to get ahead, which are especially important in fields like politics and law. Further men are taller than women so people naturally look up to them as leaders, even when they’re less qualified
I don’t think that either Sailer and Cohen are credible authorities. From common sense alone, masculinity has three defining characteristics:
-Athletic performance
-Reproductive success
-Social dominance
Nerdiness is a deficit in all of the aforementioned characteristics. Moreover, not all nerds lean autistic and some alphas have autistic tendencies. Nerds are a lesser type of males simply because they are an immature type of men.
Judging from what you think about why patriarchy does exist, you can’t deny there is a social aspect of masculinity and that introversion and deficient communication skills (which you call autism) aren’t masculine attributes. As for your autism-schizophrenia theory, do you realize that schizophrenia is also an overwhelmingly male tendency ?
I don’t think that either Sailer and Cohen are credible authorities. From common sense alone, masculinity has three defining characteristics:
Steve Sailer and I never argued nerds are MORE masculine. We’ve argued they’re more COGNITIVELY masculine.
In fact, I tend to believe that nerdiness is a disease of civilization similarly to obesity. Under tough survival conditions, society can’t afford nerds and nerds can’t benefit from society. In traditional societies, nerds simply don’t exist, there is no social niche for them to prosper. There is also no culture that sees nerdiness as an ideal of masculinity.
Look at the world around you, past and present. Your theory is unsustainable.
In fact, I tend to believe that nerdiness is a disease of civilization similarly to obesity.
LOL! Nerds are the ones who created civilization.
Lol, no. When people look for someone to solve concrete technical problems, they look for a manly handyman not a scrawny geek who can’t seem to do anything with his hands. You see, geeks don’t even have a monopoly on problem solving. My girlfriend knows that I can’t solve post-high school math problems. But if her car makes a strange noise or if we have electrical problems in the home, she knows I’m the man.
Mr Oil of Olay three times a day, fixing a car?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You might break one of your perfectly manicured model nails.
But maybe it’s true.
I can picture you bending over and going under the hood.
Oh snap!
“I don’t agree at all with PP’s views on masculinity. I’m under the impression that he’s trying to tell us how manly he is in spite of not being a macho.”
^^^^^
PP what are your measurements ?
Or if you don’t wanna tell, can you do the celebrity match test ?
https://fitbay.com/celebrity
“Or if you don’t wanna tell, can you do the celebrity match test”
lmao I got ed westwick, rupert grint, and john boyega
“lmao I got ed westwick, rupert grint, and john boyega”
Decent matches !
PP doesn’t want to play the game. He’s no fun.
Wonder if he’s gonna add being boring as a masculine attribute.
Afrosapiens, we’ll said.
Masculinity bad! Femininity good!! Big muscles bad!! It makes you a neanderthal brute!!
I got Donald Glover.
“Masculinity bad! Femininity good!! Big muscles bad!! It makes you a neanderthal brute!!”
Exactly, if it makes him feel good after all… People comfort themselves like they can.
But I feel some hypocrisy in PP. I think he knows deep inside that optimal manhood is closer to you and me than to him.
Ecto all the way ! You’d be a good model. I wonder if you’re not a bit too short though. 180cm is generally the minimum, especially if you wanna shoot with ladies, you need to be a good 10cm taller than a female model.
But I feel some hypocrisy in PP. I think he knows deep inside that optimal manhood is closer to you and me than to him.
Are you and RaceRealist so insecure in your manhood that you need every man to worship you in order to feel good about yourselves? Get over yourselves please. Neither of you are the slightest bit desirable to any woman with a triple digit IQ, or any man for that matter.
“Are you and RaceRealist so insecure in your manhood that you need every man to worship you in order to feel good about yourselves? Get over yourselves please. Neither of you are the slightest bit desirable to any woman with a triple digit IQ, or any man for that matter.”
You’re comedian PP.
The woman I’m currently talking to has a bachelor’s in neuroscience, nutrition and is going for a master’s in neuroscience. Her IQ is 125.
Not to toot my own horn, but women let me know how attractive I am all the time. I get told my high cheekbones are very attractive (it’s a sign if high testosterone, oh noes!!) and just overall I’m a very attractive man. But that has no bearing on anything on this blog which is why I don’t about it. But it does have a bearing on how people see me and view myself.
I feel good about myself because I look good, I’m healthy and I’m a successful business owner. I don’t need people worshipping me—thanking me for my work and the looks on people’s faces after I’m done working with them is a much better feeling.
Masculinity is bad! Femininity is good!
I’ve asked you this question before PP. What will happen when shit hits the fan? Will the low IQ, low testosterone beta nerds win? Or will the brutish neanderthals with big muskkles and high evil testosterone win?
I think you know the true answer to that. However your bias against men with (average levels of) testosterone will bias you.
LOL! So your girlfriend has 60 IQ points on you? How humiliating. I doubt she’ll marry you. She may want to get into your jeans but she doesn’t want your genes getting into her. No woman wants dumb kids RR. And no wife wants to explain how to do income taxes to her husband.
Tried https://fitbay.com/celebrity
I got Lady Gaga, Julia Dreyfus and Perrie Edwards.
97 % body match with Lady Gaga, 79 % with Perrie and Julia.
Ahah, you’re so tiny. That’s so sweet. You and I would look like
PP, quit your day job and become a comedian. You are HILARIOUS!
“So your girlfriend has 60 IQ points on you?”
58 according to my SAT where I knew nothing on the test and was completely unprepared.
Surely an SAT test is a good predictor of my cognitive ability when I went to a school where I learned shit I learned in fifth grade. What do my life successes tell you about my intelligence, and not a pen and paper scholastic achievement test where I literally learned nothing on the test? Do tell, expert.
“I doubt she’ll marry you.”
Who knows. I can’t tell the future. But both of us are attractive and successful, so we got that going for us!
“She may want to get into your jeans but she doesn’t want your genes getting into her.”
Ha. She wants my jeans and my genes. She’s a nerd just like myself and she can stand me talking about human evolution and IQ all day, we can actually have great conversations. Tell me, how many of your SOs were you able to have conversations like that with?
“No woman wants dumb kids RR”
Of course not. But I’m clearly not dumb.
“And no wife wants to explain how to do income taxes to her husband.”
I pay someone to do my taxes.
Now, address my question: What will happen when shit hits the fan? Will the high IQ, low testosterone beta nerds win? Or will the brutish, low IQ neanderthals with big muskkles and high evil testosterone win?
Afro,
“When people look for someone to solve concrete technical problems, they look for a manly handyman not a scrawny geek who can’t seem to do anything with his hands.”
This. I also fix high-end furniture and people will def call someone like myself, and not Dexter the poindexter who doesn’t know how to use a tool.
“You see, geeks don’t even have a monopoly on problem solving.”
They don’t. I wonder how fast and how well a geek can load a 53-foot trailer? I wonder how well someone can keep track of a ton of things going on at once all the while getting yelled at, screamed at and flustered? When all of the pressure is on you and you need to pull 400 mattresses AND unload 7 trucks (over 100 matts in it) AND have to deal with whatever goes on in the office AND deal with overbearing owners who want everything perfect.
Not very well. They couldn’t even handle it when I was there boss, telling them what to do. How well would a geek be in my former position? Not too well, from my experience working general labor jobs over the years (not everyone can hang, it’s not for everyone). I love getting my hands dirty. Sitting behind a desk all day is boring (not to mention extremely unhealthy!!).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404815/
Even when adults meet physical activity guidelines, sitting for prolonged periods can compromise metabolic health. TV time and objective-measurement studies show deleterious associations, and breaking up sedentary time is beneficial. Sitting time, TV time, and time sitting in automobiles increase premature mortality risk. Further evidence from prospective studies, intervention trials, and population-based behavioral studies is required.
