Science should be as simple as possible, but no simpler – Albert Einstein
Einstein may not have said those exact words, but the quote has been credited to him, and what an important quote it is. In looking at racial differences in IQ, or any other topic, we must always seek the simplest most elegant explanation that can explain as much of the data as possible. To reduce the complexity of life to a simple formula is a triumph of science.
In his controversial 2006 book Race Differences in Intelligence, Richard Lynn argued that racial differences in IQ had a major genetic component and that it had two major causes: (1) some races evolved in colder climates and thus faced more selection for IQ, and (2) some races had larger ancestral populations, and thus more genetic mutations to select from.
This was a great hypothesis but had a few flaws. The first (as commenter MeLo is quick to point out) is that Neanderthals also evolved in a cold climate and most scientists think they were less intelligent than modern humans who evolved in Africa (though Neanderthals may have had tiny populations). Second, Ashkenazi Jews have arguably the highest IQs of any “race”, but they not only have roots in the warm middle east, but also had small populations.
In order to get beyond such anomalies, I propose an alternative grand theory for explaining the worldwide pattern of racially genetic IQ differences, also based on just two simple variables: 1) splitting off dates, and 2) neighboring dark caucasoids
Splitting off dates
In 1989, scholar J.P. Rushton (who only studied the three major races (Negroids, Caucasoids, and Mongoloids) noted that racial differences in IQ and other higher traits seemed to correlate with the time period when each of the races branched off the main trunk of the human evolutionary tree. “One theoretical possibility,” said Rushton, “is that evolution is progressive and some populations are more advanced than others”.
As science writer Perter Knudtson noted, such thinking flies in the face of the mainstream scientific consensus that all extant life forms are equivalent cases of time tested evolutionary success. Nonetheless modern humans clearly colonized different regions of the World at different times, and for whatever reason, the legacy of these ancient migration lives on in the IQ scores of current populations.

Image found here
It seems that for whatever reason, races that evolved in regions that were colonized late in Earth’s history, have higher IQs than races that evolved in regions that were colonized early.
And indeed this is a pattern we see over and over again in Earth’s history. Animals lived in the ocean before they colonized land, and even after billions of years of evolution, land animals are more encephalized and intelligent than marine life on average (with notable exceptions such as dolphins, who were land mammals before returning to the ancestral ocean). Primates lived in trees before they lived on land, and those who are confined to the trees, never made the leap to human intelligence.
Similarly with human races: we lived in the tropics first but advanced technology didn’t appear until we migrated North, and Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence didn’t evolve until well after civilization and the emergence of advanced economies.
Intelligence is uniquely characterized by an ability to adapt to new challenges and solve novel problems, so perhaps leaving the ancestral environment stimulates brain evolution.
Neighboring dark Caucasoids
Over and over again in human genetic and cultural evolution, the Middle East has played a central role. It was the place where humans first lived once they first left Africa. It was the place where interbreeding with Neanderthals primarily occurred. It was the place where agriculture was first invented and the place of the first civilization. It was the place where the Prophet Muhammad and Jesus of Nazareth became two of the most influential humans of all time, the place where the World’s currently richest and most influential race (Ashkenazi Jews) originated and it’s the place that even today, dominates Worldwide headlines concerning everything from the death of Bin Laden to the war in Iraq to the Israeli-Palestinian peace feud.
Even more fascinating: I have found that human races that do not border the dark Caucasoids, who evolved in the Middle East and expanded to South Asia and Northern Africa, score significantly lower on IQ tests than races who do (on average). One possibility is that because the Middle East is so centralized in location, that it has long been a place to exchange genes among humans of all backgrounds, so those races that didn’t neighbour a dark Caucasoid population did not benefit from new genetic mutations and evolution stimulating innovations that went with them.
A simple formula
With the help of the above map, I tried to very crudely estimate the splitting off dates of various races, as well as determine whether their ancestral populations neighbored dark Caucasoids. In a previous article, I had crudely estimated the genetic IQ of each race, but these numbers are extremely rough and could contain large errors because of sampling problems, cultural biases, and a lack of systematic data selection. All the numbers are summarized below:
race | splitting off date (years before present) | neighboring dark caucasoids
yes = 1 no = 0 |
estimated genetic iq |
arctic people | 21,000 | 0 | 95 |
east asians | 40,000 | 1 | 105 |
europeans | 40,000 | 1 | 100 |
native americans | 21,000 | 0 | 90 |
dark caucasoids | 100,000 | 1 | 90 |
capoids | 225,000 | 0 | 70 |
congoids | 225,000 | 1 | 85 |
australoids | 60,000 | 0 | 70 |
southeast asians | 100,000 | 1 | 95 |
pacific islanders | 2,500 | 0 | 90 |
ashkenazi jews | 700 | 1 | 110 |
From this data I was able to create a simple formula for estimating the genetic IQ of a people:
Genetic IQ = 89.8266 – 0.000103591 (splitting off date) + 16.4043 (neighbouring dark Caucasoid)
This formula does a good job predicting the genetic IQs of each of the 11 human races, but that’s hardly surprising since that data was used to construct the formula. The real test will be whether it can predict the genetic IQ of a population not used to make the formula.
Predicting Neanderthal IQ
One such population are the Neanderthals. They colonized Europe about 300,000 years ago, so I’ll use that as their splitting off date. While evolving they had no contact with dark Caucasoids who didn’t exist yet. Thus applying the formula:
Genetic IQ = 89.8266 – 0.000103591 (300,000) + 16.4043 (0)
Genetic IQ = 58
Such a low IQ might be true because as scientist Steve Hsu has hinted, despite existing for nearly 100,000 years longer than modern humans, they never invented the bow and arrow, never created figurative art, never discovered agriculture, never developed civilization, and never went to the moon. On the other hand, using a within species formula to predict between species differences is extremely risky for several reasons, not least of which is Gould’s punctuated equilibrium.
““One theoretical possibility,” said Rushton, “is that evolution is progressive and some populations are more advanced than others”.”
Wrong.
“With the help of the above map, I tried to very crudely estimate the splitting off dates of various races, as well as determine whether their ancestral populations neighbored dark Caucasoids.”
lol
European genetic history began 6500 ya.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130423-european-genetic-history-dna-archaeology-science/
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/our-magnificent-bastard-race/
Eurasians were a single breeding population up until 10-6500 ya. Your chart is too simplistic and doesn’t take other factors into account. Human migrations are also a lot more complicated.
RR is there any evidence that could ever convince you evolution is progressive? You’ve been given so many examples.
I used colonization as a very crude proxy for genetic history because it’s all i could find.
I’m sure razib khan could give much more meaningful numbers however the relative antiquity of the races probably wouldn’t change much, they just all would become younger.
But the pattern of younger races being smarter would almost certainly remain which is the point
“RR is there any evidence that could ever convince you evolution is progressive? You’ve been given so many examples.”
Does this mean I should accept general progress? I don’t really know what would convince me, I’ll get back to you.
“I used colonization as a very crude proxy for genetic history because it’s all i could find.”
The races ain’t that old.
“I’m sure razib khan could give much more meaningful numbers however the relative antiquity of the races probably wouldn’t change much, they just all would become younger.”
Much much younger.
“But the pattern of younger races being smarter would almost certainly remain which is the point”
Doubtful. I just like correct dates.
“But the pattern of younger races being smarter would almost certainly remain which is the point”
Correction.
Not Doubtful* damn it, just woke up.
I agree with you, I just like correct dates. Modern Africans didn’t exist that long ago as you know. Even then, the first Europeans was Grimaldi man (see Peter Frost on this). White skin didn’t appear until 6500 ya. Soooo….
Eurasians also split around that time as well. It’s not a 50ky thing like Rushton asserted. Won’t hold that against him though as that was 30 years ago.
“European genetic history began 6500 ya.”
All that shows is migrational patterns concerning matrilineal lineages. A particular haplogroup doesn’t necessarily mean much phenotypic change.
“Eurasians were a single breeding population up until 10-6500 ya.”
? Haplogroup R1 has been dated to around 18,000 years ago.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2336805/
“Modern Africans didn’t exist that long ago as you know. Even then, the first Europeans was Grimaldi man (see Peter Frost on this). White skin didn’t appear until 6500 ya. Soooo….”
I read frost’s article, Grimaldi man was not negroid. That’s Afrocentrist propoganda which is only barely credible because of it’s old age. Cro magnon have been dated to around 50-25,000 years ago, and are completely Caucasoid in appearance, The only archaic trait on the grimaldi man is a protruding mouth, which some mongoloids and Cro magnon retained as well. It could possibly pass for a large brained Capoid. Even though it had gracile limbs because of it’s large brain mass it probably had large muscles accompanying it.
https://books.google.com/books?id=IJwVCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT1&lpg=PT1&dq=white+athena+volume+two&source=bl&ots=KP5Ct5yQ9x&sig=OKqviQ7C_o4F50_OfZ5O8Zd-tb4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFjbOK3YnTAhWKs1QKHWz_BEgQ6AEIPDAK#v=onepage&q=white%20athena%20volume%20two&f=false
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89085285385;view=1up;seq=83
page 58-63
“Eurasians also split around that time as well. It’s not a 50ky thing like Rushton asserted.
Eurasians diverged form eachother about 40-25,000 years ago
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24589501
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2013/01/when-was-split.html
“All that shows is migrational patterns concerning matrilineal lineages. A particular haplogroup doesn’t necessarily mean much phenotypic change.”
This ‘mysterious population’ are the Yamna people from Siberia. Europeans are comprised of the Yamna, Ancestral North Eurasians, Anatolian farmers, and West-European hunter-gatherers. That’s when Europeans as we know them came to be.
“I read frost’s article, Grimaldi man was not negroid. That’s Afrocentrist propoganda which is only barely credible because of it’s old age. Cro magnon have been dated to around 50-25,000 years ago, and are completely Caucasoid in appearance, The only archaic trait on the grimaldi man is a protruding mouth, which some mongoloids and Cro magnon retained as well. It could possibly pass for a large brained Capoid. Even though it had gracile limbs because of it’s large brain mass it probably had large muscles accompanying it.”
I only said that Grimaldi didn’t look European, not that he was Negroid. I believe capoid is the correct term. Maybe Phil can chime in here.
“Eurasians diverged form eachother about 40-25,000 years ago”
Conceded. Frost still contends that light skin occurred much later than new data says. It occurred around 6kya. It’s much much more recent.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin
Also read this.
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2009/05/first-european.html
“That’s when Europeans as we know them came to be.”
