Wow! So much to blog about, so little time. There’s a fascinating new scientific paper out by Michael A. Woodley, Shameem Younuskunja, Bipin Balan and Davide Piffer, claiming major natural selection for IQ since agriculture and it couldn’t have come at a better time since I was just arguing about this with commenter MeLo. Here’s the abstract:
Although studies of identical twins reared apart show IQ is hugely genetic, at least within specific Western countries, roughly 10,000 genetic variants are involved, so identifying the specific genes with any kind of statistical certainty is extremely tough given how small an effect each one has.
To make sure a gene really does affect intelligence by a fraction of an IQ point with any kind of statistical certainty, you probably need a sample of as many as one MILLION people, and they all need to take a very reliable and g loaded IQ test like the Wechsler, preferably at middle age when heritability is perhaps maximized. So unless some pro-science gazillionaire makes a huge donation to the field, allowing such a large-scale quality research to be funded, scientific progress is going to be painfully slow.
Because it’s so hard to get large samples who have both taken quality IQ tests and given DNA samples, education level is used as a very crude proxy for IQ and a cognitive polygenic score (POLYcog) used to predict education in 300,000 people, was later found to explain 3.6% of the variance in IQ in a different sample. This recent paper on post-agriculture cognitive selection pressures largely relied on such POLYcog data.
One interesting part of the paper was a graph showing the increase in POLYcog scores in 66 ancient genomes as a function of time.
I have no idea how these POLYcog scores are being scaled, but judging from the fact that the lowest score (for its time) looks like it’s about 0.5 units below the regression line, and the highest score looks like it’s about 0.72 units above the regression line: A gap of 1.22 units. In a normal distribution, the gap between the highest and lowest in a sample of 66 is 4.33 standard deviations (SD), so by dividing 1.22 by 4.33, I estimate the SD of these POLYcog scores is 0.28. Meanwhile, it looks like the POLYcog scores were increasing at a rate of 0.13 units per 1000 years which would thus be 0.46 standard deviations per 1000 years.
Now it’s a bit of a misnomer to call these POLYcog scores. I believe they were largely created using a study to predict education (not cognitive ability specifically) and so they probably explain much more of the variance in that (9%). Taking the square root of 9%, yields correlation of 0.3 between polygenetic scores and education.
Now a 0.3 correlation implies that for every 1 SD increase in POLYcog score, education should increase 0.3 SD which means that the 0.46 SD per thousand year increase in POLYcog scores predict a 0.46(0.3) = 0.14 SD increase in educational achievement per thousand years (if those ancient genomes had been cloned back to life in modern America). In one large sample of American whites, the standard deviation for years of education was 2.34 years, so multiplying this by 0.14 suggests that for every thousand years of post-agriculture evolution, the expected level of education (if ancient humans were cloned in modern society) increased by 0.33 years per 1000 years.
Assuming this trend was linear from say the start of agriculture in Europe (about 8500 years ago) to the start of the industrial revolution about 200 years ago, we’d expect a European from 8,500 years ago to complete 2.7 fewer years of formal education than a cloned human from 200 years ago. Whether a cloned human from 200 years ago would complete more or less education than the average European today is hard to say since some argue there’s been a post industrial-revolution dysgenic effect, but the evidence is contradictory.
As to why genetic changes associated with IQ and education have occurred in the Holocene, the paper suggests that after millions of years of living as hunter/gatherers, the novel challenge of adapting to agriculture and all the associated social, political, economic, technological, and military changes, selected for more intelligence.
I also think the huge population boom caused by agriculture created new mutations for selection to select from (see The 10,000 year explosion by Cochran and Harpending), but the study couldn’t confirm that since all the ancient genomes had variants that people today also have. One fascinating factoid the paper mentions is that the speed of adaptive evolution during the Holocene (end of the ice age and the start of agriculture) increased 100 fold from the preceding Pleistocene.
Near the end of the paper, they discuss the paradox of brain size declining in the Holocene while genes associated with GMA (General Mental ability increased):
However a simpler explanation is that declining brain size in the Holocene had nothing to do with genes and was caused by malnutrition, especially since brain size has arguably returned to its original size. Richard Lynn made the case back in 1990:
Pumpkin Person 
I saw this a few weeks ago. Interesting, but calm down; it’s a pre-print and hasn’t been peer reviewed.
“adapting to agriculture”
We aren’t ‘adapted to agriculture’.
Declining brain size is most definitely due to nutrition, as well as more sociality.
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking
http://johnhawks.net/research/hawks-2011-brain-size-selection-holocene/
“I was just arguing about this with commenter MeLo.”