Keep sitting. Matter of fact, active fat people live longer than inactive/desk-ridden job thin people.
I wonder how fast a geek can keep up in a warehouse that’s constantly moving (where you need to lift at least 75 pounds; I’ve had jobs where you need to be able to lift over 100)? Not very fast, I’d imagine.
I’ve actually worked a warehouse job with a few geeks back in my day.
let me just say…. LOL!
Afro is still hitting on me.
I’m not THAT tiny. In heels, I’m like 5’6″.
What would your parents say if you brought home a black? Sasquatch can be pretty racist
Umm no. Indigenous people are not racist.
The sasquatch thing isn’t funny anymore.
“Afro is still hitting on me.
I’m not THAT tiny. In heels, I’m like 5’6″.”
Lol, no I just think you’re a sweet little being. Maybe you’re turned on by King Kong but it wasn’t my intent. I’d rather see you as a little sister. My girlfriends have all been in the 170cm, with generous curves.
Even with your heels on, I’m still 20cm taller. Once in bed, you’d have to remove them and I’d be afraid to break you into pieces.
i got Ryan Reynolds .
PP , the fact that everyone first thought that you were a woman should tell you something about your masculinity/sexuality.
I think that even you understand that you are not what most would consider a typical man, especially since your girlfriend dumped you.
As for the nerd thing, i would say that in a race war type situation you would rather have high T and above average IQ.
In peace time IQ wins all day every day.
i can look at this issue from both sides as i have a high IQ and i’m good looking. I am the Aryan ideal .
I sometimes wish i was in Nazi Germany during the 3rd Reich as Hitler wold have paid me to have babies, such is my genetic caliber. .
During the war Detroit manufacturing was called the arsenal of democracy , but i would have been the factory of the ubermenschen.
Die aryan Meister-Rasse wird nie sterben !
i can look at this issue from both sides as i have a high IQ
BWAHaHahahaha!
High IQ?
You?
Only if your definition of high is above 50
And no woman has ever dumped me.
” high IQ ? ”
I have a degree in computer science from UC Berkeley, and i currently work as a programmer for a tier 1 investment bank in northern Europe.
Unlike the HBD cultists i have real world indicators of intelligence.
HBDer = ” Look at me ! i’m a loser but look guys i have a piece of paper from the jews telling me that my IQ is 10,834 ( 15 S.D) !!! ”
” And no woman has ever dumped me.”
Of course she dumped you. And can anyone blame the poor girl? she wanted fun but instead got Oprah reruns .
I have never been dumped .
Being dumped does not befit the status of the Aryan.
The future is ours .
prepare accordingly .
Lol I’m not a “sweet little being”. I’m an empowered future lawyer. I’m tough on the inside.
“I’m tough on the inside.”
Lol. Sure.
I have the same at home…
We’ll talk about it again in a few years.
Why are the exchanges so personal and unkind ? i’m so glad to have a chance to read posts and comments on social sciencse with a rational and non PC-ashamed approach while not being a biased racist or biggot site. Thank you Pumpkinperson for this.
You had at least the chance to be in a crowd. I had no friends up to 15 yo, and then i had people that wanted to be friend with me, but until 21 yo, i was not allowed by my family to befriend anyone in practice: no party, no anything. And in Paris, it is a normal thing to go and have dinner and sleep by your friends house, be invited for holyday for ski or island in the winter, italy or corsica in the summer (for middle upper class professionals), and to return the courtesy. All things i couldn’t do at all. I had really no choice (except quitting home, and earn a living or litigate my parents in court for an installment while studying, and i didn’t want that at all).
Huh? Are you trying to say that your parents were paying for your education (“litigate my parents in court for an installment while studying”), and they controlled everything you did, even who you hung out with? That’s crazy.
And i didn’t like nerds in particular. I was (very) good at math – in Louis le Grand i joined the top class C1 where everybody is a 4/4 GPA in math and most field in France come from that class of 20/25 kids – but i don’t like physics, nor computer sciences, nor chess, nor science fiction. I love law, economics, cognitive sciences, analytical philosophy. Math, i don’t understand it anymore, i can’t even understand now the paper i had written myself !
I doubt my experience was as rare as I used to think it was: I’ve never fit in with the nerds or the jocks, in the same way I never fit in entirely with any racial group. Even though my SATs were higher than most of the nerds at my school, I wasn’t as obsessed with anime and sci-fi as them, and I used to find Calculus/science boring. I spent most of my free time in high school and college hanging out with band geeks, to the extent I hung out with anyone.
Also, given that there weren’t a whole of black kids in my junior and senior level classes, I kind of fell out with the few black kids I was friends with. So I remember being a loner my last few years of high school, although that changed somewhat in college.
I never wanted to be an alpha male, except to the extent that the alpha males got laid more. Alpha males at my high school either came from super-rich families or from sort-of-rich families and were jocks (and were mostly white). The jocks were dumb, but not super-dumb. A lot of them were assholes. I think Donald Trump would’ve fit in well at my high school (although there was no one there who was as rich as him).
I remember Philosopher put up a post of Carl Icahn describing the average CEO as a somewhat-smart jock. That’s basically my impression of most rich people. High-T, but fairly disciplined, average IQs in the 120s. They don’t really fit in as jocks or nerds, but take a little bit from both.
I’ve done well with (or I’ve least gotten dates with) nerdy white and Asian women. To be honest, I’ve wanted to date black women but they’ve mostly rejected me in the past.
AFROSAPIENS GIVE me some advice for black women!!!
Lol, the African ckicks I dated were from the African elite. To get these chicks, you need to be a real man, not a goon but a sophisticated manly dude in charge.
They tend to be very hard to catch, like you know there is something going on with the girl but she just makes you wait for a while.
The big difference with a white or Arab typical chick is that the African girl is a drama queen, so even if you need not to look too fond of her when you’re still running game, there are things that you can’t do, words that you can’t say. Like a remark on another chick or worse, a joke about her hair (it’s a private territory).
Once you’re with her, she’s a real princess. she likes compliments, gifts, weekends in Geneva, London or Monaco, expensive restaurants and stuff. But on the other hand, she doesn’t mind side chicks as long as you show her she’s number one. She becomes very submissive and affectionate after a little time, she has high expectations of manhood, like she would mock you if you say things like “I’m scared to be alone at night in Ottawa”.
I don’t know about other types of black girls. Compared with the brief exchanges I’ve had with US black girls, they look a lot more dominating and uncontrollable, but possibly easier to catch.
Oh, and they are reluctant to give head, don’t do anal.
Going to be absolutely blunt.
If a black woman thinks youre hot she will put down the landing lights. Black girls are r survival selected
They want big muscles, swagger and very masculine behaviours Height is also important. I dont think personality or sense of humour is relevant at all here.
Uglier black women will be open to ugly guys that at least go for it actually. Whereas often ugly whites or asians are actually prudes!
In my life its mainly been black girls and arab girls that have approached me than the other way around. Arab girls are also r selected.
If zion controlled its mind control rays into making white men the bees knees black women will be literrally crawling after whites on the street.
Yhe truth is black womeb know they are not the top billing in most cultures so im very surprised you havent found anything as a pokemon of zion in the west especially and doubly because you are black yourself and should be able to use social circles or even online dating where there are tons of black women.
As jack burton says: youre doing somethin seriously wrong dave.
Gondwanaman, are you an ashy alpha or do you moisturize your skin like faggy apesapiens ?
I usually moisturize, although the climate of the place I’m staying at now may preclude the need to do so.
Alright, PP has two black gay commenters.