A shift in the dominant haplogroup isn’t as significant as you would think. It does mark a change in genetic ancestry, but it doesn’t always accompany real variation in expression. Something Pumpkin and I have argued about extensively. While I think genetic divergence is an appropriate measure for race, so is phenotype, and I don’t think there is a significant contrast in either between Cro magnon and neolithic farmers for you or me to conclusively say they are separate races. I don’t know about the genetic affinity between bushman and Grimaldi man.
“I believe capoid is the correct term.”
I don’t know, Capoids have near 310ccs less of a brain size than Grimaldi man and broader nose ridges, Capoid neoteny can throw people off. Though I do believe it is possible Grimaldi is a transition specimen.
“Frost still contends that light skin occurred much later than new data says. It occurred around 6kya. It’s much much more recent.”
Yeah but skin color is such an insignificant trait.
Doesn’t change the fact that European genetic history started ~7kya. The Nordics, as I’ve said countless times, are ~5kyo.
“Doesn’t change the fact that European genetic history started ~7kya. The Nordics, as I’ve said countless times, are ~5kyo.”
It took quite a bit of self control not to be offensive. “genetic history” is not the same as the frequency of a particular haplogroup. Of course when pumpkin is at one extreme you always have to express the opposite.
“Also read this.”
I literally just told you I read that and demonstrated how stupid it was.
To RR,
Actually it Basically resembles either Australoids or Cromagnon the best.
http://hamiticunion.proboards.com/thread/48
Damn it. I had a trillion tabs opened and I x’ed all of them and had a substantial reply, meLo. If this is lackluster, my next will be better.
“It took quite a bit of self control not to be offensive.”
Be offensive. I’m a big boy. I have thick skin.
Tell me how you really feel.
““genetic history” is not the same as the frequency of a particular haplogroup.”
Right. That doesn’t mean that the European race—as we know it—existed 40kya. Remember:
p.s. a friend of mine sent me a link to a richard spencer interview with kevin macdonald last year i think, pointing to a specific segment of the podcast talking about ancient genetics. kevin was telling richard how europeans 40,000 years ago were white, and those are the ancestors of europeans. that’s wrong.
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/our-magnificent-bastard-race/#comment-1538023
Eurocentrism is just as retarded as Afrocentrism (though, Eurocentrism is usually just Nordicism).
“I literally just told you I read that and demonstrated how stupid it was.”
Well, after a bit of reading, I agree with you now.
I came across this while looking for affinities between Cro-Magnon and Grimaldi:
http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-1590233_48763.htm
This paper is a rebuttal to a paper by one, Russian researcher Klyosov, who believes that AMH popped up in Russia. He asserted that “the first Europeans were fair (pale) skin, and Neanderthal who never lived in Africa.”
It’s a solid paper, give it a read. He also says:
“The Aurignacian civilization was founded by the Cro-Magnon people who originated in Iberia. They took this culture to Western Europe across the Straits of Gibraltar (Winters, 2011). The Cro-Magnon people were probably Bushman/Khoisan (Boule & Vallois, 1957).”
I asked Phil if it was correct and he said no, pointing me to RacialReality’s article on the matter.
Nevertheless, what Winters says about haplogroup L is 100 percent correct. It did originate in Africa and is the proof of an OoA migration.
The point is meLo, European genetic history began 6500 ya because they’re an amalgamation of three populations: Ancestral North Eurasians, West European hunter-gatherers, Anatolian farmers, and last, but not least, the Yamna.
Read this paper by Kevin Macdonald that was published the other day talking about the Indo-European component (the Yamna):
THE INDO-EUROPEAN GENETIC AND CULTURAL LEGACY IN EUROPE
Click to access Indo-European-Contribution.pdf
Good read.
Will pick up the diet convo later this week (and that other reply in the same thread), been a bit busy.
“Be offensive. I’m a big boy. I have thick skin.”
It’s not that I think you can’t handle it. It’s just I don’t think you always realize how fallcious you can be, so i don’t think it warrants an insult.
“Right. That doesn’t mean that the European race—as we know it—existed 40kya. Remember:”
There is no “european” race. There are Caucasoid which is a certain morphological phenotype .Haplogroup might be a good measure for microrace and ethnicity but the macro races are defined mostly by their morphological divergences.
“The Cro-Magnon people were probably Bushman/Khoisan”
Boule and vallois broke the grimaldi skull while drilling holes in the bottom which caused excessive prognathism in the specimen, making the credibility of their analysis dubious to say the least.
The khoisan do not have rectangular orbital sockets, are not 5’9″, are not incredibly muscular, nor do they have the large jawline and teeth that cro magnon possessed. I also doubt they shared the same haplogroup.
That’s better than Lynn. I believe Robert/Jimmy are right about climate not being a decisive factor.
Why don’t you just reverse engineer?
So the 5 highest IQ ethnics or subgroups: Nazi Jews, Slavics (particularly Russians), Northeast Asians, perhaps India, and Italy.
What you have to ask is what factors were similar in these groups and what type of intelligence are we talking about.
So the average IQ of India is 82 with public hygiene, disease, literacy and diet as bad as Sub saharan Africa before anyone interjects.
Since McKinsey, Citi, and a fair many hedge funds have indian partners, not to mention Google and Microsoft having Indian CEOs, you have to ask – if they had western living standards what is their intrinsic IQ?
My guess is that it jumps by at least an SD or more. I think Indians channel the extra energy into their brain unlike blacks who channel it into their musculature, being R selected.
Most indians I meet are smart. But not most pakistanis or other Middle Easterners. Like Israel, they seem more savvy/’swarthy’ for survival reasons.
I don’t think its a selection issue. You can see the intuition of even the poorer mass migrant indians into britain from the 60s.
The other clue about India is to look at how the unbrainwashed British raj described indians.
They never described them as imbecilic or childish like blacks. In fact Gandhi often mentioned that point as well and sought to seperate indians under South Africa from the perception of ‘Kuffars’.
Gandhi was a lawyer. And Ferguson mentions many indians were intelligent enough to join the British civil service back in the day. So my suspicion is that Indians, with Western living standards have at least Western IQs or more like East Asia.
The indians you saw in the west etc are not representative samples.The average Indian is not even close to being intelligent.
India has a population that’s larger than 1 billion so obviously the top 10% are going to be bright.
like you i had a very high opinion of Indians until i visited India in 2010 and i got to see the real Indians.
I now believe that the ones i knew in California were like the top 1% of Indians and they were much lighter skinned.
I have seen indians in India that were so dark that they looked black.
Another problem with the HBD cult is that they cherry pick samples and then make judgments.
Ashkenazis in Israel and Europe are no where near ashkenazis in America and yet they chose the american ones to tell us how superior jews are.
If i had the same cultish mentality then i would say that the smartest people in the world are nigerians and Romanians as some of the smartest people i have ever met were Nigerians and Romanians.
I know a Ghanaian guy who works at my IB and he made £2.7 million in one quarter.
Ph.D in math from MIT and double majored in electrical engineering and math at Caltech.
Ghana has an average IQ of 65 ? 70? would you consider him representative ?
Indians are not stupid but the fairy tales bout Brahmin superiority are laughable.
Lets not forget that tiny little England colonized to whole of India with a relatively small army.
Conquest is the greatest expression of superiority.
” Since McKinsey, Citi, and a fair many hedge funds have indian partners, not to mention Google and Microsoft having Indian CEOs ”
1.2 billion gamma males will produce some smart gamma males.
I have gone to school and worked with so many Indians and they are the definition of Gamma males.
I disagree with everything that Steinberg says but his complaints about pushy people are 100% true for Indians.
I have been in meetings with these people and they use long words that are completely unnecessary just to look smart.
They try way to hard and get too excited . Its even more apparent in social settings
I remember having drinks with co-workers and one guy (ozzy) commented on the looks of some of the women on the other side of the bar and then the Indian guy got up and pointed at some white women and said ” How many of them should we smash tonight ?” . We all bursted into laughter.
When it comes to management roles whites and asians just don’t want it as much as Indians.
Asians know their limits and so they don’t go for it.
Whites are not interested as much because seniority doesn’t make you that much more money. You can make a lot of money without having any extra responsibilities.
India has solid potential if they get their nutrition in order.
“The indians you saw in the west etc are not representative samples.The average Indian is not even close to being intelligent.”
I agree.
“Conquest is the greatest expression of superiority.”
Then mongols and arabs are superior to scandinavians… dumb.
“Then mongols and arabs are superior to scandinavians… dumb.”
Arabs have more children. So they are more fit, from an evolutionary perspective. So, not dumb. What’s that birthrate like in Scandinavia? Hmm..
Lyrion is a crypto-Jew who gets very angry when people talk about conquest and empires because jews have never had an empire
Jews are not capable of civilization
” Then mongols and arabs are superior to scandinavians… dumb. ”
Rabbi Lyrion has very poor reading comprehension.
If you had a basic level of reading comprehension then you would have known that my comment about superiority came after mentioning that England conquered India.
Conquest is a clear sign of superiority over those that you have conquered.
The only time thats not the case is when the conquerors have a much larger population or there is internal treason.
If the conquerors have much smaller numbers and still mange to conquer the much larger population then that is an absolute sign of Superiority.
The English were completely outnumbered by the indians and yet they manged to completely subjugate the indians.
That’s funny how you 2 are absolutely contradicting each other.
Also, by jimmy’s dumb definition of superiority jews should be superior to whites (small population rulling a much larger one)
Are Jimmy and I supposed to agree?
” Also, by jimmy’s dumb definition of superiority jews should be superior to whites (small population rulling a much larger one) ”
That would be true if it were not for the fact that Whites have expelled jews from their states over 100 times.
That proves that jews only have influence because whites have allowed them to.
our genes haven’t changed .
The genetics of the English today are no different from when King Edward I issued an edict to expel all jews from England in 1290
The genetics of the native French are no different today than they were in 1306 when King Philippe IV expelled all jews from France.
Time and time again the European master race has shown that there is a limit to our patience.
as mass immigration of non-whites into our lands continues more and more people will wake up to the jewish problem .
There is a fanatically pro-jew evangelical guy that i have known since middle school and he recently e-mailed me a David Duke video. .
The tide is rising
Leave while you can Lyrion
leave while you can
“The genetics of the English today are no different from when King Edward I issued an edict to expel all jews from England in 1290”
You couldn’t be any more wrong, even if you tried.
“master race”
Fucking lol
Disease burden in South Asia is generally not as bad as Subsaharan Africa. I’m not sure about nutrition—which can certainly be very bad in India—, but infectious disease can strongly affect the absorbtion of nutrients.