Do you know what we were even arguing though? You basically stated that genetic drift and chance were almost completely responsible for the measureable discrepancies we see today. I demonstrated this couldn’t possibly be the case.
Further, I have been proposing that urbanization and industrialization were encephalizers for a while now. In fact if you recall i was had explained to you why R/k selection actually fit the DTM more than the CWT.
The article validates my point, that agriculture was a selection pressure.
I’ll pick up our discussion in the other thread later
I argued this case v Afro a while back.
Called it.
My daughter was born completely healthy 3 days ago. Just letting you guys know.
Give us a picture
Don’t be JayMan 2. Why should we care what his kids look like.
Eating babies is illegal Gondwana. Just want to put that out there in case you were wondering.
Unmoderate all my comments you’ve ever moderated.
Thank you
I’ve now moderated 2 of your comments but only because you’re angry right now & saying stuff you don’t want to say, & i don’t want to exploit that for the cheap entertainment of my readers.
You’re one of the all time stars of the HBD-o-sphere & that’s where I want to see you: shining
PP that’s so sweet. I’m actually sorry I made those comments.
PS philosopher can suck it!!
Congrats !
Congratulations Mikey.
Thanks guys I’ve been too busy to post but I’ll be commenting away this weekend.
IQ is basic statistical clustering of problem-solving capability.
As it turns out IQ does not measure creativity.
Creativity is correlated with openness on the Big 5 model.
Academic success is most correlated with Conscientiousness.
Creativity (openness) is negatively correlated with academic success.
My Agreeableness is really high so I don’t fight with people.
I voted for Trump because Hillary is is the enemy of Syria.
Russia is the ally of Syria, and that means Hillary is pro-ISIS.
Fuck ISIS, Fuck Hillary, Fuck anti-Russian Fake news.
https://www.scout.ai/story/the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine
https://www.truity.com/test/big-five-personality-test
This is what I Got:
Openness 77%
Conscientious 62%
Extraversion 40%
Agreeableness 77%
Neuroticism 44%
Education is not general mental ability. You just can’t use correlations over correlations to make a point. Neither can you create polygenic scores without knowing gene expression and interplay.
Trash.
Close enough.
I don’t understand something : i thought that 10 000 years ago, when hunter-gatherer, enter the agricultural age, they lost 10% of their brain size, and there IQ dropped. And that it’s just since the begining of the XXth centurt when brain began to recover the sitze it had.
I kinda liked this theory. Is it false ?
i thought that 10 000 years ago, when hunter-gatherer, enter the agricultural age, they lost 10% of their brain size, and there IQ dropped. And that it’s just since the begining of the XXth centurt when brain began to recover the sitze it had.
Well we did lose brain size, probably because of the malnutrition of agriculture, and we have since recovered brain size and IQ because of the advances in 20th century nutrition, but that doesn’t exclude the possibility that genetic IQ increased since agriculture.
we didn’t ‘recover’ brain size, it’s still smaller than it was 20kya.
How do you know RR?
I hope i am not breaking any blog policy by comment on old articles.
I dont think there was more mal-nourishment because of the shift away from hunter-gatherer-ness to agriculture. Because agriculture actually provides a more ‘regular’ supply of nutrition than hunting….the rare drought notwithstanding. People still ate meat/consumed protein based diary (they kept cattle and fowl) during the agriculture phase. There was only a change in the nature of diet into more carbs from a predominantly protein heavy diet. And brain functions better on a balanced diet of carbs and protein than on a protein heavy low-carb diet .
The lack of malnourished skeletons during the hunter gatherer stage could also be a case of ‘not finding’ them rather than them not existing.
I think brains were larger during the HG (hunter-gatherer) phase due to the nature of warfare at that time. Metal was not discovered, so weapons were stone based. You couldnt cut/slash your opponent to death. You had to bash their head in order to kill them or even defeat them. So brains were bigger in order to compensate for the loss of brain tissue during fights.
“I don’t think there was more mal-nourishment because of the shift from hunter-gatherer-ness to agriculture.”
You would be incorrect.
“Because agriculture actually provides a more ‘regular’ supply of nutrition than hunting….the rare drought notwithstanding. People still ate meat/consumed protein based diary (they kept cattle and fowl) during the agriculture phase. There was only a change in the nature of diet into more carbs from a predominantly protein heavy diet. And brain functions better on a balanced diet of carbs and protein than on a protein heavy low-carb diet .”
We aren’t adapted to our current diet of processed carbohydrates which causes our obesity epidemic.
And to PP, our brain size has decreased and has been decreasing since 20kya.
And to PP, our brain size has decreased and has been decreasing since 20kya.