Who would have thought ?
GondwanaMan didn’t say he rubbed oil of olay all over his body.
When you’re a model, every square inch of your skin has to be flawless. And girls get literally addicted to a skin that’s soft and smooth like silk.
I know, I’m just messing with you.
Bianna Golodryga is jewish and so is her husband. So the hook up between them was more tribal than anything. And she doesn’t look jewish, so she must have considerable Russian admixture, as she is from the soviet union.
The media portrayal of her husband as ” sexy” is another embarrassing example of jewish self promotion.
I have noticed in a lot of the women’s magazines that i used to read that we have been conditioned on two things which are interracial relationships with blacks and a belief in the hotness of jews.
i remember reading a women’s magazine telling me that Mark zuckerberg was hot lol
as well as telling me that a jewish porn star, with stereotypical jewish features ,is gods gift to women.
I think a lot of you men do not read the sites that we women read and are completely oblivious to the tidal wave of indoctrination that we receive and the herd mentality that comes with it.
woman love what other women want. If women tell you that someone is hot and you have a chance to get with him, then you will do it even if you don’t find him attractive. Call it status chasing but that’s the reality.
The obsession with alpha this and alpha that is the obsession of the losers of the man-o-sphere. what these men think is an attractive personality is disgusting to most women.
As for nerds, i have to be honest and say that i nor any woman i know would date a nerd. I think that the era of the nerd is over now that woman have incomes and can have careers.
in the days when woman did not have social mobility and could not fend for themselves the number one most attractive trait in a man was income and that is where the nerds came out on top.
Today women want compatibility, but of course there will always be career climbers who will marry the nerd to make it to the top , but in my experience those relationships always lead to the woman cheating on him with someone that she is attracted to.
Many men are completely unaware of the high level of cheating in the corporate world. Women gossip about these things so we know that it is rampant.
actually after looking at more pics of her i can now see that she is very jewish. her nose and smile are very jewish looking.
i love hitler,
So what? I ‘d rather be an ugly jew than a good looking fruitpicker. That said, jews are really not ugly. They might not have nordic like features, but that doesnt mean they are ugly. They only ‘seem’ ugly to you because you are comparing them with nordic features. Also, nordic looks are overrated because they age faster than everybody else.
“They might not have nordic like features”
Lol and? Nordica are ugly. Southern European women are the most beautiful in the world obviously southern italians. Nordica are ugly.
Race Realist, I used nordic as a reference cuz most people who say jews are ugly say that as a result of comparing them to those with nordic features. But if south european are the best looking then jews are also best looking because they look closest to southern european than to any other ethnic group
jews are absolutely hideous creatures.
The only ones that dont look ugly are the ones who have 60-80% Euro admixture, which is funny because the jews call themselves the master race but all of their achievements have come from people with 60-80% Euro genes.
How can you be the master race when you need to be improved” with euro genes?
thats why i always laugh at HBD cultists who say jews are superior to Europeans when they are nothing without our genes.
Europeans = beauty, intelligence, creativity
Jews = theft of European genes.
and RR is wrong with his ridiculous poster of north vs south euro.
Latin women are more beautiful in a seductive way , but Nordic men are superior
According to this, Ashkenazi Jews are less than 50% European:
Despite their close ties with Europe, no more than half of their DNA comes from ancient Europeans, the researchers found. Only 46% to 50% of the DNA in the 128 samples originated with the group of people who were also the ancestors of the Flemish people in the study. Those ancient people split off from the ancestors of today’s Middle Easterners more than 20,000 years ago, with a founding group of about 3,500 to 3,900 people, according to the study.
The rest of the Ashkenazi genome comes from the Middle East, the researchers reported. This founding group “fused” with the European founding group to create a population of 250 to 420 individuals. These people lived 25 to 32 generations ago, and their descendants grew at a rate of 16% to 53% per generation, the researchers calculated.
Also keep in mind that Ashkenazi Jews are not necessarily a European-Middle Eastern hybrid, they are DESCENDED from one, but after enough relative genetic isolation and natural selection, they arguably evolved into a new race, distinct from their parent races, so you claiming white genes can take credit for their accomplishments would be ALMOST like Africans claiming black genes can take credit for Europe’s accomplishments since all humans are descended from proto-Africans.
PP please provide the citation. See:
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/29/southern-italians-and-ashkenazi-jews-what-is-the-connection/
Overall, it seems that at least 80% of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry is due to the assimilation of mtDNAs indigenous to Europe, most likely through conversion. The phylogenetic nesting patterns suggest that the most frequent of the Ashkenazi mtDNA lineages were assimilated in Western Europe, ~2 ka or slightly earlier. Some in particular, including N1b2, M1a1b, K1a9 and perhaps even the major K1a1b1, point to a north Mediterranean source. It seems likely that the major founders were the result of the earliest and presumably most profound wave of founder effects, from the Mediterranean northwards into central Europe, and that most of the minor founders were assimilated in west/central Europe within the last 1,500 years. The sharing of rarer lineages with Eastern European populations may indicate further assimilation in some cases, but can often be explained by exchange via intermarriage in the reverse direction.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html
Male Jews migrated from the Levant to Rome during Greco-Roman times, which mass conversions led to 6 million Roman women who then began to practice Judaism.
http://www.cell.com/AJHG/retrieve/pii/S0002929710002466
And before a random Christian Identist appears, no, Ashkenazi Jews are not Khazar.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/04/24/ashkenazi-jews-are-not-khazar/
They have prehistoric European admixture, descending from 4 women as well as more recent admixture.
Overall, it seems that at least 80% of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry is due to the assimilation of mtDNAs indigenous to Europe
That’s just the maternal ancestry though.
Anyway, my citation is here:
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ashkenazi-jews-dna-diseases-20140909-story.html
Thanks for the link. I’ll review it later and get back to you.
Going by mtDNA and Y DNA we can see how the population was made in the distant past. Ashkenazi jews descend from 4 women, prehistoric Europeans.
And also, Ashkenazi Jews are not inbred.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/07/ashkenazi-jews-are-not-inbred/
PP
your point about them becoming a new people because of isolation is irrelevant because isolation doesn’t change admixture percentages , or whether they carry European traits .
if a group is 50% euro and isolates from euros for 500 years, then takes a DNA test it would show them to be 50% euro.
To prove your claim that jews are superior to euros without being improved by that ~50% euro admixture, then you would need to find me a group of jews with no euro admixture who have major accomplishments.
the sephardics and mizrahis are complete failures because they don’t have European DNA.
the Ashkenazim have done some things because they have European DNA
That point is so obvious to anyone but a HBD cultist
the Ashkenazim have done some things because they have European DNA
I think living in European societies was far more helpful than European DNA
“the sephardics and mizrahis are complete failures because they don’t have European DNA.”
1- Fuck you
2- Sephardi Jews’ land was Spain.
3- Ever heard of Spinoza ?
Afro are you talking about before the Alhambra Decree (I think that’s what it’s called)?
You know that a lot of Latin Americans have Jewish ancestry right? When Ferdinand and Isabella expelled the Muslims and Jews from Spain, a lot feigned conversion to Christianity, or some chose to die. Those who feigned conversion then left for the New World. They still practices Judaism in secret, and still do to this day out of habit. People in Latin America who are descendants of Jews are called ‘marrano’.
” 1. fuck you ”
the greatest example of them being failures is your girlfriend.
No self respecting people would train their daughter to breed with blacks.
Only those who don’t have a genetic heritage worth preserving would breed with blacks.
” 2. sephardi jews’ land is spain ”
They immigrated there from North Africa and collaborated with the Moors to help them invade Spain.