(figure label in the link below labeled “Global Infectious Disease Deaths by Region 2004” from the work of Christopher Eppig, near top,)
http://affordablehousinginstitute(dot)org/blogs/us/2010/08/sickness-makes-you-stupid(dot)html
(the “dot”s of course should be “.”‘s/periods)”
The Bahamas (90% black) have a significant disease burden (3.47) esp. compared to the forst world—but low malaria— despite being relatively wealthy for the Caribbean, but a higher measured iq score (93, according to the most up-to-date analysis from Jason Maloy) than India (81-82) whose disease burden is only a little higher at 3.79 (but scores similarly in iq to some other South/South East Asian countries with similar disease burden scores (I speculate that this may relate to a relatively lower rate of malaria in particular in the Bahamas than elsewhere in the Caribbean, Africa, India etc, but I could be wrong.) (All/virtually all Africa’s disease burden scores are higher than S. Asia’s; being mostly about 4.30-40 and up).
Jamaica’s (and a few other Caribbean countries’) disease score 3.22 and iq (81 according to Malloy’s more accurate analysis of Lynn’s data) correlation, however seem to (albeit) roughly parallel those of India and Pakistan also low 80’s.
So the correlation (iq depressing disease to iq score) seems to be a reasonably good one (as Eppig contends) so far (as far as I can tell).
http://humanvarieties.org/2013/03/12/hvgiq-the-bahamas/
http://humanvarieties.org/2013/03/01/hvgiq-jamaica/
(I speculate that the difference of the correlation in the Bahamas and S.E. Asia vs in India may at leadt partly relate to a relatively lower rate of malaria in particular in the Bahamas than elsewhere in the Caribbean, Africa, India etc, but I could be wrong.)”
South Asia has a lower disease burden (of iq-depressing diseases like malaria, hookworm, and several others) than Africa. And many iq estimates of Africa are closer to 76 (81 according to Jelte Winchert’s analysis.). Many, including Richard Lynn have posited that malnutrition and disease burden may lower iq to arround 15 points.
The disease burden levels of South Asia are similar to many places in the Caribbean. Many of these Caribbean islands have measured iq’s in the 80s or closer to 80(according to Jason Malloy’s more accurate analyses), rather than 70/low 70s. Jamaica for instance, scores 81, rather than 72 as claimed by Lynn (not far from the low 80’s scores usually given for India and Pakistan).
for example; Jamaica
http://humanvarieties.org/2013/03/01/hvgiq-jamaica/
Some earlier Caribbean iq re-estimates
https://z139.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/caribbean-national-iq-re-estimates/
In many cases, the more mixed Caribbean countries (like; Puerto Rico, The Dominican republic, Belize, Guyana; with some in the 70’s) do not score higher, or they score lower, than more black ones (such as; Dominica, the Bahamas, Barbados, Jamaica).
It may be that over history, disease burdens in some of these places were less (have fluctuated over time). There is some evidence that in parts of Africa, changes in settlement patterns over the last century or so have worsened infection rates (some environments conditions may have contributed—in other cases they may have had the reverse effect or little at all.
According to some evidence, some groups may be more adapted to (relative vegetarianism than others; at least many groups of Indians more so than SS Africans. Thus (I speculate that) the greater vegetarianism (lack of meat) that occures with poverty may possibly adversely affect some groups (such as many in India) less than others
http://www.unz.com/akarlin/indian-vegetarianism/
That’s right. The tide is turning. I’ve noticed it as well. Bloomberg have stopped posting videos on youtube as the anti semitic comments were fever pitch.
“Leave while you can Lyrion
leave while you can”
LOL.
I’m anything but jew or pro jew, simply used this exemple to point out the stupidity of your argument.
But that’s ok. I didn’t really expected you to understand my point (as usual)
RaceR
” You couldn’t be any more wrong, even if you tried. ”
When i say English i am referring to the native English not the foreigners.
” Fucking lol ”
Dont panic as i’m including southern Italians in that.
whenever someone talks about the superiority of Europeans you get a little defensive.
S.Italians are white in my book 🙂
But India has a relatively advanced IT industry despite being a third world country. There’s nothing comparable like that to anything else.
I also think Jimmy’s point about selection is valid for America, but not Britain, where many immigrants in the 60s were peasants or lower middle class ones in any case. They were not selected for IQ, like the visa programmes may be.
My historical knowledge of India is fairly scratchy. They have not been centralised and regulated in a uniform fashion like China to my knowledge, and so the IQ selection wasn’t as strong.
Unz makes an indirectly great point that the criminal justice system is a far faster IQ selection mechanism than scholarship exams or ‘meritocracy’.
In any case, Indian IQ is not the same as blacks and other dark caucasoids. Indians don’t need AA in the UK.
It could be cultural though. As you say, the Pakistanis share similar genetics. But perhaps this is explained with cousin marriage is far more prevalent with Pashtun, Pakistani and Bangladeshi peoples.
Until I go to India myself I won’t see it.
But I would argue in India’s defence that modern Western medicine has ruined its ability to stop dysgenic peasant breeding. In fact to a similar degree Nigeria struggles because Bill Gates keeps boosting truck driver baby numbers.
I don’t ‘panic’, I laugh whenever someone talks about race A being superior to race B. It’s retarded.
Then why is your website full of racism?!
…bursted…
jimmy’s native language is NOT english obviously. i wonder what it is. burst is an irregular strong verb jimmy. “apposite” is a word, but it has nothing to do with “opposite”.
sad!
Then mongols and arabs are superior to scandinavians…
by jimmy’s logic this follows. though it should be said that jimmy has no logic. he’s just a cornered animal. mongol empire and arab empire larger than the lands conquered by vikings.
sad!
I know a Ghanaian guy who works at my IB and he made £2.7 million in one quarter.
Ph.D in math from MIT and double majored in electrical engineering and math at Caltech.
no such person exists. which isn’t to say that such a person cannot exist.
sad!
peepee’s impersonation abilities are not up to the standards of an oscar yet. more practice. maybe some day. if an oscar is given for acting in print rather than with one’s voice and body.
You’re just jealous that someone as alpha as jimmy reads my blog, so you’ve convinced yourself he doesn’t exist
You want me all to yourself so you’ve convinced yourself all other commenters are me 🙂
Sad
Whites are not interested as much because seniority doesn’t make you that much more money.
because whites differ from indians in that whites care more about money.
and that’s a virtue?
jesus fucking christ what a loser.
jews rule in a way that no colonial power did.
jews are like rabes not like a pack of rabid dogs.
my surname has no “stein” nor “berg” in it jimmy. it has no yiddish/jewish-german elements.
i have this feeling that jimmy has only 6 great grandparents and his father plays the banjo.
Lyrion
” I’m anything but jew or pro jew”
sure
I’ve also gotten the impression that Jimmy may be something other than a native English speaker.
Steinberg is so bitter about his life that he has convinced himself that anyone who makes more money than him is less deserving. .
It all comes from his belief that all of the top colleges couldn’t find people with high SAT scores and a high GPA .
When i showed him people who went to mickey mouse colleges and still made it to a place like JP Morgan he complained about connections.
The real hatred started when i challenged him to compare payslips.
my surname has no “stein” nor “berg” in it jimmy. it has no yiddish/jewish-german elements.
sure 🙂
” I’ve also gotten the impression that Jimmy may be something other than a native English speaker.”
lol am i supposed to check my comments on a blog?
ask me a cultural question that only a native English speaker would know the answer to.
and you call phil paranoid
I have the feeling that Jimmy isn’t a native speaker as well. He [redacted by PP, april 3, 2017] like me sometimes, makes second language speakers mistakes and lied about being raised in the Episcopalian religion, he sounds more evangelical or presbyterian than Anglo-Catholic.
I think he’s from Scandinavian.
it should be said that few native speakers speak perfectly in terms of whatever the highest status dialect is.
english is both an easy language and a difficult language. it’s easy for other indo-european speakers and arabs to learn enough that there’s not problem in understanding them. but no matter how smart one is, it’s very hard to impersonate a native speaker (in any language i expect) both in pronunciation and grammar.
i rented a car in LA and my driver i assumed was a white american. when she told me she’d only recently immigrated from germany i couldn’t believe it. english ESLs from holland and germany are the best at “passing”. south african dutch don’t count.
it’s interesting, because english varies from glasgow to perth in accent, yet the accent of someone for whom egnlish is a second laguage is still distinguishable from these very different accents.
it may be impossible for anyone past age 12 to fully effect a native speaker. this really has nothing to do with the intelligence of the ESL student. some very bright people are horrible at languages.
this is why i always thought the praise for joseph conrad was ridiculous. his native language was polish and his prose is too much…”too many notes”.
that is, this is a general human limitation, not a limitation of “foreigners”.
the general human limitation:
1. one can never be as fluent in a language he hasn’t learned from age 1/birth. great literature in any language cannot be written by non-native speakers.
2. no matter how high one’s IQ he can never pass as a native speaker of language X unless he’s learned it at age 12 or earlier. that is, he can never pass in person. in writing he may pass. but even then only in edited writing. not extemporaneous writing.
I’ve never understood why kids are so good at learning languages despite having less absolute psychometric intelligence (low mental age)
More delusions from the boy who was purchased by a Frenchman.
” and lied about being raised in the Episcopalian religion ”
Why would i lie about being raised in a denomination that i no longer respect?
that’s like someone saying that they grew up as a Yankee fan when they hate baseball.
what an idiot
” he sounds more evangelical or presbyterian than Anglo-Catholic ”
So anyone who doesn’t surrender his mind to a pagan cult like the Catholic church is considered a crazy evangelical ? what a clown
And why do you dislike evangelicals so much? you have the exact same view on jews
and your beloved Israel.
morally there is no difference between the two of you.
” Anglo-Catholic.”
There is no such thing.
At Sunday school i was taught that Catholics were pagans for praying to Mary and saints.
The whole Anglican/Episcopal dialogue with those pagans was for the EU .
They wanted to unite everyone into one giant catholic cult. In exchange the catholic church would be pro-Eu which it is .
This all intensified under Tony Blair in 2005 when you were 12.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/may/17/religion.world
check the last quote
“The worship of Mary comes from an entirely different culture.”
The man who said that is exactly like the people who ran my sunday school.
once again you have proven that without Wikipedia you don’t have a clue about the topics you talk about.
“I think he’s from Scandinavian. ”
I don’t know about that but i do know that i am more french than you will ever be
bitter about my “life”? no.
but i don’t even know what jimmy means by “life”. i expect he doesn’t either.
sad!
i’m an american. i’m not a “central african” or a “chadian”. i’m rich by contemporary and historic standards. i have enough. any more would be more than enough. for me.
i agree with peepee that…
1. more money is always better. ceteris paribus. all should want more. not for themselves; for their vision, so far as they have one.
but…
2. maximizing one’s earnings can have many negative consequences/requirements.