Lynn argues it decreased because of the malnutrition of agriculture (not evolution) but recovered in the 20th century when nutrition improved
I read those article but not the links to those articles. If the links are saying the exact same thing to those articles, here is what i understand. Those articles you posted are more about increases in ‘diseases’ that too in modern industrial society rather than presence/absense of proper or continous nutrition in agri societies which i was talking about.
First we are not talking about ‘current industrial’ societies. Current industrial societies are not a match to early agricultural societies.So you cant equate current society with early agriculture society and then compare to it a HG society. Here is why:
We sit a lot more in current societies than people did in EA (Early agriculture society).
We eat full refined/processed food. Early agriculture societies ate grains with only the husk and the outer hull removed. Heck even HG societies ate the same grain. Grains were found in a archeological find in/near the sea of galilee with husk/outer hull removed if i am not mistaken, dated to more than 15,000 years ago (HG society). Meaning they ate the same grain as EA society.
Also EA people didnt drink fast-carb loaded sodas, didnt eat trans-fat loaded chips/crisps. They didnt sit as much as we do. All these cause obesity/diabetes etc. Also i dont know about western based EA soceties but in eastern EA socties people only used to eat two times a day
Sure infectious diseases were more in AE than in HG societies but were their enough infections to cause a decrease in brain power?. We dont know. Those societies were not as densely packed even as much as current agri based countries are.
But EA societies very much likely had more ‘continous’ supply of nutrition compared to HG society imp for brain power because of their supply of regular harvest as well as their habit of keeping cattle/fowl for milk and meat. They also fished (in rivers even if they were not close to sea) just like HG societies.
Also what makes you think they did not ‘hunt’ too in times of drought or crop failures. Its not like they will starve to death rather than hunt.
Personally i like a HG society more than a EA society, but ‘brain power’ wise EA was more conductive for humans.
Is someone knowledgeable on learning styles ? If yes, what are your thoughts on how they relate to psychometrics and HBD ?
Jayman just linked to a guardian article in his tweeter feed showing no evidence for learning styles
People learn differently, this is obvious to anyone who had to teach, mentor or took management classes. And no one is really unteachable.
It’s just the proposed models are all debatable. But if there is just one way to learn, what is it ? I mean, tell me how you learn iso I can compare with myself.
That’s a bit of misinterpretation of the article. It was actually saying more along the lines that learning-style training doesn’t do all that much better than regular teaching methods. With that said, I’m willing to bet that spatial vs verbal ability and executive functioning independent of IQ may predict “learning talents”.
Some people are dumb, though I might write a post about that.
Looking forward to your first guest post
I said agriculture 5 times this week. And nobody listens.
Jared diamonds theory is a best explanation, not cooking or cold climate per se. Although you need temperate climate for the best results.
Jared Diamond’s theory was that knowledge and resources are transmitted more readily on the Eurasian west–east axis. It had nothing to do with behavioral genetics, which he opposed, however one could argue that the same west-east axis that that made knowledge so easily transmitted, did the same for genes.
He didn’t say that genetics component. But he mentioned civilisation and cultures.
You can simply replace the word ‘civilisation’ with the term ‘genetic predisposition to being intelligent enough to create a pension scheme’.
The incas had pensions…because llamas could be domesticated, the weather was temperate, the soil was fertile.
The mongols had no fertile soil. And so they kept the schizo-primitive barbarian genes.
Diamond’s theory actually provides succour to Robert and Jimmy. They are technically right that no race is ipso facto more predisposed to high IQ. But it may be a distinction without a difference seeing as the majority of mongloids are indeed higher IQ than whites or MENA or sub saharans.
So agriculture caused malnutrition and a decrease in actual IQ while at the same times, growing the population number, and enhancing natural selection possibilities, and then growth of potential (or genetic) IQ. If true, third world countries could create the new geniuses if natural selection is still at work.
But is it ? For example, i think in France, our social structure incites poor to multiply more than rich, which shoud provoke regressive selection process. Maybe all 3rd world countries are in a situation of regressive selection due to international help and dependance structure.
Openness 90%
Conscientious 85%
Extraversion 75%
Agreeableness 45%
Neuroticism 27.5%
I propose you a mental experiment:
We have a population with 10,000 SNP of common polymorphism on intelligence. An individual with an average genotypic intelligence has 4,000 common SNP that favor intelligence (F) and 6,000 common SNP that are unfavorable for intelligence (U). The polygenic score is 40%.
An individual with an average genotypic intelligence has also 8,000 rare SNP that favor intelligence (f) and 12,000 rare SNP unfavorable for intelligence (u).
By the average 70 de novo mutations per individual, one slightly increases the intelligence (like a common SNP-F), 21 slightly decrease the intelligence (the same magnitude as for 21 common SNP-U) and two decrease the intelligence more (each having the effect of 10 SNP-U).