” 3. Ever heard of Spinoza ”
A classic example of Jewish self promotion .
When you own the newspapers, TV, and literary magazines then you decide who is a great and who isn’t.
The most disgusting examples of Spinoza promotion were the reviews of Jonathan Israel’s (Jew) book “Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity, 1650–1750 ”
The author rejected the idea that the enlightenment was a European movement and claimed that Spinoza was at the heart of the movement.
He even had the audacity to claim that Spinoza was the source of modernity and that he was above Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, Voltaire, and all other non-Jews.
jonathan isreal goes on to say that Spinoza and Spinozism were “the intellectual backbone of the European Radical Enlightenment everywhere ”
“Only those who don’t have a genetic heritage worth preserving would breed with blacks.”
Said the guy who probably can’t trace his ancestry above his grandparents.
“They immigrated there from North Africa and collaborated with the Moors to help them invade Spain.”
The Jews have been in Spain since roman time.
“A classic example of Jewish self promotion”
You could just have said that he was a pure blood Dutchman adopted by Jews, it would have made as much sense than the rest of your rambling.
“Afro are you talking about before the Alhambra Decree (I think that’s what it’s called)?”
Yep.
“You know that a lot of Latin Americans have Jewish ancestry right?”
Sure. And ?
“Sure. And ?”
Just an interesting factoid.
PP
” I think living in European societies was far more helpful than European DNA”
So what you are saying is that the jewish master race can not be the master race until they live in societies created by inferior people?
Pure HBD cultist
Jimmy I am in full agreement with you. Carl Jung has a nice passage on the differences between the Jews and ‘Aryans’. I’ll see if I can dig it up. One thing he brings up is civilization and how Jews have tk latch on ‘like a parasite’ to accomplish anything of note.
RR
i think you are referring to this
“The Jew ,who is something of a nomad, has never yet created a cultural form of his own and as far as we can see never will, since all his instincts and talents require a more or less civilized nation to act as host for their development. The Jews have this peculiarity with women; being physically weaker, they have to aim at the chinks in the armour of their adversary.”
– C.G. Jung
That quote is right up their with nietsches jews always invert morality not because they believe in its opposite but simply to achieve a goal.
“woman love what other women want. If women tell you that someone is hot and you have a chance to get with him, then you will do it even if you don’t find him attractive. Call it status chasing but that’s the reality.”
I know what you’re referring to, I call that speculative dating. Sometimes I felt like girls wanted me like they wanted the new Gucci bag. But I also had my trophy chicks. In high school, the typical trophy chick was the hot foreign exchange student.
“do you think you’ll go to prison for your correct views on faggotry? will you be sent to french guiana?”
Lol, no but I could be fined.
“it’s illegal to think such things in france.”
We’re free to think but not to say.
“the sane and the insane fall under the same category of “mental diversity”? the drug addict and the clean under the category “substance use diversity”?”
Lol, yes there is a level to which tolerance becomes insane. Homophilia has passed this level.
Jesus. Ive been banging on about zions mind control of women and lo finally we have a woman to back me up.
I never lie.
If i see a pattern its usually true and its usally a thing most people miss.
The interracial stuff was pretty obvious since that margot robnie will smith movie. Zion iis making its final push against the white man that shoved his head into a locker.
The beta pussies are are not immune to mind control will die out.
Those of us that are gebetically immune must rebel or enlighten.
Keep the faith.
Eventually mark zuckerberg and afro selling life policies is going to blow over.
I read Science Fiction. Was in advanced classes. I wear glasses. But I never had any friends. I talked to almost no one. For the last two years of high school I was working on my A.I. project. When school ended and I graduated I had a mental collapse. I did not know what to do. I spend many years alone in my apartment. But I now own my own house. I still am set on completing my A.I. project. It was since I was 12 that I have wanted to create A.I. – The problem is that I do not know much about computers. I understand algorithms but I am not obsessed with computers but machine intelligence. Pumpkin Person is obsessed with IQ in the same way and has said so. I like cool ideas and understanding IQ is one of them. I am now going back to school. I like math the best. And today I filled in some gaps with my A.I. design.
I think that K selection and r selection have nothing to do with Alphas Betas Gammas or Deltas. It is more that these types of males or females have more to do with being and adult. Alpha males have the most adult brains / mentalities. They are the leaders because they know how responsibility works. The lower males / females are less mature and act like kids. Maturity is not about interests but about your relationships. When you encounter someone that is wise, they do not treat people inappropriately. The know the rules of the social sphere. What is acceptable and unacceptable. They show people how to act. That is what makes them leaders.
The man you wrote about in the article is the owner of Comcast the company I invest in. How ironic!!!
Also what can I say? Alpha males reproduce easier and at a higher rate. End of story. You can’t force yourself to be alpha, it’s genetic!
Look at it this way. Every one here has 2 parents. Your father had at least one child. What makes him more alpha than you?
“Also what can I say? Alpha males reproduce easier and at a higher rate. End of story. You can’t force yourself to be alpha, it’s genetic!”
I completely agree. I don’t know if its genetic but your physique matters a lot.
PP tries to look alpha when he gets mad at me and that sounds totally forced.
Same when geeks try to look cool because they know you’re cool, it’s ridiculous. I can respect some types of introverts though. And I don’t like those who do too much to get the attention of others, charisma is natural you don’t need to force it when you have it.
“completely agree. I don’t know if its genetic but your physique matters a lot.” *
Correct. It’s part genetic. Like muscle insertions, fat free body mass, leverages, somatype, etc. When I’m dieted down, the only difference between me and the next guy at the same weight and bf percentage is genetics (and hard work).
Thank God I have solid physique and none structure. Also helps to look good as well.
https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=pLHif7rMfwM
Why nice guys finish last from a female point of view
“so the social part of the brain began to shrink, to make room for more technical processing”
Source? Or is this just baseless conjecture?
The latter as usual.
In fact, this is even incoherent. If people had to deal with more challenges, they would have needed better cohesion and communication, resulting in an enlargement of the social parts of the brain.
Exactly. I think PP just says what ‘sounds good’ sometimes. Pretty cringe-worthy. More than welcome to be proven wrong, PP.
“I think PP just says what ‘sounds good’ sometimes.”
If it was only “sometimes”…
I’m going to email Jerry Coyne and other prominent evolutionary biologists and see what they say about how PP reads trees. Should be hilarious.
Literally show me one biologist who reads phylogenies like that.
The response you get will depend on how you word the email.
Lol, he’s gonna laugh. We’ve both been through that with PP before, he wants to keep on thinking newer clade = more evolution = more advanced. Let the child play alone.
I’ve emailed a few people before. I got a response from the head researcher on the bonobos genome to clarify something on their genome due to a garbage article written by Andrew Anglin.
Dr Murray got back to me when some guy on a politics message board was talking shit about him saying he ran away from debate with Joseph Graves.
I’m going to send Coyne an email later. I know how to word myself (and I send these emails with my personal email).
Is Andrew Anglin even white? He looks like a cross between an Asian and a white, what they call a Hapa.
what was the article he wrote that you were referring to ?
Jimmy, yea he says he is. But that nose tells me another story.
I’m referring to this travesty.
http://www.dailystormer.com/black-africans-are-genetically-closer-to-bonobos-than-to-white-humans/comment-page-2/
Here is the response from the head researcher.
you are of course absolutely right. Bonobos are equally distant to
people from Africa, Europe or anywhere else in the world.