3. some don’t notice them. some find them intolerable. people differ.
4. in the end the influence of the world’s richest man is small or nil. The Gates Foundation may do good or evil. idk. but supposing it does good, the good it does will be a drop in the bucket.
i think of all rich guys who’ve done great things with their money, The Howard Hughes Medical Institute is the best example, and howard was both born rich and a nutjob who multiplied his family’s fortune.
supposing jimmy and afro are real people…
“anglo-catholic” has two different meanings.
for afro it means the old money anglo-saxons. the noble/aristocractic british.
for jimmy it means a small and inconsequential set of english, most of whom are snobs, aspirants, not the real thing.
in this case jimmy is correct.
even though i count myself an anglo catholic…
manque!
more rabid than howard…
jimmy has been bitten.
he knows what it means to be bitten. i assume.
but it doesn’t matter.
sad!
nearer my God to thee.
i wanna be sedated.
No, mug of pee, Anglo-Catholic is a theological term. It describes the traditions of the High Church of Anglicanism. Of course, Anglo-Catholics are more likely to belong to the nobility and high classes than low Church Anglicans who lean more toward Protestantism and Evangelicalism. The British Royal Family as well as the Church of England are Anglo-Catholic.
The terms “High” and “Low” are rarely used nowadays but refer to different “parties” or schools of churchmanship within the Church of England/Anglican Communion. “High” Church is the older of the two terms historically and was first applied, in the late seventeenth century, to those individuals who were opposed to the Puritan wing of the Church of England.
Later, and more famously, in the nineteenth century, it was applied to the Anglo-Catholic or Tractarian movement in England from 1833 onwards. The best known members of the High Church/Anglo-Catholic Movement were John Henry Newman, who converted to the Roman Catholic Church, and John Keble, who remained in the Church of England. High Churchmen placed great emphasis on liturgy and the sacraments, especially the weekly or daily celebration of the Eucharist. Their use of vestments and incense, along with their frequent devotion to Mary and high regard for the Roman Catholic Church, were often regarded with concern and even hostility. High Churchmen also placed great emphasis on the three orders of ministry (deacon, priest and bishop) and the importance of apostolic succession and the historical continuity of Anglican bishops with the early church.
The “Low Church” movement can trace its roots back to the early eighteenth century but is primarily associated with opposition to the “High Church” or Anglo-Catholic Movement of the later nineteenth century. The “Low” Church or Evangelical party placed great emphasis on preaching, personal piety and the authority of scripture. Evangelicals also gave much less importance to the orders of priesthood and episcopacy.
Today the terms are used infrequently and are often considered to have a negative or pejorative flavour. Nevertheless, the terms do reflect the theology and practice of two large parties/points of view within Anglicanism. In England, these points of view are now usually described as “Anglo Catholic” and “Evangelical”, and can be seen to a greater or lesser extent in many parishes. They are also represented by societies such as Affirming Catholicism, and the National Evangelical Anglican Congress.
http://www.anglican.ca/ask/faq/high-low-church/
Jimmy,
You say conquest is the true measure of superiority. You forgot the brits had guns and indians had swords. Indians are really not as dumb as you make them out to be. They are not as smart as white, or east asians or jews, but definitely not 80-90 IQ dumb. As for their pushiness, its more of a cultural thing. In india everything is chaotic and things never go according to time. So indians have i feel evolved this pushy attitude. And indian growing up in the west will not be like that.
Also whats wrong in seeking managerial positions? You have to feel bad if all they want to be when they grow up is to be a plumber.
“Why would i lie about being raised in a denomination that i no longer respect?”
I guess you’re faking upper class upbringing and thus claim growing up in the most elite denomination.
“So anyone who doesn’t surrender his mind to a pagan cult like the Catholic church is considered a crazy evangelical ?”
I dislike evangelicalism, not evangelical Christians. I make the doctrine/people distinction that you’re unable to get.
PS: [sentence redacted by PP, April 4, 2017]
“morally there is no difference between the two of you.”
Ahah, now this guy reduces morals to what someone thinks of Jews.
“There is no such thing.”
The terms Anglo-Catholicism, Anglican Catholicism and Catholic Anglicanism refer to people, beliefs and practices within Anglicanism that emphasise the Catholic heritage and identity of the various Anglican churches.[1][2]
The term “Anglo-Catholic” was coined in the early 19th century,[3] although movements emphasising the Catholic nature of Anglicanism had already existed.[4][5] Particularly influential in the history of Anglo-Catholicism were the Caroline Divines of the seventeenth century and later the leaders of the Oxford Movement, which began at the University of Oxford in 1833 and ushered in a period of Anglican history known as the “Catholic Revival”.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Catholicism
Yah, it’s the EU that created Anglo-Catholicism, for sure… LMAO.
“once again you have proven that without Wikipedia you don’t have a clue about the topics you talk about.”
Lol, I met with Anglicans/Episcopalians at peripheral reconciliation events during each WYD I attended.
Anglican Marian theology is the summation of the doctrines and beliefs of Anglicanism concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary. As Anglicans believe that Jesus was both human and God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity, within the Anglican Communion and Continuing Anglican churches, Mary is accorded honour as the theotokos, literally the “God-bearer” or “one who gives birth to God”.
Anglicans of evangelical or low church tradition tend to avoid honouring Mary. Other Anglicans respect and honour Mary because of the special religious significance that she has within Christianity as the mother of Jesus Christ. This honour and respect is termed veneration.
Mary always held a place of honour within the English Church, but many of the doctrines surrounding her have been called into question over the centuries, most as the result of the Protestant Reformation. While Protestantism is based upon interpretation of scripture by a variety of 16th century reformers, who mostly rejected the practice of speaking directly to Mary and other saints (except in certain hymns, e.g. Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones, canticles, e.g. the Benedicite, and psalms, e.g. Psalm 148), Anglicanism has allowed for Mary and the saints to be addressed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Marian_theology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anglican_Marian_theology
“I don’t know about that but i do know that i am more french than you will ever be”
Yes buddy, start with coming here once in your life, learning the language, having a French family, get the citizenship knowing the history and if possible, embracing Catholicism. Dye your hair in a darker shade too, us French consider blond guys feminine. Once you’ve done this you might pass for French, although your stupidity will always seem outlandish.
” I guess you’re faking upper class upbringing ”
I don’t have a chip on my shoulder like an african who tells himself that he’s french to feel better about himself.
Class really doesn’t matter that much in the US so there is no point faking it.
Public school educated Warren Buffet has more respect than a Delano ever could.
Class is also different in the US and Europe. For example in the UK class is permanent which is not the case in the US.
Wayne Rooney is a multimillionaire but he will always be low class no matter what he does.
He sent his son to a private school but his son will always be viewed as the son of the low class Wayne Rooney.
in the US all you have to do is send your kid to a prep school and he shoots up a class.
Accents also have a lot to do with it . In the UK there is a very specific accent that the upper class have. That’s not the case in the US where there are very elite southern families .
The one thing that both the US and Europe have in common is that blacks can never be upper class.
I remember visiting Oxford University as a tourist in 2008 and i saw a security guard run up and grab a black guy and prevent him from entering brasenose until he showed his student ID.
I walked straight through without even a look from security
The left are absolutely right about white privilege
And that wasn’t even the worst case as Japan is a million times worse than the UK .
Japan was so bad that i lost all respect for them
Just thinking about it makes we want to make a donation to a liberal cause so that i can make amends for my white privilege
“I don’t have a chip on my shoulder like an african who tells himself that he’s french to feel better about himself.”
I’m proudly black, and proudly French, no incompatibility here. I’m proud of being asshole like you’s nightmare, I’m proud of all the black guys who make France shine, I like the foreign girls who comment “French guys are so hot” on my Instagram… I’m way too happy to have identity issues.
“Class really doesn’t matter that much in the US so there is no point faking it.”
It does matter in the US upper class, you’ve just not gravitated in the circles where it matters.
“The one thing that both the US and Europe have in common is that blacks can never be upper class.”
Lol, you know there are many black spouses and adopted kids in the aristocracy ? In fact I’m sure the nobility is totally foreign to you.
“I remember visiting Oxford University as a tourist in 2008 and i saw a security guard run up and grab a black guy and prevent him from entering brasenose until he showed his student ID.
I walked straight through without even a look from security”
I’ve never been bothered by the police or club bouncers or any form of security officer, so I probably have white privilege too.
“Just thinking about it makes we want to make a donation to a liberal cause so that i can make amends for my white privilege”
Well, if you wanna hear something good, your white privilege stops at the gates of my property. You can still enjoy it in your $4k/month two bedroom flat, your bank accounts have no white privilege it seems. Next thing, try testing your white privilege on a South African farm and give me news.
“Lol, you know there are many black spouses and adopted kids in the aristocracy ”
Toys
Just look up what the Swiss did to Oprah
It is impossible for blacks to be upper class. You think they can because you have very low social intelligence.
if you could just see how people look at you
so sad
” You can still enjoy it in your $4k/month two bedroom flat”
It really hurts Afro to think of how much money i have.
Just imagine how many little Afros i could buy with one bonus.
I wouldn’t do it though as after seeing the chip on Afros shoulder i think its cruel to take africans out of their natural habitat and then throw them into a western country.
Be proud of who you are Afro
Its ok to be african
black is beautiful™
Just look up what the Swiss did to Oprah
It is impossible for blacks to be upper class. You think they can because you have very low social intelligence.
The Swiss store of course denied they were discriminating against Oprah once they found out who she was, but Oprah had the intelligence to immediately recognize the subtle social cues that she wasn’t accepted in that environment, and the Swiss government sided with Oprah, giving her a formal apology.
In what world is:
“Get out of our store” said to black woman by whites subtle?
Not everything is a showcase for extraordinary levels of intelligence.
LOL! They didn’t say “Get out of our store”. It was much more subtle than that as Oprah explained:
Two minutes in Nathan Caton makes a joke about something similar, I could even say he gets extra points for making a witty joke out of it.
This level of social ability is ordinary.
And why am I still in moderation?
BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT OPRAH – PP 2017
That level of social IQ is ordinary which is why jimmy was surprised afro’s never noticed any racism. Although Caton probably has a very high social IQ
What was less ordinary is Oprah talking about being able to sense the racist sexist energy in board rooms even when nothing is said. I should have emphasized that
>What was less ordinary is Oprah talking about being able to sense the racist sexist energy in board rooms even when nothing is said.
No, that’s just more ordinary theory of mind, confirmation bias, and a tinge of paranoia.