The average decrease by de novo mutations equates 40 SNP-U, equating 0.3 IQ points (40:(4,000F+8,000f)=0.3%).
We suppose the selection pressure on intelligence is not negative or zero, but the strength of this pressure is not enough to mantain the actual level of intelligence. This strength is enough to eliminate only the equivalent of 30 SNP-U.
Because there are 12,000 SNP-u and 6,000 SNP-U, the selection will eliminate 20 SNP-u and 10 SNP-U. The polygenic score on common SNP will increase with 10 SNP-F, equating with 0.25% (even if the the genotypic intelligence will decrease with 10 SNP-U) per generation.
After 100 generations (3,000 years), the polygenic score will increase with 1,000 SNP-F, an average individual will have 5,000 SNP-F and 5,000 SNP-U, and a polygenic score of 50% (a relative increase of 25%, like in the paper of Woodley&Piffer). But the genotypic intelligence will decrease with 1,000 SNP-u, equating with 8 IQ points (1,000: (4,000F+8,000f)=0.08).
If there are more common SNP than rare SNP that increase/decrease the intelligence, the polygenic score on common SNP will increase even faster and more, despite the decrease of the genotypic intelligence.
I believe the increase of polygenic score is a proof for a positive selection on intelligence, but it is not a proof for the increase of genotypic intelligence.
how tall are polynesians? i can’t find any averages. there are two melanesians who’ve played in the nba. patty mills and Nathan Jawai, but i know for a fact melanesians are very short on average.
i thought polynesians were short too, on average, just because their only heavyweight boxer was short. i forget his name.
the theory is cold selects for volume/surface area. for a sphere this is proportional to 1/radius of sphere. hence tall robust people conserve heat better than short robust people. but tall slight people, like the tutsi, dissipate heat better.
Huh? How do short, squat Eskimos fit in?
the squatness fits allen’s rule. overall size does not fit bergmann’s rule. the polar bear and the moose fit bergmann’s rule. the polar bear is the biggest bear. the moose is the biggest species of the deer family. reindeer fit allen’s rule but not bergmann’s. moose fit bergmann’s but not allen’s. the kodiak brown bear is also yuge.
the fuegians also fit bergmann’s rule, not just n europeans and plains injuns. although there were two types of fuegians apparently. one type was like the eskimos and another was yuge.
the eskimo exception to bergmann’s rule and flushton’s made up rule might also be explained by their having lived in such a climate for a shorter period of time than other cold adapted peoples.
[last sentence redacted by PP, march 14, 2017. G-man’s in no mood for trolling today]
but these rules should have no exceptions at the level of race. races are ca. a billion people or more spread across large areas. the averages will confirm both allen’s and bergmann’s rule.
Thank you PP for protecting my delicate sensibilities!
the largest predator on land is the siberian tiger, or was. apparently they’re not as big as they were and now the bengal tiger is bigger. nutrition?
this paper is retarded.
can peepee tell why?
no!
GCA polygenic scores are determined using contemporary people and contemporary measures of GCA. then the authors speak of the GCA of ancient people. and one wonders if either were representatitve.
all the above says, even though these polygenic scores predict bubkes, like 3 points or something, is that the ancient people would’ve been dumber than average in whatever population the polygenic scores are taken from, like by 1 IQ point, or something retarded like that. totally meaningless jive talk.
this paper is retarded.
can peepee tell why?
Just as I was reading the start of your comment my mobile device lost power, and then I got stuck on the highway in a massive blizzard. All I could think was, I’m going to die without ever knowing why this paper is supposedly retarded, and neither will anyone else know, because I wont be alive to approve the comment. Fortunately for science, I lived. 🙂
all the above says, even though these polygenic scores predict bubkes, like 3 points or something, is that the ancient people would’ve been dumber than average in whatever population the polygenic scores are taken from, like by 1 IQ point, or something retarded like that. totally meaningless jive talk.
I think the results are much more significant than that. Based on the regression line I included of the 66 ancient genomes, it looks like polygenic scores increased by about 1.5 SD in 3,249 years. Assuming these polygenic scores correlate about 0.19 with IQ and about 0.3 with education, what this implies is that if clones of ancient people walked among Americans today, those from around the year 2500 BC would be nearly half an SD less educated and score 4 IQ points lower on the Wechsler than those from circa 750 AD. Further, if we assume the trend is linear from the start of agriculture in Europe to the industrial revolution, we’d expect a cloned ice Age European to be more than a full SD less educated and score 11 IQ points lower than a cloned Victorian. That’s the difference between the middle class and the underclass.
totally absurd peepee.
those same polygenic scores can’t predict such a difference TODAY, therefore they can’t predict it in the past either.