The X/A ratio measures something completely different: It compares
individuals from a certain group (bonobos, chimpanzees, or human
populations) and compares how different the X autosomes in this group
are from the autosomes (the non-sex-chromosomes, i.e. everything that is
not X and Y). Since each generation you have three X chromosomes per
four autosomes (XX for the mother + XY from the dad = three X), you would
expect that the ratio should be 3/4 (thats why there is a dashed line at
0.75 in the plot). But there are many ways in which this measure could be
nudged off this expected value. That Europeans look different in this
measure could for instance be explained by later waves of primarily male
migrants out of Africa that mixed with people in Europe, but there are
other ideas as well.
I am really sorry to see that the plot is misconstrued as evidence for
racist ideas. Hope this helped to clear up what is meant with this plot.
Cheers
Lol. Morons.
What they appear to be doing, is reporting all of this new information in their journals, of course without value-judgement (it’s hard science), and then failing to report it in the popular science outlets, thus the people are unaware of it
My. Fucking. Sides!!!
I believe the most popular man on Instagram. Is a super rich genius level IQ jock that made all of his money thru hi stakes gambling.
Hell Donald trump is a hi IQ jock. Who else? Barack Obama…Shaquille o Neal. Arguably jay z. Dwayne the Rock Johnson. P diddy. Damn I really can’t name a lot.
I have a friend who’s only attracted to nerdy short men. Seriously.
Different strokes.
She’s nerdy herself though.
GST in action.
Speaking of nerds, I wonder how many people here know what it’s like to do a real day’s work, ie manual labor. I damn well know how to bust my ass and I hope a majority of the people here know how to.
Fuck a real days work! Been there never again!
What kind of work did you do? What do you do now (don’t need to be specific). I love working hard. I ran a mattress department for 5 years, shipping and receiving. I know how to bust my ass loading and unloading. It’s fun, and gives a good work ethic.
I’d rather bust my ass working then sitting at a desk all day. Look at the negative effects of people who sit all day, even if they lift they have lower life expectancy. Will provide references later.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404815/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419586/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2996155/
Fat people who are active and sit love longer than thin people who are inactive and sit all day at a desk, even when the 5hin person lifted.
Keep thinking desk jobs are good. You’ll be in a bad place in twenty years.
“I hope a majority of the people here know how to.”
I worked on a construction site under the burning sun of Senegal for one month dude. And it was for charity.
I’m not fond of that type of work though. I fit better in a comfortable office
I want to work construction for a hit to learn something new. Maybe 3 months so I can learn a new skill. I want to be multifaceted just in case one of my things falls through or doesn’t work out.
Learning how to bust my ass made me a better person. I don’t really bust my ass anymore, but I remember where I came from and still have a love for that work I do.
Take a look at those links Afro. You seem to be very physically active so you don’t have to worry.
“I want to work construction for a hit to learn something new. ”
It’s a very difficult sector but you have fun with colleagues and, on the site I worked at, we finished our days slightly drunk.
“Take a look at those links Afro. You seem to be very physically active so you don’t have to worry.”
Thanks for the links, yeah I’m active, though not as much as I’d like to be now that it’s winter. but when springtime comes I’ll be able to spend more time in the swimming pool and I’ll start parking my car at the gate of the city and use a public bike to the office.
“I wonder how many people here know what it’s like to do a real day’s work, ie manual labor. ”
I worked landscaping and construction for multiple years. I remember when I quit(money wasn’t good enough). I went to work at some fast food place, I became a manager in only a few months. I had been conditioned by constant bitching from my boss and physical labor in the summer sun, so when I walked into that place they were extremely impressed, which surprised me because to me that current performance was my normal “work level”.
pumpkin and his damn moderation.
Pumpkin looking like a nerd physically? Big nose small eyes and glasses? Or appearance and image wise? Khakis and pen protectors.
PP, can you tell us how well you’ve done with ladies ever since you’ve been in the dating game ?
I mean, don’t beat around the bush, you said you studied people like me like scientists study rats laboratories.
Where does your feeling of superiority come from and why do you get so emotional every time I bring this topic up ?
Orzag is a deep stater:
1. Cfr board
2. Md at lazard freres
3. Brooking and peterson thinktanks
4. Gamma treacherus physiognomy
5. Jew
His dad was a math professor abd phd in astrophysics. My guess is peter has a sky high iq.
The commebter earlier is right – like ichan said most ceos are competent jocks. But to be fair ceos are politicans more than managers. Especially those of massive corporations and i think you need social skills and popularity more than iq for that type of role.
Icahn nakes an assumption that a ceo can get anything done when in reality ceos need to grease the wheels, foght warlords dep heads and drive morale and leadership.
Most mbas focus more on leadership than accounts.
Icahan is right though than manu fortune 500 cos are run by nepotist hires or frat boys.
I think ive been in the dungeon 2 weeks now.
I mean jesus. This is too long.
I remember once I said something smart on a forum and a girl said: “have my baby”. If felt nice to read that. I know many girls would love to be with me because I would treat them right. I do believe in true love. I know that personalities that match are the perfect personalities. I want compatibility.
” because I would treat them right”
This is what the vast majority of women want in life. Of course there are a minority of women who like to be walked over because of a bad childhood, but most want someone who treats them well.
I am not going to lie to you and say that looks don’t matter , but if there was a man who was really sweet and knew how to treat a women right then looks would have less importance in the eyes of the woman.
I am swedish and i have been out with average looking men who acted like i was the only woman in the world and i fell in love with them.
I have also had an extremely good looking and muscular Arab boyfriend from Dubai, UAE and our time together was wild and fun but he didn’t want to commit . He broke up with me saying that i was ” suffocating him ” purely because i asked him what wedding ring he was going to get me .
what a woman wants is a mature , sweet man who thinks that shes the only woman in the world.
In my experience the hotter the body of the man, the further away he is from wanting a committed relationship. No one does all those sit ups and watches their fat consumption unless they are on the game.
I have also dated an Asian man from Hong Kong who was a student at my university in Sweden and he was really sweet but i was never sexually attracted to him.
Asian men are very sweet but they don’t have the passion of a Swedish man and not even close to the passion of an Arab man.
I’m sure someone like you will find someone special one day Illuminaticat.
I know a man from my work place who recently had a wedding and on that day i asked him how he felt and he told me that before he found his current wife he was rejected by 27 women !
Keep trying and don’t fear failure.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/what-do-geniuses-do-for-work
This stupid blog have already 100 comments!1!!
and most of this comments are.. well… useless, wrong, pedantic…
i’m sooooooul good that i’m still concerned to provide this interesting piece above…
still but grazzie mille you are killing my stupid obsession with this blog.
This stupid blog have already 100 comments!1!!
and most of this comments are.. well… useless, wrong, pedantic…
LOL!
peepee actually thinks members of high IQ societies have high IQs, so she should read your article.
last night i heard stephen schwarzman say that if he hadn’t gotten into harvard and yale he’d likely just have a chain of hair salons. he also said he was very ambitious even before he went off to school. he wanted to turn his father’s small store into a national chain. even more damning for peepee is that schwarzman is a republican who described obama’s threats to eliminate carried interest as hitler invading poland.
last night i heard stephen schwarzman say that if he hadn’t gotten into harvard and yale he’d likely just have a chain of hair salons
I was looking at some numbers and I agree with you and LOTB that the correlation between money and education is at least as strong as the correlation between money and IQ. Actually when you get really good measures (i.e. cumulative lifetime earnings) income correlates with BOTH more than you think. But there’s reason to think IQ correlates with income independently of education. I have some evidence to that effect that I hope to blog about soon.
Pumpkin Person read this: very important!
Does IQ = IQ? Comparability of Intelligence Test Scores in Typically Developing Children
Priska Hagmann-von Arx, Sakari Lemola, Alexander Grob
First Published August 5, 2016 research-article
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1073191116662911
Oy vey looks like Trump is doing really good at that 3D chess. Right, Philburt?