She’s made assumptions going in to the boardroom, they just happen to ordinarily be correct.
These things are not indications of great intelligence, at very best for me they imply that Oprah might be a “Truth Wizard”, someone who can read facial expressions and bodylanguage so well that they can ascertain deception at a rate exceeding 80%.
I think Oprah & Trump both have a great talent for reading a room though truth wizard might be a misnomer because they lack critical thinking, or at least pretend to
Any cognitive talent is evidence of high IQ given the g factor though i doubt trump’s overall IQ is above 120
“if you could just see how people look at you”
I saw, I’m a model.
“It really hurts Afro to think of how much money i have.”
LMAO, no I envy nobody. I just know you’re lying, you wanted to pretend you are rich like Midas by making up an incredibly high rent but you were not aware that the wealthy dudes on this blog find it utterly dumb to throw such an amount on a rent.
“Be proud of who you are Afro
Its ok to be african
black is beautiful™”
Right, once again, that’s why I’m a model. Haven’t you noticed my arrogance and how much I look down to people like you ?
If you want to keep on entertaining me, just give me another ridiculous reply, if you’re tired of being stupid, go trolling the other losers. Maybe you’ll be able to own them, which won’t happen with me.
>truth wizard might be a misnomer
Truth Wizard is a technical term. It just means you have eyes for lies.
>Any cognitive talent is evidence of high IQ
But what we’re really talking about is whether or not this indicates that Oprah has great deductive prowess, what we would ordinarily talk about as “intelligence”, so regardless of whether or not she has the prowess to recognize deception or facial expressions her ability to then use that information deductively to a high degree has not been shown, at least not here.
The point being: This incident is not a showcase of extraordinary intelligence.
I notice that you tend to imply that very ordinary things that Oprah does are evidence of great intellect when they’re just not.
Stick to pointing out her successes in business or other g-loaded areas which we can deduce actually require high intellect or find an example of a social situation which required very high g to maneuver through, politics style.
Truth Wizard is a technical term. It just means you have eyes for lies.
An eye for lies in personal interaction but one of the ironies is that people who are the best at reading people are often the worst at critical thinking. At least that’s been my observation
Ironically it’s autistic types who can’t spot deception who are less likely to fall for BS conspiracy theories, pseudoscience & religion
“That level of social IQ is ordinary which is why jimmy was surprised afro’s never noticed any racism. ”
I live a life that you can’t even picture. Jimmy wants to believe that I’m persecuted because that’s the way he wants blacks to be treated. In actuality he would totally lose his already small balls in front of me.
The thing is, nobody is rude to me, whether it’s racism or banal obnoxiousness. I’m just the last guy you want to get in trouble with. And of course, if someone was racist with me, first it’d fly over my head, secondly I’d imediatly call a manager and obtain reparations.
Don’t worry about me guys, I’m the most privileged person here.
>best at reading people are often the worst at critical thinking. At least that’s been my observation
If you think this way, you are an open target for exploitation by people who have strong critical faculties in addition to people-reading skills.
Most Truth Wizards don’t simply have miscalibrated theories of mind that allow them to read people but are inhibited deductively, most Truth Wizards are otherwise ordinary in every other respect and we should expect a normal distribution for critical faculties.
In other words, most Truth Wizards are ordinary people, and like an ordinary group of people they’re as likely to have strong critical and deductive faculties as any other at the extremes of their curve. But they all have the unique advantage of being able to read you like an open book.
In other words, most Truth Wizards are ordinary people, and like an ordinary group of people they’re as likely to have strong critical and deductive faculties as any other at the extremes of their curve. But they all have the unique advantage of being able to read you like an open book.
But if autism and schizophrenia are at opposite ends of at least some continuums, then I’d expect rational systematic thinking and people reading to be negatively correlated once you controlled for overall IQ or g. I think this explains why so many charismatic leaders have nutty ideas, including the founders of the great religions.
I’d go so far as to say, that it’s a testament to the power of Truth Wizardry that even the least critical can survive and maneuver their way into success, their intuition is just that sharp.
So right out on the right end of the bell curve, well, there be dragons.
>But if autism and schizophrenia
It’s mistaken to assume that Truth Wizardry is a component of schizoid personality type, in fact I’m wary of all claims of any kind of intuition being a property of schizoid personalities, both Schizoid and Autistic personalities are cognitive inhibitions and therefore inhibitions/miscalibrations to/of “Intuition”, itself a form of cognitive functioning unless you believe in magic.
Truth Wizards, based on all the research that’s been done so far to my knowledge, are otherwise normal and simply have a key advantage over ordinary people. I would go so far as to say that in an optimal mind, Truth Wizardry would have to be a component.
Unless you still reject the theory that autism and schizophrenia are at opposite ends of a continuum, it would seem that truth wizards, who sound extremely non-autistic, would thus be somewhat schizophrenic, though not schizophrenic enough to be diagnosed with anything, just as many scientists and engineers have certain autistic traits, but not enough to be considered autistic (though they have higher rates of autistic kids, and truth wizards might have higher rates of schizophrenic kids)
Of course Mug of Pee rejects the continuum theory, and views autism and schizophrenia as just binary diseases, rather than extremes of normal variation.
I don’t accept the extremely weak definition of schizophrenia you’re using, whereby being able to read emotions well is “More schizophrenic”
Because Schizophrenia in a well-defined traits is a condition whereby the individuals with it are inhibited from accurately seeing reality in a number of ways.
I don’t necessarily disagree that there is a continuum wherein having stronger ability to recognize social cues is “More schizophrenic” than autism, but being able to accurately recognize social cues suggests an extremely well-calibrated theory of mind rather than one that is miscalibrated such that they are inhibited as is the case in a schizoid personality.
Hell, by your definition a neurotypical is “More schizophrenic” than an Autistic, which is fine, but you’re not using schizophrenia in the well-defined sense that it’s intended to be used in but as a synonym for “Theory of mind more prone to percieving conscious intent”
I think it’s most accurate to say that Truth Wizards are dead-centre neurotypical, and can accurately percieve intent more than anybody else.
The theory is that autistics under-infer mental states and fail to see intention where intention exists, while schizophrenics over-infer mental states, seeing intention even when it’s not there (hence conspiracy theories, belief in religion, ghosts etc). So perhaps a dash of schizophrenia makes you a truth wizard but too much makes you socially inept. Analogously, a dash of autistm makes you a good scientist, but too much makes you scientifically inept.
To put it extremely briefly: Truth Wizards are at a neurotypical middle that confers no disadvantages.
They aren’t miscalibrated in the direction Autists or Schizophrenics are, they simply have all the tools they need to accurately percieve reality.
Autism and schizophrenia aren’t personality traits, they are diseases. There is no such thing as being sane but leaning toward either of the two. You have them or you don’t.
You should educate yourself a bit on the symptoms and see how complex they are.
Didn’t say they were personality traits but some very reputable scientists believe they are opposite ends of a continuum.
Crespi: evolutionary biology
Badcock: sociology
No psychiatrist nor neuroscientist, no chair at prestigious colleges nor prestigious distinctions.
What is your definition of very reputable ?
>So perhaps a dash of schizophrenia makes you a truth wizard but too much makes you socially inept. Analogously, a dash of autistm makes you a good scientist, but too much makes you scientifically inept.
Or alternatively, Autism and Schizophrenia are both inhibitions and undesireable conditions.
I mean you’re technically right, but this idea that being neurotypical is enough dashes of schizophrenia or autism to actually function properly is some weird language. It’s more like you miscalibrate socially in one direction or the other and you get a condition which makes you worse at recognizing reality well.
I mean you’re technically right, but this idea that being neurotypical is enough dashes of schizophrenia or autism to actually function properly is some weird language
I’m wording it that way for a specific reason: part of my theory for why so many of the most charismatic humans in history had nutty beliefs.
I get you, and we can have that discussion, but it’s not as useful when discussing Truth Wizards and neurotypicals.
Someone who is not Schizophrenic or Autistic is not automatically “A dash of both”, they’re simply not impaired in either cognitive-psychological direction.
And yeah, many schizophrenics, despite their inhibitions are highly able and thanks to low impulse control creating assertive personalities tend to propel themselves into certain leadership positions. Discussion for another day.
Chippy
” I saw, I’m a model. ”
its called Tokenism
Its so sad that little chippy has no idea how racist the fashion industry is
I really do pity him
Its like seeing kids making funny faces at a blind man
” I just know you’re lying, you wanted to pretend you are rich ”
Well there is only one way to settle the matter
Lets compare bank balances
£100k to the one with the largest bank balance
http://betyou.ie/
“Its so sad that little chippy has no idea how racist the fashion industry is”
Lol, don’t even try to talk like you know what fashion is, let alone the industry. Actually blacks are very sought after because we have optimal morphology, awesome exotic and sensual traits and we can wear any color. But this you don’t know, like you don’t know anything you talk about.
You’re such a try-hard. I won’t compare bank accounts with a random pathological liar on the internet.
I have enough clues, your mindset would embarrass everybody at an elite meeting, your ignorance is only understandable in a teen, your sub-par English is barely that of a native, let alone an educated and sophisticated one and the way you manage your pretended wealth is worse than some ghetto trash winning the lottery.
Save the £100k for your rent. Playing with money like life is a casino is completely vulgar and another proof of your unsophisticated upbringing.
” blacks are very sought after because we have optimal morphology, awesome exotic and sensual traits and we can wear any color ” ,
lol chippy has got to be the gayest african i have ever encountered.
” I won’t compare bank accounts”
all talk no action
so sad
“lol chippy has got to be the gayest african i have ever encountered. ”
Yes, fine, why don’t you talk more about the fashion industry ? You’re talking to a model so defend your claims.
“all talk no action
so sad”
You’re taking it way too personally for a sane person who has nothing to prove.
“You’re talking to a model ”
who are you kidding Chippy?
The worst form of lying is lying to ones self .
Lets just say that i have a pretty good idea of what you look like.
Not only do you not look french but you don’t even look human.
When i first saw you i thought it was a racist caricature of an african but when i looked closer i realized that it was a real person.
If you were a model then you are the definition of tokenism
Caricature of an African… with slanted eyes ! I’ve seen more stereotypical. LOL, I understand jealousy but you take it to a whole new level.
Caricature of an African… with slanted eyes
Sadly you have the worst of both worlds
small eyes and a huge gorilla nose
The gorilla nose is so prominent that i thought it was a racist caricature
I was truly shocked to find out that it was a real person.
Gorillas have no nose.
Why didn’t you tell me you were a model too ?
If India is to be rich, it must institute a one child policy like China.