.19 is the same as zero. the so called statistical significance is also nil. it depends entirely on the model.
those same polygenic scores can’t predict such a difference TODAY, therefore they can’t predict it in the past either.
I thought you agreed in the past that assuming a bivariate normal distribution, the slope of the standardized regression line predicting Y from X equals the correlation. So given that polygenic scores correlate 0.3 and 0.19 with education & IQ respectively, they might be able to predict non-trivial differences between folks with different enough polygenic scores TODAY.
Of course in the individual case the standard error would be huge, but small at the group level.
.19 is the same as zero.
Small correlations can have big effects.
the so called statistical significance is also nil. it depends entirely on the model.
Statistical significance of what? The difference between ancient and newer genomes?
those same polygenic scores can’t predict such a difference TODAY
Individuals in the highest and lowest GPS septiles differed by a whole school grade at age 16.
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v22/n2/full/mp2016107a.html
“Small correlations can have big effects.”
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Mugabe is right, one year difference between two extremes on a scale of 7 is meaningless.
“Just as I was reading the start of your comment my mobile device lost power, and then I got stuck on the highway in a massive blizzard. All I could think was, I’m going to die without ever knowing why this paper is supposedly retarded”
Rugged Canadian…
The cringe is getting stronger and stronger on this dude. It’s the gift that keeps on giving.
A snow storm is sick. There is plenty of crazy things to try with such an extreme weather. Why aren’t you already snowboarding on your roof ?
Afro stop trying to act macho. You live in the most feminine country in the world and it shows.
Where were these ancient dead bodies found?
Were they in rich people’s graves?
or just random wilderness places?
And should not we expect parenting to affect education levels.
If your parents are poor you complete less school.
Kids that are adopted into rich families complete more school
If these bodies were cloned and raised by rich families the effects of genetics would be irrelevant to IQ and education completed.
If you believed in science you would stop with the dungeon.
Sorry but this is a scientific post so i want to try to keep the comments on topic and avoid needlessly offending readers. I’m more tolerant of off topic and taboo comments in less academic articles but in this one i’d like you to at least start on topic. If the conversation naturally evolves in new directions that’s fine, but you’re simply starting new topics and skipping the evolution
How do you expect anyone to make a scientific breakthrough under these conditions?
What’s up you guys?!
Please dont refer to us as ‘guys’. I find that sexist and offensive. We are xuys.
Hey, nothing, just slacking off at the office right now. How is it going with your dude ?
Afro, Please don’t refer to Deal’s boyfriend as a ‘dude’. Gender is a social contruction. The term ‘xude’ is more appropriate. Many thanks.
Didn’t work out 😦
Back on Tinder lol
Aww
The Crying Game again?
sad!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-15/from-osaka-to-frankfurt-listless-wage-gains-remain-g-7-mystery
Some of these guys are full professors in economics and can’t figure out why productivity is down.
Because it might not be down. Its the metric they are using.
GDP/Hour worked. GDP is adding up all incomes to factors of production. Obviously labour has been beaten like a firghtened housewife by [offensive use of the term globalism redacted by PP, March 15, 2017] over the past 3 decades.
So despite the IT revolution improving productivity observably in terms of products produced and process speeds at a micro level, the aspergers economists can’t figure out the ‘puzzle of the baskerville hounds and the man with the candlestick in the ghetto’ (echoing the familiar aspergers inability to differentiate labels from logic).
The prosaic explanation is that GDP depends on wages itself in its calc. Measuring productivity by in effect – nominal income growth is poor logic.
But the overall message I want to relate is that like Robert said – they are chosen. Obtuse people are chosen to teach children because anyone with a social intelligence better than a cab driver is dangerous [rest of sentence redacted by PP, March 15, 2017].
Kinda off topic.
http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/
Intelligence apparently correlates with pupil dilation.
I think we could all learn a lot from Santo’s manners and basic decency on this blog. Its a pity he’s gone. For me, Santo was a beacon of integrity in this fallen world of mcdonalds addicts, alcoholics, corrupt establishment neocon bloggers and bipolar gender confused harpies.
I can’t stand the neocons actually, but that doesn’t mean I want you going on off-topic tirades against them everyday here. This blog is for science not political activism.
peepee reads lion’s comments and outs me so i won’t leave her.
sad!
That’s me. I enjoy your comments and I’m learning to take your more derisive statements in stride.
The Philosopher (Or someone) do a guest post on [two words redacted by PP, March 16, 2017] finance or central banking, relate it to market bubbles.
Sorry bout that.
Don’t be. A guest post about banking is a fantastic idea; I’m just being extra extra strict about moderation in this thread because it’s a hard science topic. I should have made that clear from the outset.