Banning Iranians for absolutely (((no reason at all))) (Shias don’t engage in terror).
It’s causing Iran to chimp-out.
It seems more like the real deal as opposed to “chess”.
But I don’t have schizophrenia so what do I know?
Thats right. You dont so you dont know anything.
As i said, this brain transplant is really working out for you these days.
there are loads of Iranian sleeper cells in the U.S . They also do a lot of lobbying in the democratic party. They also did an attack in Australia recently .
If i was president i was would impose a temporary ban on all Muslims , even western muslims.
Not because i think that all terrorism is real but because they have a lot of useful idiot youth in the muslim community who are constantly being used as patsy’s for false flag operations.
The guys who allegedly shot up charlie hebdo were party guys who didn’t even attend a mosque. The guy who allegedly did the lorry attack in Nice, France was a pork eater. .
I would also support the deportation of the useful idiot types.
My views on this have changed since i moved to a northern European country. There is a vocal minority of them who are so gullible and easily manipulated that its unbelievable.
You would be surprised at how many custom made signs i see on marches with very provocative statements like ” behead those who appose us !”
Once you notice it, you can’t un notice it Jimmy.
They never notice it.
The glitching.
Its in the newspaper stories, the billboards, the radio, the clothes girls wear, the sombre announcements by business leaders, the pseudo intellectual baby talk on the radio, the enemies always changing, the stagnant economy, the never ending wars on arabs, the secret never ending war on gentiles.
I know what they want
Afrosapiens seems a little sexist to me based on his comments. He’s implied that women are hysterical. He’s also stated that alpha males like him don’t admire or respect women. Maybe I’m wrong but I’m getting this sense from your comments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria
It used to be considered an actual disorder/diagnosis!!!111 Crazy how far we’ve come.
Hahahahahahahahaha.
Dildos is the funniest commenter of all time on any blog.
Is dildos a jewish male?
What’s so funny?
which one is xhe?
neither.
no. that guy’s part injun.
Rape is so funny Mugabe.
You fucktarded fucking fucktard.
Dildos is the einstein of trolling.
Im still laughing!
It’s true that hysteria is a feminine trait. Males experience wrath as well but it’s expressed in a more brutal way and doesn’t last long. Girls can spend an eternity hollering and raise their voices way more easily than men.
I didn’t say alphas didn’t respect or admire women but having female idols like PP does is definitely not an alpha thing.
I’m not sexist but I adhere to traditional gender roles.
I don’t get it. Why can’s “alphas” have female idols? Because women are inferior?
Traditional gender roles were used to keep women down as second class citizens throughout history. But ok.
“I don’t get it. Why can’s “alphas” have female idols?”
I have one female idol, my fiancée.
More seriously, there is no female that represents the ideals of an alpha male. Most females who have male worshipers are queer icons like Lady Gaga, Madonna, Rihanna and the likes.
“Traditional gender roles were used to keep women down as second class citizens throughout history. But ok.”
I’m not extending this logic to society as a whole but in a relationship, things work better when each one stays in their traditional place. She irons clothes, I take out the trash.
“Traditional gender roles were used to keep women down as second class citizens throughout history. But ok.”
You may be conflating “traditional gender roles” with religious oppression of women, the former is just you gathering plants and berries, taking care of the fire and children while I go out and hunt meat and other resources.
Humans have been specializing for a long time. It’s not implying inferiority, just division of labor. In fact some tribes have shown an enormous increase in food intake when women were allowed to do the hunts by themselves.
Afro
can women have male idols? or no?
Hummmm…. Lemme think….
Teenage girls have celebrity crushes, but in grown up women it seems to be rare.
I hate to keep going back to this. But who invented third wave feminism – jewish women like gloria steinem and betty friedman.
Jewish women, who take everything so personally like their gamma male brethren, went from wanting the vote and equal treatment under the law (1st and 2nd wave), to full on Trotskyite physical equality because they love power trips and their high IQ gives them an avenue for their neurosis to be actualised.
Like culti marx views on race, women are biologically disposed towards certain behaviours, interests, roles and beliefs.
Dildos is not being serious guys.
She’s been trolling since xhe got xer sasquatch lunchbox in school.
Philosopher you’re an idiot. It only seems funny to you because you literally are unable to take sexism seriously. You’re so deeply sexist that you can’t imagine anyone seriously challenging it. Again, you’re an idiot.
I take feminism super sexually.
The idea of a womans mag selling mark zuckerberg as gods goft to women is comical.
Well lion was right.
Jews are the funniest.
funny but also worrying to think of how much power they have.
we always talk about the media but we don’t talk about the schools. I think school indoctrination is potentially worse than the media.
I remember hearing a teacher say that in one of his lessons he was teaching about 9/11 and terrorism !
Thankfully many kids don’t pay attention in school.
Oh yeah Jimmy. I always mention academia in the third level sense, but the high schools or secondary schools as we call them here are arguably worse.
Its an enduring irony that the steady, hard working and loyal Tom Parsons of this world that dutifully recite the words, learn the anthems, and remember the chosen ones best myths are the first into the grinder and the pissheads and drug dealers that never really turn up or the violent lads are saved by default.
That’s why Jimmy I think there is logic to why the algorithm selects ‘bad boys’. And boys look up to bad boys and want to be them – its essentially preselected immunity from indoctrination of the reigning elite of the day – whether it be Catholicism, PC, Communism, The Fasces Neoliberal etc.
Though this be madness yet there is method in’t.
The designer had these eventualities in mind. I daresay, the designer may have created the ultimate challenge for humanity – the Locust People.
To be fair i think the lads should lay off poor pumpkin. This is very tawdry.
Tell you what pumpkin.
Unchain from the dungeon and ill scatter the ducks.
Eh?
Eh?
Macron looks like a gamma:
Slimy.
I’ll take back my observation on Orzag. He’s a typical nerd. I.e cannot countenance people being predatory.
The new Supreme Court Judge is a good man.
He’s a very trustworthy guy. Great pick from Trump. I can see from his speech pattern he is a stand up beta. Good.
HARD sciences and science fiction, and I was interested in the social sciences and horror films.
Hard sciences & science fiction are masculine, while social sciences & horror films are more feminine.
Horror is feminine? Most people I know into horror are male. And how about the heavy metal guys (and the death and black metal ones, all male!!)
Horror is more feminine than science fiction.
i used to think Astrology was the end all,be all for relationships. and that if you found a girl of a compatible sign,there was a strong chance for her to be your perfect match. at 1 time i naiively thought that if a girl was a Libra,Sag,Aquarius,Gemini,etc. they would love me! sadly,that’s not the case. i still think Astrology matters,but there’s moar to it than that. another disappointment was learning that just because a girl will have s*x with a guy,doesn’t mean she loveshim. it’s a cold world ,and some guys go mgtow,others buy into the whole alpha/beta spectrum.but in the end,we all just want somebody to love ; – { hit it, jo jo!
Astrology is pseudo’science’.
it is,and it’s a textbook example of confirmation bias. but it’s fun!
confident men don’t wear toupes.
So Mugabe has shown his true colors and professed his love for hitler…lol
So what do you think of the recent evidence confirming dysgenic trend in the developed world, or specifically in Iceland (the results can generalize as far as the whole of Northern Europe)? You think that IQ isn’t intelligence and isn’t genetic and also that educational attainment isn’t IQ related, but all that’s sounding pretty stupid now isn’t it?
EXTREME MAKEOVER – Nerd edition
A tutorial by apesapiens – 10-years veteran of the dating game.
CHAPTER ONE – HYGIENE !!!!!!!