China is successful not because it copies the West as much as it limits the carrying load illiterate peasants.
Many neoliberal models assume 1 new indian is one new customer, not one new problem.
You have to get to a certain eugenic steady state before marginal reproduction become net positive. I don’t even think China has got there.
Think about how overpopulation causes slums, disease, famine, war, corruption and dysgenics…..the one child policy runs the Fordist Compromise a tied equal in great public policy.
You could even make a plutocratic neolib argument that overpopulation causes more socialism….but then I think redistribution makes sense to a point.
Why don’t you simply create a formula that you these factors + cold winter and pop size ?
Why don’t you simply create a formula WITH* these factors + cold winter and pop size ?
Because almost all the between group variance can be explained by splitting off dates & whether a race neighboured dark caucasoids. Further, i don’t know of any data sets on ancient population size by race.
” Further, i don’t know of any data sets on ancient population size by race.”
Wonder why…
Adding cold winter to it couldn’t make the formula more precise ?
Adding cold winters doesn’t much improve precision because cold winters are so correlated with splitting off dates (younger populations tend to be colder populations) so it provides little INDEPENDENT information. I just felt it was redundant and would detract from simplicity. I could be wrong.
“Genetic IQ = 89.8266 – 0.000103591 (splitting off date) + 16.4043”
Why these particular numbers ?
And you know there is no such thing as splitting off, there are only populations whose members share a common ancestor, doesn’t mean there was complete genetic isolation. And of course, you know the dates are very uncertain. Nothing solid enough to make such claims, unless you’re just doing numerology.
Furthermore, how do you define small population size ?
There is no “genetic IQ” that you can measure with a genetic IQ test.
What specific markers do dark Caucasoids have ?
You know Africans neighbored middle easterners before the Sahara turned into a desert.
And so on…
Further, “races” are not breeding populations, Manchuria has low population density, Guangdong has a very high population density. There is no East Asian population size that would give people of Guangdong and Manchuria the same “genetic IQ”.
I’m serious about this formula: What actual and empirical reality is it based on ?
I’m serious about this formula: What actual and empirical reality is it based on ?
I explain that in the article. I summarize the very rough splitting off dates, dark Caucasoid neighboring and estimated genetic IQ in a table, and the formula was based on predicting the last variable from the first two.
No, tell me the meaning of each number, addition, multiplication and subtraction. Like why do you start with 89 and add 16 at the end.
Why these particular numbers ?
Because those are the numbers that minimize the error in the formula’s prediction.
And you know there is no such thing as splitting off, there are only populations whose members share a common ancestor, doesn’t mean there was complete genetic isolation.
There had to be some genetic isolation or we wouldn’t be able to make distinctions between races.
And of course, you know the dates are very uncertain. Nothing solid enough to make such claims, unless you’re just doing numerology.
Lots of science is based on extremely uncertain data Afro. It’s not all based on data with 99.9% certainty like you think.
Furthermore, how do you define small population size ?
I don’t need to since population size was not used as a variable in my formula. That was Lynn’s model.
There is no “genetic IQ” that you can measure with a genetic IQ test.
No it’s a theoretical concept.
What specific markers do dark Caucasoids have ?
Don’t know. The science is very much in its infancy. All I know is that for whatever reasons, races that have historically neighboured dark Caucasoids score higher on IQ tests today on average than races who didn’t.
You know Africans neighbored middle easterners before the Sahara turned into a desert.
I credited Congoids with neighboring dark Caucasoids.
“Because those are the numbers that minimize the error in the formula’s prediction.”
In other words, you arbitrarily chose numbers that validate your point although they reflect no empirical data. Numerology.
“There had to be some genetic isolation or we wouldn’t be able to make distinctions between races.”
There were bottlenecks and barriers to gene flow but nothing akin to sub-speciation. Moreover, population genetics and race are two different things. Climate has changed over time, temperatures were much colder than today for most of homo sapiens evolution, the “races” are recent adaptations to holocene environments.
“Lots of science is based on extremely uncertain data Afro. It’s not all based on data with 99.9% certainty like you think.”
No, not that much in the hard sciences. And if the numbers are uncertain, scientists use them carefully instead of using them for formulas that come from nowhere.
“I don’t need to since population size was not used as a variable in my formula. That was Lynn’s model.”
So you don’t agree with Lynn’s pop size argument, and of course, you make similar objections to me like “what is a small population ?” or “whole races ain’t breeding pops”.
“No it’s a theoretical concept.”
Nothing empirical again. You just basically add, subtract and multiply numbers that you chose arbitrarily or that are very uncertain in order to estimate a variable that’s just a theoretical concept without empirical reality. Tell me who are you trying to fool…
“Don’t know. The science is very much in its infancy. ”
No, there is no science of middle eastern genetics and the evolution of intelligence at all. And there is no recent field in HBD, it has been stagnating from the very start because it is total trash.
What’s actual science is what you disagree with, like the irrelevance of race in genetics or phylogenic trees based on neutral or unknown effect genetic variation.
” All I know is that for whatever reasons, races that have historically neighboured dark Caucasoids score higher on IQ tests today on average than races who didn’t.”
Ok, so you acknowledge Africans are smarter than Native Americans. And can you explain how much “dark caucasoids” benefit from the neighbor effect they provoke in others ? Who are the “dark caucasoids” to begin with ? And why do you separate them from Europeans ?
Afro I’ll respond tommorow. Only have time for very brief replies today.
Trying to test your formula to estimate “congoid genetic IQ” based on actual phylogenetic trees using mtDNA and Y chromosome haplogroups instead of the 225ky splitting date that you used and for which I couldn’t find justification.
So, per Y chromosome, Black Africans overwhelmingly belong to the E-P177 which is thought to be 40,000yo.
So based on this one, Congoids have a “genetic IQ” of 102.
Using mtDNA, black Africans mostly belong to the L2 haplogroups whose earliest date is estimated to be 111ky BP. With this one, “the genetic IQ” I get for blacks is 95.
So that’s what your formula gives, an estimated range of 95 to 102 as the “genetic IQ” of black Africans, average = 98.5. Your splitting off date gave an IQ of 83 but I couldn’t find a source that legitimizes it.
So that’s what your formula gives, an estimated range of 95 to 102 as the “genetic IQ” of black Africans, average = 98.5. Your splitting off date gave an IQ of 83 but I couldn’t find a source that legitimizes it.
The numbers I used were mostly based on the migration map I displayed in the article, but that map could be obsolete. The numbers you found might be more accurate. Nonetheless applying dates obtained from one source to a formula based on dates from another source can be misleading. A new formula would need to be created based on your dates.
“A new formula would need to be created based on your dates.”
No, that’s just anti-science. You don’t change the method because you don’t like the results.
No, that’s just anti-science. You don’t change the method because you don’t like the results.
No, but if your data is wrong, you must change how you mathematically describe the relationship. Like if you had a formula to describe the relationship between height and weight, and your height data proved to be improperly measured, you would change the formula to reflect better data.
Well, you make sure your data is to begin with.
Then, you do not describe something mathematically if you have not empirically ascertained the causal links between different variables.
If the relationship is based on inaccurate data, it is just an accidental statistical artifact that you won’t be able to find again with actual data.
You just don’t create formulas unless you have demonstrated actual causality.
You just don’t create formulas unless you have demonstrated actual causality.
A formula can be useful in showing a pattern, but I agree it doesn’t prove causation. There might even be a non-genetic explanation for the pattern.
There is no pattern.
Also, do you understand that the migration routes aren’t a phylogenetic tree, the dates you used are dates of estimated first settlement of an area. But on a genetic level, current day populations aren’t necessarily the descendant of their area’s first settlers. And “race” is not even a relevant variable in the paleolithic.
Human genetic variation can’t be rendered as a tree anyway, a cloud with overlapping frequencies of alleles would be more accurate.
Also, do you understand that the migration routes aren’t a phylogenetic tree, the dates you used are dates of estimated first settlement of an area. But on a genetic level, current day populations aren’t necessarily the descendant of their area’s first settlers. And “race” is not even a relevant variable in the paleolithic.
But migration routes and evolutionary trees are crude proxies for one another. For example, in his book The Great Human Diasporas (pg 113-114), the preeminent population geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza writes about the pioneering 1962 tree that he created with Anthony Edwards based on five blood group systems in 15 populations (3 per continent):
Anthony and I were naturally rather satisfied with this first effort. By plotting our tree on a geographic world map, we seemed to obtain an idea, albeit approximate, of the routes taken by modern humans in their expansion. We now had reason to believe that it really was possible to trace the history of living populations using a mathematical method. We were winning our bet, but we knew that this was only a first step. We still had a long way to go.
The forks in the tree in figure 5.2 can be expected to correspond in historical terms to the separation between two peoples: to the moment, that is, when a group broke off and moved far enough away to severely reduce or interrupt all contact with the parent population. If the reconstruction worked, the sequence of branches should have corresponded to that of the splits, and if we were lucky, the position and length of the branches would correspond to the time in which the splits occurred.
We had to wait until a later stage, when we would have much more solid data, before accepting our conclusions in detail.
Cavalli-Sforza’s tree is a tree of genetic relatedness due to migrations, not a tree of “evolutionary progress”.
Moreover, no individual has an older genome than another, ancestral lineages are identified by markers that appeared at different times but the genes of phenotype as well as ethnically non-informative markers
Anyway, why didn’t you just use Sforza’s tree for your formula ?
Cavalli-Sforza’s tree is a tree of genetic relatedness due to migrations, not a tree of “evolutionary progress”.
My point is that it’s a proxy for migration sequences.
Anyway, why didn’t you just use Sforza’s tree for your formula ?
Because I’ve done that in an earlier article and because I was hoping to extrapolate to Neanderthals who Cavalli-Sforza could not include
“but the genes of phenotype as well as ethnically non-informative markers”
but the genes of phenotype as well as ethnically non-informative markers appeared at times unrelated to migration.
This is from my pal Scott Jameson.
His explanations on Neanderthals and Jews don’t really work. Neanderthals were roughly as intelligent as the first humans, judged by their fossil cultures. And Jews evolved their intelligence in Europe; further, Jews may have themselves had a small population, but they had genetic inflow from two different large populations with greater genetic variation (Canaanite and European)
Also if this were true then Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals would be smarter than Chinese!
It doesn’t work
His explanations on Neanderthals and Jews don’t really work. Neanderthals were roughly as intelligent as the first humans, judged by their fossil cultures.
Yes but if you look at what Neanderthals accomplished in 300,000 years vs what our species accomplished in 2/3rds that time, we appear to be more intelligent.