That’s what i figured.
“I’m just being extra extra strict about moderation in this thread because it’s a hard science topic.”
My article (which I have been working on for a week and will email to you tomorrow) is a hard science topic. Can you be strict with that moderation too?
Yes, I’m trying to be more strict with the more scientific posts.
pp,
What would you say if a person says that they are slowly falling for you, on here? When the person is (not a troll/stacker/whatchamacalit) ofcourse.
pp,
What would you say if a person says that they are slowly falling for you, on here?
I’d say “get in line”.
hymie’s situation is even worse than he knows.
not only is admission in the uk determined by tests, but so is the quality of the degree.
thus:
1. hymie wouldn’t have gotten into a good uni in britain.
2. he would have made at best a pass degree at whatever uni he attended, the equivalent of a 2.0 gpa in the US at CSUN.
hymie is a great example of how the american system selects for pushiness, obedience, and a-morality.
sad!
Some measures of educational aptitude correlate highly with IQ tests – for instance, Frey and Detterman (2004) reported a correlation of 0.82 between g (general intelligence factor) and SAT scores;[96] another research found a correlation of 0.81 between g and GCSE scores, with the explained variance ranging “from 58.6% in Mathematics and 48% in English to 18.1% in Art and Design”.
you see hymie. any one subject test is NOT an IQ test. you’re right. but a battery of subject tests most assuredly IS. there’s no getting around it. it’s simply a FACT.
those who sit a-levels have already been selected for IQ. a-levels discriminate a second time. those who do best are the smartest of the smart, NOT ucb types who can’t spell worth a tinker’s damn and do what they’re told irrespective of how ridiculous it is.
ROFL, stupidity in power is pathetically entertaining to observe.
-After the Austrians, it’s my Ned bros’ turn to send the fascists back to their bitching on the internet.
-Trump is barely a President out of Tweeter.
-The Brexit might be costlier than expected, a minimum bill of €60B to set the mood, then complete allegiance to Brussels to access the common market, and maybe (that would be the cherry on top) Scotland Scotsxiting from the UK.
And I’m optimistic for France’s future, Marine Le Pen is drowning in a corruption scandal, Emmanuel Macron’s getting stronger and stronger and French people are smart.
Sooo… There are reasons to expect the best. Using Phil’s forecasting methods, the ads ain’t changing here, always more gorgeous dark faces everywhere, this country doesn’t look hopeless.
” it’s my Ned bros’ turn to send the fascists back to their bitching on the internet.”
If you go on the white nationalist forums you’ll read posts from Dutch nationalists who said that they didn’t vote for Wilders because he didn’t have allegiance to Holland.
Wilders is pro-gay and pro-jew. No one is going to get excited about voting for something like that.
Its as if his role is to prevent the rise of a real nationalist movement.
The situation in Holland doesn’t surprise me at all as Holland was the first nation in the world to legalize gay marriage.
“If you go on the white nationalist forums ”
No, it’s ok I get my daily dose of stupidity here already.
“didn’t vote for Wilders because he didn’t have allegiance to Holland.”
The Netherlands aren’t just Holland, there is Zeeland, Limburg, Friesland…
“Wilders is pro-gay and pro-jew. ”
Marine Le Pen is that way too, very PC, you can see the hugging black kids in the news, her niece has had black and Arab boyfriends…
“Its as if his role is to prevent the rise of a real nationalist movement.”
You mean Nazism ?
“The situation in Holland doesn’t surprise me at all as Holland was the first nation in the world to legalize gay marriage.”
Sure, what excuses are you gonna make to avoid the truth ? Trump’s America is Europe’s laughing stock, we’re all rubbing our hands to Britain’s sticky situation. We have two pathetic examples that scream “don’t fuck your country up”.
Emmanuel Macron is a douchebag.
Hi PP, can you in the future estimate the IQ of Will Smith ?
I’ll add him to my waiting list
Thanks for the suggestion
“Emmanuel Macron is a douchebag.”
Elaborate…
he’s the typical establishment frog. he’s hillary in a suit.
it’s le pen or france becomes brazil. the US will still become brazil, even if trump is half for real.
if only canada had something like the SAT i’d dump money there. its mexicans are chinese. same with australia, but both have a real estate bubble and are too dependent on mining. and hockey and australian rules football are gay.
” it’s le pen or france becomes brazil ”
Brazil ? lol They wish.
If only France could become Brazil ! With the same chicks, the climate, the awsome sauce soccer.
I’m on board, fuck Le Pen off.
Forgive the off topic question pumpkin but why do some user’s names have a red font while others have a black one?