The most of the most important, the reason why so many nerds are just repulsive is that they simply look dirty.
-Find a solution to your greasy hair, no one wants to befriend a deep fryer.
-Find something for your skin, you’re face can’t have more craters than the moon. It’s just not normal
-Brush your teeth, a Colgate smile isn’t a luxury.
-Wear deodorant but only the right amount. Some manly perfume might be welcome as well.
-Moisturize if you’re black, yes PP.
-Don’t wear the same clothes more than two days in a row and make sure your shoes are always clean. Converse all stars have to be a bit worn out though.
CHAPTER TWO – DRESS AND HAIRSTYLE
-Only four styles are acceptable: preppy, tasteful casual, street and clean looking hippie. Leave your middle school clothes to a charity, emo, punk and metal style will make you look weird, wear these styles only if you want to look weird.
-Avoid any excess in style, just try to look good but don’t dress to impress everyday or you’ll look vain and effete.
-Same thing for your hairstyle, it must look clean and trendy but avoid excessive thins.
CHAPTER THREE – PERSONALITY
-Don’t be a monomaniac or you’ll have nothing to talk about with people who aren’t like you.
-Be in touch with the things that are trendy in the moment, no matter how futile and dumb you think they are, they are what cool people talk about.
-If being an extrovert is not part of your nature, don’t force it or you’ll look ridiculous trying to get some attention. Be that mysterious withdrawn guy that people become curious about after they have after you gave a couple of signs of having an interesting personality.
-Look confident, don’t smile at the ground, walk with you’re head up. If you feel like you’re a waste of oxygen, that’s how people are gonna treat you.
CHAPTER FOUR – GIRLS
-Approach anxiety is stupid, there is nothing a random girl (even the hottest) can say that can kill you. Some girls might be mean, then they are bitches and they don’t deserve you anyway.
-Once you’ve passed the stage of approach, don’t disintegrate as you feel positive vibes coming from her part. Reason number one is that if it feels too easy, you’re probably making a movie in your head. Reason number two is that you must never let a girl know that you’re into her, you have to make her want you and see if she wants to make you want her.
-Don’t change the way you interact with people, just give her special attentions now and then. Do anything you can to be subtly tactile to see where are her limits and to get her used to the touch of your skin, to your physical presence. Always look her in the eyex
-Avoid any kind of formal rendez-vous as long as you are not cool with her. Otherwise you’ll be stressed out and the two of you will have an awkward moment of loneliness.
-Don’t try to be like the guys that you think are more her type. Make her love who you are.
I would add some more things.
1. Hit the fucking gym. The t alone will make you more confidebt and aggressive. It will also warp your face from playdough to chiselled good looks. Like mine
2. Fake tan in colder countries. Especially if you have exotic features anyway. Not a joke. It works.
3. Lifts. Every man should have lifts. Women wear heels for a reason – to get taller men. You should not disappoint.
4. Contorl the diet and watch the skin go wow.
5. Hydraulic acid.
6. Stop being gamma. Say it like it is rather than try manipulate her with morality or sebse of fairness or some other conniving bullshit.
7. If another guy competes you deletes. Be wary around blacks especially You have to give off the vibe that you would bring it downtown like the other blacks and arabs would.
8. To get the girl you want, you have to get all the girls. Girls psychology is thusly: if many girls like a guy the other girls will want him. This is the hack zion figured out with bernays meditations on mind control.
9. There is a dark side to this – hypnosis, staging meetings e.g. english language lessons or forcing a girl to be in your company through some gateway event. This is where verbal intelligence is used darkly. I dont recommend it. .
10. Have fun! Many girls like a guy that laughs . They dont care about seriousness in many cases. Thats why clubs and bars and not libraries are popular hookup joints.
Yerraghhh. For the win!
If you dont feel like you need to. Dont.
But if you dont feel the need at all. Go to a doctor and get your test checked out. It is a fairly serous medical condition.
I should charge you all for my wisdom and isight.
Nope because your trying to turn a nerd into a hunky predator. Which isn’t part of their psychology and will fail anyway.
I’m trying to turn a nerd into a normal guy who has normal friends and gets a normal amount of normal girls.
If your face isn’t chiseled naturally with its structure, lifting and losing fat won’t change that. Luckily, I have a chiseled face and high cheekbones. Women love that.
“2. Fake tan in colder countries. Especially if you have exotic features anyway. Not a joke. It works.”
I’m waiting for PP to say it’s queer as folk. Plus tanning makes your skin age faster.
“7. If another guy competes you deletes. Be wary around blacks especially You have to give off the vibe that you would bring it downtown like the other blacks and arabs would.”
Wrong again, most girls don’t like cavemen. They want to feel safe with a man. It means they want a man that can protect them if they’re in trouble, not a man that looks for trouble.
This is all common sense but good list. The most important part is hitting the gym and eating well, both for confidence. My confidence shot through the roof when I began lifting 5 to 6 years ago. Best change I ever made to my life. I’ve never been fat, just had no definition. Then in 7 months I looked like a different person. Good times.
Yeah, it’s pure common sense but it looks like a large minority of men don’t get this simple things. They become frustrated and find refuge in silly theories to explain why they can’t fit in.
Hitting the gym is crucial, but I listed the most basic things that you can do immediately in order to fix your situation. Not everybody has to be an irresistible Apollo, but many nerds could be just normal if they followed these recommendation.
i think it’s like counterintuitive,and not so much common sense. it’s like that old 4chan meme… Question: “what’s the best way to win over a woman’s heart?”
A: tell her i love you
B. bring her flowers
C. take her on romantic date or
D. ignore her.
D works best every time! wtf!? the fact that ‘nice’ guys finish last,shows that it’s counterintuitive. my c*cky Libra friend who is realy successful with women told me proudly that he’s an a**hole,and they love him for it. but,of course it’s not good to literaly ignore them,but it helps to use absence,or not talk too much,confide in them emotionaly,or tell them too much about yourself to create a mysterious aura to make them want to pursue you. it’s like,the reverse of what we think about how men chase women.dating is like a game,unfortunately.
Fully agree. D is the best answer. When you ignore them it makes them want you more. I’ve used this with success numerous times. Women love that.
“i think it’s like counterintuitive,and not so much common sense.”
It’s common sense that you have to make a girl wait and ignore her until she wants you insanely.
Ignore is a strong word, though. You have to interact with her but not like you’re mad in love. Just be playful, gently picky, provoke some fake disagreement about benign things. It creates more conversation, stronger emotions and feelings and gives opportunities do get tactile.
I guess many guys see dating like in the movies like “hey do you wanna be my lover ?” “yes” 😘😘😘
“8. To get the girl you want, you have to get all the girls.”
No, you need to get only the beautiful girls, you must never be seen with an ugly one or you’ll look desperate and no girl wants to be the target of a desperate guy.
Most girls aren’t thrilled by the idea of being cheated by an unredeemable womanizer. Instead of actually getting other girls, it’s better to make her female friends having views on you too without crossing the line.
If you cant see 3d chess from the detail, zoom out
Why do the neocons hate him so? Why are they organising another colour revolutiion on the street?
In questions of detail with limited empirical apparatus, particularly for the laymen who is as ignorant about affairs as the slaves under pharaoh, i suggest proxies and analogy logic, using history or similar phenomena.
In this case however, i know frm trumps 20 year butler there is no chance trump is a zionist puppet.
Those of us with other abilities , whether for physical bravery, artistic flair or intellectual pedagogy must now step up and throw off the yoke of foreign tyranny that has afflicted the west.
This is not a joke.
They are making their final push. This is a battle we must win if the congolysee a paris is to be reclaimed, britain doesnt cower under the glare of bolshevist europe and of course americas parody of idiocracy is to cease.