And Jews evolved their intelligence in Europe; further, Jews may have themselves had a small population, but they had genetic inflow from two different large populations with greater genetic variation (Canaanite and European)
This is a good point, but I didn’t use Lynn’s population size argument when creating my formula partly because issues like this make it so hard to operationalize.
Also if this were true then Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals would be smarter than Chinese!
Not sure what he’s referring to here.
So I log into youtube and found a commenter correcting me saying the “racism is a made up word invented by Leon Trotsky, a jew”.
Hahahahahahahahaha.
I felt like John the Baptist crying in the wilderness for over a year. And now it’s finally breaking through.
As I said, Bloomberg shut down its online youtube presence.
Keep the faith Jimmy, we are going to turn this ship around and unmask the (((Wizard))) behind the curtain.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/donald-trump-french-election-marie-le-pen-prediction-outside-distractions-a7664591.html
Notice the way the German, French and America ‘authorities’ have converged on the Russia ‘hacking’ nonsense line to stop the patriot nationalists from winning elections. Assange has already said Russia wasn’t the source of the hillary emails, but they say it anyway.
Can you not see it now goyim?
We have been ruled by Zion all along. The mask is slipping. It’s almost visible why we’ve had open borders, magic negro worship television and so on.
Its a liquidation movement.
Now back to my holiday before I throw another laptop at the wall.
i almost forgot.
langan said stupid people don’t know they’re stupid.
this may sound like a joke. it may sound meaningless. but it’s deadly serious.
i would add pushy strivers don’t know they’re pushy strivers.
sad!
always negate. always. never be satisfied with the status quo. practice kaizen in your own weltanschauung. or rot. jimmy is now fallen, onto the orchard floor. not even the rats will eat him.
sad!
the power of the negative.
the way of despair.
when faced with an antinomy the resolution is that both legs are false.
except one thing…deutschland uber alles!
https://i2.wp.com/www.brainpickings.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/hegel.jpg?w=680&ssl=1
the germans are the true heirs of the greeks. not the french or the italians or the greeks. greek the language is not germanic or romance. it’s sui generis among the indo-european languages like albanian.
the leader of the free world is now a PhD in chemistry…

the british and their diaspora had their day in the sun. it’s over.
the roman empire became the holy roman empire became germany…given its population density and natural resources the most economically successful country in the developed world after ww ii.
with brexit the brits said, “we fought two wars against the jerries. we won. and now they rule us. no more!”
they should’ve said, “now the jerries rule us. maybe we should have lost those two wars.”
the british “success” is like the american. born on third base and think they’ve hit a triple.
why didn’t germany conquer the new world?
why didn’t italy.
what do spain, portugal, france, and britain have in common?
geography.
i guess the irish have no excuse.
but the italians and the germans and the swedes have lots of excuse.
why doesn’t brazil speak swedish?
think about it fucktards.
the leader of the free world is now a PhD in chemistry…
I didn’t know Oprah had a STEM degree 🙂
Oprah can’t cut STEM.
Oprah has an extremely high OVERALL IQ, but her math and spatial IQ are mediocre so she wouldn’t be good in STEM I agree.
Math smarts is related to spatial intelligence. I’ll get a source later.
But the ‘British’ themselves are a kind of mongrel nation being quite germanic in nature. Hitler made the same point, as I believe Joseph Chamberlain (just to be clear, not the ‘infamous appeaser’ Neville Chamberlain).
Niall Ferguson quotes Chamberlain making a speech about how Germany and the UK are destined to rule the world together as Germanic brothers.
But Britain is heavily infused with Viking and Celtic ethnicity as well.
It would perhaps make sense to review Charles Murray’s study in terms of sub groups – Germanics, Meds, Meso-Americans, Slavics etc, rather than ‘nation states’ which are a relatively recent phenomenon, even if the nation existed beforehand.
the GOP support among rich families has two, at least two, motivations…
1. it’s not that rich kids want to spend their parents’ fortunes on crap. they just don’t want to give it away to be spent by other people…on crap.
2. it’s not that rich kids want to spend their parents’ fortunes on crap. they just don’t want to give it away to be spent by other people…on crap.
if the choice is giving your money away to whatever or giving it to the government to give away…
if i were a girl…
if i were a walton…
this is a problem with the system.
this is like johnnie keyes Behind the Green Door.
it’s not an individual problem.
anyway i wanna be sedated.
funny…
Richard Pacheco claimed he had a choice. rabbi or porn. the yeshiva required he learn aramaic. he chose porn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pacheco
fucking jews!
i wanna be sedated.
yet more jews!
sad!
except one thing…deutschland uber alles!

via negativa.
i wanna be sedated!
Brazil’s goalkeeper was on caipirinha or something, how else could one let 7 goals through ?
it’s sad how the romans don’t know what’s happening to them.
or…
1. the smart romans know and know it is what should have happened from 1914 to today.
2. the dumb romans…they can’t know anything any more than jenna jameson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXnZBfZcBEo
sad!
i wanna be sedated.
Good post. Nice to see you taking other ideas into consideration. A pretty original one at that. Though you should post more links to your sources.
“who evolved in the Middle East and expanded to South Asia and Northern Africa, score significantly lower on IQ tests than races who do (on average)”
Examples?
“so perhaps leaving the ancestral environment stimulates brain evolution.”
How do you know it’s not just differing selection pressures? I mean in some aspect yes you’ve identified a pattern but not really any causation. You’re just applying the statistic inevitability of encephalization on a racial scale.
“It seems that for whatever reason, races that evolved in regions that were colonized late in Earth’s history, have higher IQs than races that evolved in regions that were colonized early.”
Well Europeans technically diverged from East asians.
“Genetic IQ = 89.8266 – 0.000103591 (splitting off date) + 16.4043 (neighbouring dark Caucasoid)”
I’m with Afro, it seems like circular logic. I know you think neanderthals having an IQ of 58 fits your theory nice, but IQ tests might not even be applicable to hunter gatherer populations. Bushman could be more intelligent than you think.
Good post. Nice to see you taking other ideas into consideration. A pretty original one at that.
Thank you!
Examples?
Well the only extremely comprehensive study of race differences in IQ was Lynn (2006) and sadly, his numbers are extremely controversial. Nonetheless, I did my best to correct for international differences in environment and found the following genetic IQs for races that border the dark Caucasoid regions (South Asia, West Asia, North Africa): Ashkenazi Jews 110, East Asians 105, Whites 100, Southeast Asians 95, dark Caucasoids 90, Congoids 85.
The races that did not border a dark Caucasoid region had the following genetic IQs: Arctic people 95, Native Americans 90, Pacific Islanders 90, Australoids 70, Capoids 70
So the first group averages a genetic IQ of 98 while the second group averages a genetic IQ of 83. A 15 point difference! My theory is that the Middle East is in the Middle of several races (hence the term MIDDLE East :-)) and thus was a place where many genes and cultures were exchanged, so new mutations and new selection pressures would gain traction there. Populations that did not border dark Caucasoids may have been locked out of these advances.
How do you know it’s not just differing selection pressures? I mean in some aspect yes you’ve identified a pattern but not really any causation. You’re just applying the statistic inevitability of encephalization on a racial scale.
I’ve identified 2 patterns: proximity to dark Caucasoids and splitting off dates both independently predict a race’s IQ. The causation is open to speculation. You can say differing selection pressures, but why would selection pressures differ as a function of splitting off dates? You seem to imply encephalization is inevitable so newer populations will have bigger brains, which sounds a tiny bit like the evolutionary progress concept I love, but RR hates so much. A less provocative way of describing it is that populations that have been in the same environment for too long tend to stagnate, and new environments create new selection pressures and cause evolutionary change, including changes in IQ.
Well Europeans technically diverged from East asians.
Citation?
I’m with Afro, it seems like circular logic.
I’m merely describing the relationship IQ has with both splitting off dates and dark Caucasoid proximity in mathematical form. Circular logic is when the claim you are trying to prove is the premise said argument rests upon. For example, if I said Capoids have low IQs because they split off early and the proof that they have low IQs is that they split off early, that would be circular because the argument would have no support external to the argument itself. In this case I have external support for my claims (the IQ data collected by Lynn and the splitting off dates cited in the map I included in my article, though if you have better splitting off dates I’d be open to them)
Bushman could be more intelligent than you think
They could be but all we have to go by are Lynn’s data, however flawed or inapplicable it may be. When the quality of the data improves, my formula may have to be substantially revised.
just sad!
“Thank you!”
No problem bud. Sorry for the late replies, I haven’t been home in five days.
“found the following genetic IQs for races that border the dark Caucasoid regions”
“I’ve identified 2 patterns: proximity to dark Caucasoids and splitting off dates both independently predict a race’s IQ.”
Unfortunately, even though You may assume this is an elegant explanation, in reality it isn’t, it’s just vague and macro in application. It can’t explain the micro variation we see between nations and only political and historical influences could. Maybe it can be used as causation for paleolithic discrepancies, but it is indeed analogous to genetic drift which just seems too “random”.
“You seem to imply encephalization is inevitable so newer populations will have bigger brains, which sounds a tiny bit like the evolutionary progress concept I love, but RR hates so much. ”
A little off topic but remember why Intelligence is the “pinnacle” of evolution to begin with? it is short term genetic change, instead of having to wait millions of years to mutate new traits, you can instead adapt your behavior. Well recently I found the Cephalopods(who are quite encephalized to begin with) have the ability to literally change their RNA coding, this is almost equivalent to lamarkism, instead of having to have an enormous intelligence, they can simply change their genetic code within a few generations. If you’re interested here is an article about it. The Ability to change your actual genome is arguably more “progressive than intelligence itself. Your thoughts?
https://m.phys.org/news/2017-04-smart-cephalopods-genome-evolution-prolific.html
“RNA editing is so rare that it’s not considered part of genetics’ “Central Dogma.” “Ever since Watson and Crick figured out that genetic information is stored in DNA, we’ve had this view that all the information is stored in DNA, and it’s faithfully copied to another molecule when it’s used—that’s RNA, and from there, it’s translated into the proteins that do all the work. “And it’s generally assumed that that’s a pretty faithful process,” explains study co-author Joshua Rosenthal, a cephalopod neurobiologist at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, MA. “What the squid RNA is showing is that that’s not always the case—that, in fact, organisms have developed a potent means to manipulate information in RNA.””
“Since many of the most heavily edited RNAs coded for key neural proteins, the researchers wonder whether RNA editing might contribute to the remarkable intelligence of octopuses ”
“Citation?”