Good question. My theory:
grey font = non-blogger with no gravitar
red font = non-blogger with gravitar
black font = blogger
Makes sense. So mugabe is a blogger?
No he’s in red font, at least on my computer
Well on mine he has two comments one in a black font with an underline the other is a red font. I’m assuming he is “fat black lesbian blogger”?
Black font is a link to a website.
About 26% of California’s public school students in the 2011–12 school year identified themselves as white (non-Hispanic), and 52% of the state’s students identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino. The following ethnic groups that made up the statewide public school student body were Asians (11%), African Americans (7%), Native Americans (0.7%), and Pacific Islanders (0.6%). Students of mixed race made up 2% of the public schools. Hispanics made up the majority of the state’s public schools since 2010. Los Angeles Unified School District, the largest school district in California and second largest in the nation, is 73% Hispanic, 10% African American, 9% non-Hispanic Caucasian, 6% Asian, 0.5% Native American, and 0.4% Pacific Islander.
As of 2015, California has the largest minority population in the United States. Non-Hispanic whites decreased from about 76.3 – 78% of the state’s population in 1970[17] to 38.0% in 2015.
ucb = Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM)
sad!
those boosting for california secession are really boosting for the abrogation of the treaty of guadalupe hidalgo. a sovereign california would soon re-join Estados Unidos Mexicanos.
” Non-Hispanic whites decreased from about 76.3 – 78% of the state’s population in 1970 to 38.0% in 2015. ”
Thanks Reagan,
I left California as soon as i graduated.
The only thing i miss about Cali is the weather and the incredible amount of organic food stores.
There is virtually nothing you cant get in California .
We need to send an army to recapture the golden state.
The western europeans dislike the eastern europeans so perhaps we could send them to California.
Thank you Pumpkin 🙂
Afrosapiens : Well, to sum up, he’s supposed to be left wing. He’s clearly not…
But I have difficulties to really hate him because I like very smart people and it’s sometimes a pleasure to listen to him.
He’s not supposed to be left wing, he says he’s above the left/right divide.
blob:http://www.dailymotion.com/30739634-564a-42bf-ad97-bb87cad4304b
If the video doesn’t show:
http://www.c8.fr/c8-docs-mags/pid8806-c8-presidentielle-candidats-au-tableau.html?vid=1440046
btw pill [two words in brackets redacted by PP, March 16, 2017] what’s your opinion on swedish banks and DnB qua investment?
the good:
1. supposedly overcapitalized, super safe.
2. super efficient.
the bad:
3. sweden and norway are in a real estate bubble.
on the idea of “delaying gratification”, because it’s interesting:
1. delaying gratification or future time orientation is NOT what “delaying gratification” or “future time orientation” are actually used to mean. like “hard working” and “lazy” and many other words they denote obedience and a-morality and function as ideological just so stories for explaining social stratification.
2. they also denote liking the rules and enjoying obeying the rules. hence the more frequently they are used by the members of a society the more a-moral and im-moral that society will be. it will be like the US.
3. even in the rare instance where these terms are used to mean what they mean, these qualities are not abstract. they cannot be separated from the specific instance and the specific person. that is, what is hard and unpleasant work for one is easy and enjoyable for another.
but hymie is right in one respect. i am perfectly capable of delaying gratification, but i am not capable of pretending for long periods. of course no one is. and if there be any they are sociopaths like hymie. the US selects for them like no other country ever has.
chomsky paraphrases the above. i’ve posted his paraphrases many times. here’s another. very very few people understand this. and from my experience very very few can. my conclusions are my own. i had come to them before hearing chomsky.
i think chomsky underestimates how common sociopaths are and how much more common they are among the elite.
Do you think the correlation between sociopathy and success is linear throughout the full range of money/power or do you think it only kicks in above a certain level. If elites are more sociopathic than average, are those in poverty LESS sociopathic than average?
by “sociopath” i mean someone for whom lying is natural. they can’t feel remorse, guilt, or shame.
i think i first heard it said by andy rooney:
anyone who would be president of the US should be disqualified for that very reason.
there may be some people who are simply manically ambitious, but i doubt it. i agree with chomsky. “fake it tell you make it” is impossible for any long period of time.
bill gates and warren buffett didn’t need to fake anything. they loved what they did from a young age.
it’s not the self-made rich so much as the hired senior managers, politicians, and academics who are the sociopaths.
by “sociopath” i mean someone for whom lying is natural. they can’t feel remorse, guilt, or shame.
I prefer to just use the DSM definition of a psychopath (or anti-social personality). It would probably correlate highly with what you’re talking about but has the added advantage of being clearly defined by the psychopathy checklist, and has a clear cut-off.
there may be some people who are simply manically ambitious, but i doubt it. i agree with chomsky. “fake it tell you make it” is impossible for any long period of time.