It came to this point where the west is mortally in danger because nice people like pumpkin or women or indeed people with feminjne minds in general cannot countence that the natural state of many men is predation not productivity.
I think like them. Im just on the good guy team.
But im not a gamma. I tell it like it is. Even if it helps some of their arguments.
Surely this may be permitted to be published?
When am i leaving moderation orbit?
This is a record sin bin.
When you stop sounding so racist & antisemetic. I realize that as a high T male you’re especially aggressive at advancing your ethnic genetic interests, but it conflicts with my goal of bringing all the races together to responsibly discuss HBD theories
About damn time. Razib is back. Was going through withdrawals.
https://gnxp.nofe.me
is anyone else having trouble posting ?
ok its fixed
Ive been reading pumpkins comments for some time and i think it might be the case pumpkin is sexist.
For all the time ive been reading this blog i havent seen pumpkon mention ONE male idol.
Its almost like he doesnt believe in gender and species equality.
Will pumpkin dare publish my shocking expose?
Name one man you admire asides from randall mcoprah.
LOL! I admire Phil Donahue, Bill Gates, Nelson Mandela, Michael Moore, Arthur Jensen, J.P. Rushton, Michael Jordan, James Flynn, Chris Matthews, David Carr, Steve Sailer, Chris Rock etc. There are far more men I admire than women actually. Too many to list
AHA so PROOF if anyone was ever in doubt that pumpkin is sexist.
Its even worse than i thought because you have morr male idols.
Your IQ is too low to get what I said.
Afro said alpha males don’t admire women. He also said above,
It looks womanly HYSTERICAL or downright CHILDISH.
implying that women are hysterical and childish.
Afro is less sexist though because he just hates women.
Pumpkin hates men which waaay not cool.
Nope, I said it made him look either effeminate or childish.
Syllogistically, you would think that if I judge capital letters effeminate and childish, then I believe women are childish in addition to being hysterical.
No, the capital letters are just a common “symptom” of two separate tendencies.
Anyway, I was just picking on PP. But I don’t like the inappropriate use of capital letters in a text.
You should forget that, really. There is nothing interesting to discuss about that sentence.
men who make an effort…who think about how they can be more attractive…there’s a name for them…what is it? can’t remember…
ah yes…
FAGS!
they smoke them in england.
am i the only straight man here?
moisturizing? what a homo!
PP said he had sex with more black women than Afro.
Is that true or did PP lied ?
The latter, most likely.
But it’s funny, P.P. writes an article about women and that’s the only topic he carefully avoids in the comment section.
I had to make this tutorial above because I thought it was the missing part that P.P. didn’t hadn’t had the time to write, being to busy getting pussy.
Will PP answer to this ?
No, I very RARELY lie, which is another reason I suspect I have some autistic traits.
It’s possible my statement was unintentionally false because I don’t know how many black women Afro’s been with, but he said there aren’t many black women in his social circle and there are plenty in mine. I make sure of it.
No, I very RARELY lie
I am not sure about this.
It’s possible my statement was false because I don’t know how many black women Afro’s been with, but he said there aren’t many black women in his social circle and there are plenty in mine. I make sure of it.
Anyway, if you said this you must be confident about the number of black women you had sex with.
How many black women you had sex with ?
How many black chicks in my ENTIRE life?
My ENTIRE life, going all the way back to high school?
At least half a dozen
Now Afro will claim he had that many just last night
Come on dude, what does casual sex have to do with my social circle ?
You know very well that I love in a country where there are more (and better looking) black girls than in yours. That I have traveled countless times in Africa and the Caribbean and that I’m a r-selected handsome “jungle monkey”. How is it even thinkable that you have fucked more black chicks than me ?
Besides casual sex, I’ve managed to find two black girls suitable to be official girlfriends.
But that’s only a point of detail. You’re whole alpha persona is just not credible. No problem, you don’t need to be an alpha to be worthy of respect, but just stop pretending you are superior to everyone and in everything.
I’m me, you are you. I think you must be a nice dork, I’m a different person. I prefer who I am but you have legitimate reasons to prefer who you are.
I know all of this makes you uncomfortable. I’ll stop picking on you about girls whenever you confess it’s just not the thing you’re the best at in life.
Afro, I’m not claiming to be more alpha than you. I am sure you’ve had sex with FAR more women than i have. I just don’t think many of them were black. I just can’t picture you with a black chick. No offence.
Pumpkin is sexist.
How many men has he had sex with?
Zero.
Pumpkin can say everything he wants about bigotry and sexism.
But his actions speak LoUDER than his words.
Well we all know pumpkon does not have the gall to even try to claim hes had sex with more black men than afro.
Pumpkin come clean.
You have a problem with black men. Thats why you get into fights with them on this forum and wont sleep with a black man to prove you are not sexist or racist.
“Afro, I’m not claiming to be more alpha than you. I am sure you’ve had sex with FAR more women than i have.”
PP finally concedes something to something to someone.
“I just can’t picture you with a black chick.”
I can’t either picture you with a black chick because you really don’t seem to have the qualities that black, or at least African women love in a man.
But it’s ok, I’ll stop picking on you about that.
But it’s ok, I’ll stop picking on you about that.
Thanks 🙂
“Now Afro will claim he had that many just last night”
Lol, no. I’ve been faithful for a while now. But I’ve had more in my whole life for sure.
what non-gay french sounds like:
I perfectly understand this guy, he’s not speaking some kind of Amerikaans. There are a few things I must say however.
1- This guy looks like an ugly filthy Anglo.
2- His French is rusty (speaks slow, poor vocabulary).
3- He has a strong Anglo-American accent.
4- He’d have trouble dealing with girls if he spoke like that in French.
Some really sexy accents in France are:
Standard French
Marseilles’s accent and the similar accents of the southern half.
Caribbean accent
afro’s future with santo and me:
SATAN
I don’t know what I’m gonna do. I can’t
deny my feelings for Saddam, but… my
life is so much better now with Chris.
Yeah. It’s like Chris is so perfect
in every way, but there’s just something
about Saddam that I’m more more attracted
to. In what way? Yeah, you’re right.
Saddam would just treat me bad again.
I’m just gonna have to not see Saddam.
Put him out of my mind and focus on
Chris. If I don’t see Saddam, then I
won’t have such strong feelings for
him. Thanks guys.
CHRIS
Oh, I know he’s got the whole bad-boy
thing going. But I think that’s what
you were attracted to. But I can be
a pretty rough tumbler myself. Oops!
Aw, butternuts!
SADDAM
Yeah. Thanks for the weak grass and
twigs and stuff. Satan, that guy is
a pussy!
SATAN
He’s stable, Saddam!
SADDAM
Yes, that’s what I said! He’s a pussy!
JIM
(elusively)
I think women basically have a comic
approach to life — I mean how can
they not when they look up in the
dark and see a dangling penis, seeking
entry. It looks like a face y’know —
little beard “Hi mom”
learn to talk like this to get the ladies afro:
LOL, I’d rather cut my dick.
what afro doesn’t sound like in english:
Well indeed, I speak the English of Toronto and nearby cities. I’m not even fluent in French accent, like when I start forcing it I quickly come back to some real North American English.
canadian “english” is a misnomer. it’s actually a pidgin of english and sasquatch you ‘oser.
LOL. And bags of milk are an ancient sasquatch tradition that has been preserved in modern Canadians.
Mugabe
Do you have a brother who went to UC Berkeley ?
you remind me so much of the brother of someone i know His brother was an actuary too, but got fired for anti-social behavior at work.
Have you ever worked for New York Life ?
?