Unless faking it is your passion.
hymie is right that there is a price one must pay for almost everything.
but what that price is varies from person to person as does their willingness to pay it/how much they want whatever it is.
getting super rich was never anything i really wanted, and i was raised to believe that people who wanted it were lower class. lagom ar bast.
but i agree with peepee. theoretically, if one were smart enough he could get rich in a short period of time with minimal effort and minimal sacrifice. such people don’t exist. IQ is never enough by itself. no one is that smart. peepee knows this from his claimed dealings with the prometheus society.
Assuming a 0.5 correlation between IQ and cumulative lifetime income, one would need an IQ of 170 just to have a 50% chance of making the top 1% in self-made wealth (and that’s assuming normal effort)
i was raised to believe that people who wanted it were lower class. lagom ar bast.
No offense to your parents but they probably harmed you by raising you that way.
George Herbert Mead. “The Nature of Reflective Intelligence”, Section 13 in Mind Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist (Edited by Charles W. Morris). Chicago: University of Chicago (1934): 90-100.
https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Mead/pubs2/mindself/Mead_1934_13.html
I’d like to bring a piece of my own experience to back up fblb thesis. At the highest level of society, in France, among corporate or goverment highest level, people behave in a way that surprised me a lot and i didn’t know before joining for a while this circle : people can say to you there is a meeting on friday and then it’s wednesday and they go without you. Or say to you, do a report in that sens, and then say they asked the contrary. And they will keep cool – and your supposed to – because it’s an absolut lack of morality. Then if you do horrible things to them, it’s part of the game and they (ll understand. Only winning matter. They try to attribute to you their failures and robb your success. You have to concentrate yourself not on results but on propaganda about yourself . Those kind a person are very rare in middle class. And are extremely frequent (30%) in the highest class of society.
I have absolutely no idea why it is that way. And it always astonishes me.
” people can say to you there is a meeting on friday and then it’s wednesday and they go without you. Or say to you, do a report in that sens, and then say they asked the contrary.”
It sounds like they are trying to get rid of you.
If there is someone above them in the command chain then i would advice you to make a complaint.
The exact same thing happened at a hedge fund that i worked at .
That’s a good summary of how it is throughout the West.
Meaning, the people who move up the ladder, whether private or public sector, or academia, are how you described here.
In France to join the elite you have either to be born in a elite family (people who owns corporation) or join a “Grands corps” (30 to 200 people a year depending how many “corps” you believe are “grands” but even with 200, it’s 40 times less than Oxbridge or HYP and their grasp on society is much higher). The first thing is biology. The second is hard competition based on knowledge. So it shouldn’t bring the weird behaviour i told you . But it does !
The French elite has about as many aristocrats as industry captains. The Grandes Ecoles (Not just the grands corps) allow some upper middle class people to join the upper class too.
Also, I don’t know what you refer to as rhe elite. do you mean the upper class, the upper upper class like the top 0,1% or those who rule the most powerful institutions ?
I can’t imagine anyplace in the Western world which is as miserable as the British Isles and the United States. The tragedy and the fall of Western Civilization is really a global spread of the Anglo disease.
My Sexmap:
My baby’s sexmap
Draw yours !
In pink: countries where the typical hot saucy chick turns you on
In purple: your top 10 countries where you’d have no choice but to become a sexual offender.
weirdo!
me: the US and the other white dominions, british isles, germany.
that’s it.
must have light blue eyes unless welsh.
Most beautiful girl I’ve ever seen in IRL was an Ethiopian chick I met in Atlanta, GA. 5’6″, beautiful deep set eyes, light-skinned, narrow features. Dark hair. Best part: wide hips and a huge ass.
Of course she rejected me.
But my list would include all of the Horn of Africa countries. Even the Muslim ones.
I never cared about eyes, Nordic chicks are like blank pages to me: plain, bland and flat.
Bae and I have two motto:
-The darker the berry, the sweeter the juice
-Got to stay saucy through thick and
thinthickDood, your sex map doesnt include india? Atleast north india? Atleast northwest-india?. NW india(punjab) is the place of best chicks in south-asia. Punjabi/himachali girls in south delhi have the fairest skin over there and the biggest booty(well atlast according to indian standards), while rajput chicks have sharp regal featured faces. So if you ever think of a sex trip over there…go to south delhi. 🙂
Well, I’ve never been to India and I don’t plan to. The south Asian chicks I see in France or while travel don’t turn me on, except when they look mmiddle eastern or whey they’re mixed with blacks like in the west indies.
thank you jimmy but the “you” i used was impersonal. It was things i could see happening, not things that were done to me. Thanks god 🙂