“https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3971580/”
“As the Mt A cluster includes roughly as many European individuals as East Asian individuals, it is not clear which of them is ancestral to the other. The node marked with the blue circle in figure 2 suggests that the East Asians are ancestral to the Europeans. The bootstrap value of the node is 99%. Therefore, both male and female lineages suggest that Europeans diverged from within East Asian ancestors or that they interbred with East Asian individuals up to a certain divergence time.”
“Circular logic is when the claim you are trying to prove is the premise said argument rests upon.”
Which is exactly what is wrong with your formula.
No problem bud. Sorry for the late replies, I haven’t been home in five days.
Hopefully you were having fun! And it’s never too late to reply.
Unfortunately, even though You may assume this is an elegant explanation, in reality it isn’t, it’s just vague and macro in application. It can’t explain the micro variation we see between nations and only political and historical influences could.
Well the races I used in my analysis were fairly micro. Anything more mico than that would probably just be sampling error and/or non-genetic explanations.
A little off topic but remember why Intelligence is the “pinnacle” of evolution to begin with? it is short term genetic change, instead of having to wait millions of years to mutate new traits, you can instead adapt your behavior.
Exactly!
Well recently I found the Cephalopods(who are quite encephalized to begin with) have the ability to literally change their RNA coding, this is almost equivalent to lamarkism, instead of having to have an enormous intelligence, they can simply change their genetic code within a few generations. If you’re interested here is an article about it. The Ability to change your actual genome is arguably more “progressive than intelligence itself. Your thoughts?
But don’t forget human intelligence will soon give us the ability to edit our genes countless times within a single generation, so hopefully we still have them beat! 🙂 It would be interesting to see where they place in the phylogenetic tree based on my blasphemous theory that life forms that are descended from more splits are more progressive than those who are descended from less, holding taxonomic level constant.
As the Mt A cluster includes roughly as many European individuals as East Asian individuals, it is not clear which of them is ancestral to the other. The node marked with the blue circle in figure 2 suggests that the East Asians are ancestral to the Europeans. The bootstrap value of the node is 99%. Therefore, both male and female lineages suggest that Europeans diverged from within East Asian ancestors or that they interbred with East Asian individuals up to a certain divergence time.
Thanks for the citation! I’ll take a look.
Which is exactly what is wrong with your formula.
I am merely noticing two correlations and proposing two hypotheses to explain them. I am not merely asserting that recent splitting off dates select for high IQ because that’s what the pattern shows, I am citing a logical reason: what separates intelligence from instinct is the latter allows NOVEL problem solving, and as you agree, allows for rapid adaptation, analogous to Cephalopods, so it makes sense that races that evolved in new environments would require more intelligence.
Similarly, I gave a logical reason for why proximity to dark caucasoids would correlate with IQ. The middle east was in the middle of genetic and cultural flow, so the combination of novel mutations and novel cultural selection pressures would cause higher IQs to evolve.
“Hopefully you were having fun! And it’s never too late to reply.”
Well I’ve been working more frequently, and I would’ve replied sooner but i hate trying to type on my touch screen so i decided to wait til I had access to my laptop.
“Well the races I used in my analysis were fairly micro”
That’s what i mean, I was specifically talking about ethnic groups and nationalities.
“But don’t forget human intelligence will soon give us the ability to edit our genes countless times within a single generation, so hopefully we still have them beat! ”
That is true but, in theory an Octupus could change it’s genetic coding for vastly increased intelligence and simply do the same thing. There are drawbacks, like the inability to successfully create beneficial mutations overtime. It should be noted this is different than neural plasticity(which is what intelligence is) Where neural plasticity allows flexibility with expressed traits, AKA the phenotype, what Cephalopods can do is best described as the ability to change their genotype.
“RNA editing enzymes can only happen to base pairs that are surrounded by a large RNA superstructure. If the bases on either side of the editing target mutate, then the organism may lose the ability to edit that target. Avid RNA recoders, like octopuses and squid, cannot afford DNA mutations in their RNA-editable genes, so they’ve surrendered the benefits of a frequently mutating DNA genome in favor of RNA editing, the researchers found.”
The more I develop this weird interest in Squid and Octupi, the more I realize how much potential they have.
“It would be interesting to see where they place in the phylogenetic tree based on my blasphemous theory that life forms that are descended from more splits are more progressive than those who are descended from less, holding taxonomic level constant.”
Well curiously, Cephalopods are one of the very very very few set of organims that can edit their RNA, so they don’t skew the phylogenetic tree that much. Those bastards make biological categorization even more subjective than it already is
“allows NOVEL problem solving, ”
I honestly don’t agree that novelty is necessary for the concept of intelligence. Too specific.
“Similarly, I gave a logical reason for why proximity to dark caucasoids would correlate with IQ. The middle east was in the middle of genetic and cultural flow, so the combination of novel mutations and novel cultural selection pressures would cause higher IQs to evolve.”
What my point was: is that it doesn’t actually prove your mathematical formula by applying it to measure neanderthal intelligence, it would actually be better to exclude a race, then see if the new formula predicts that race’s already tested IQ.
Genetic Drift is just too weak to have any explanatory power, cultural flow and dates of divergence are far better proxies. Jews are not a result of specific geneflow(though they are “hybrids”) but instead selection pressure for increase intelligence. Kick out geneflow/genetic drift and you got yourself a deal. However, divergence dates don’t always accompany major physical change which is something you have argued for.
“I’m merely describing the relationship IQ has with both splitting off dates and dark Caucasoid proximity in mathematical form.”
No, you’re doing numerology. I’m asking you again: what empirical reality does each number describe and what is the factual logic of each addition, multiplication and subtraction ? Why “neighboring dark caucasoids” equals 1 instead of 2, 10 or 100. And why adding 16 and not 17 or 160 ? Or why starting with 89 and subtracting 0.000 something and not subtracting 100 x splitting off date ?
I need a pedagogical explanation for this formula, a one in which each number and calculation empirically makes sense.
No, you’re doing numerology.
Why are you being insulting?
I’m asking you again: what empirical reality does each number describe and what is the factual logic of each addition, multiplication and subtraction ? Why “neighboring dark caucasoids” equals 1 instead of 2, 10 or 100.
In order to enter it as a variable in a formula, you have to score it in some way, right? 0 and 1 were the simplest choice, but you could score it 0 vs 10, or 0 vs 100 or 679.897 vs 9999999999999.98799999. That choice is arbitrary, but simple numbers are easier to work with.
And why adding 16 and not 17 or 160 ? Or why starting with 89 and subtracting 0.000 something and not subtracting 100 x splitting off date ?
Think of the IQs of the 11 races as dots about a plane of best fit in 3-dimensional space:
Such a plane has 2 partial slopes: one that shows the IQ increase related to splitting off date (holding dark Caucasoid neighbours constant), and the other showing the IQ increase related to dark Caucasoid neighbors (holding splitting off dates constant)
So in my formula:
Genetic IQ = 89.8266 – 0.000103591 (splitting off date) + 16.4043 (neighbouring dark Caucasoid)
The 89.8266 represents the average IQ of the races when both splitting off dates and neighbouring Caucasoids are set at zero. It’s the point where the plane intercepts the Y axis that IQ has been placed on.
The 0.000103591 and the 16.4043 are simply the partial slopes scaled to the size of the data.
The plane is fitted in such a way as to minimize the distance between itself and all of the dots (IQs of the 11 races), hence the term plane of best fit
“Why are you being insulting?”
Please, don’t talk to me about insults. I’m just objective anyway, your statistical abstractions without empirical basis qualify as numerology.
“0 and 1 were the simplest choice, but you could score it 0 vs 10, or 0 vs 100 or 679.897 vs 9999999999999.98799999. That choice is arbitrary, but simple numbers are easier to work with.”
Uh no, if you change + 16 x 1 by 16 x 10, neighboring “dark Caucasoids” adds 160 IQ points instead of 16. So your arbitrary choice has consequences.
“Think of the IQs of the 11 races as dots about a plane of best fit in 3-dimensional space:”
There is no such thing as 11 races with an empirically demonstrated genetic IQ.
“The 89.8266 represents the average IQ of the races when both splitting off dates and neighbouring Caucasoids are set at zero. It’s the point where the plane intercepts the Y axis that IQ has been placed on.
The 0.000103591 and the 16.4043 are simply the partial slopes scaled to the size of the data.
The plane is fitted in such a way as to minimize the distance between itself and all of the dots (IQs of the 11 races), hence the term plane of best fit”
Baseless statistical abstraction. You showed me nothing that could be backed by archaeology or genetics.
PS: your stats do not impress me. Numerology.
Please, don’t talk to me about insults. I’m just objective anyway, your statistical abstractions without empirical basis qualify as numerology.
But they do have an empirical basis: Lynn’s IQ data and the migration map.
Uh no, if you change + 16 x 1 by 16 x 10, neighboring “dark Caucasoids” adds 160 IQ points instead of 16. So your arbitrary choice has consequences.
LOL! If I increased the scaling for that variable ten-fold, the constants in the formula would adjust so the resulting IQ prediction would remain exactly the same.
PS: your stats do not impress me. Numerology.
Why so much hostility? Lots of people don’t impress me, but I’m polite enough not to tell them. You’re displaying fiercely bad manners Afro!
“She’s an early MODERN human. Technically modern humans are hominins but they’re referring to pre-AMH.”
Still, there was substantial reduction in craniofacial morphology from that time frame to us. And, again, true or false. Most of the facial phenotype is soft tissue?
“Where?”
First off, the term facial approximation is a better term than reconstruction. But approximation isn’t used because it implies there is error. Eve is an earlier hominin, technically. I know she’s a AMH, but, as I’ve shown a few weeks ago, there was substantial craniofacial reduction in the time period that Eve is said to have lived.
And there was no damn soft tissue to infer her facial phenotype. So it’s artistic subjectivity. Further, they’re right by chance and get most of the face “right” because they know where the musculature is on certain sized skulls.
Building Faces from Dry Skulls: Are They Recognized Above Chance Rates?
Only one facial approximation resulted in true positive identification rates above chance at statistically significant levels. It is concluded that it is rare for facial approximations to be sufficiently accurate to allow identification of a target individual above chance. Since 403 incorrect identifications were made out of 592 identification scenarios, facial approximation should be considered to be a highly inaccurate and unreliable forensic technique. These results suggest that facial approximations are not very useful in excluding individuals to whom skeletal remains may not belong.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11965323_Building_Faces_from_Dry_Skulls_Are_They_Recognized_Above_Chance_Rates
K.
RR, if nothing I’ve said so far has convinced you, nothing I can say in the future will convince you either.
I’ve cited 3 studies showing the technique works. You cited one study showing it doesn’t along with a scientist speculating about pre-humans which Eve was not, even though she wasn’t exactly the same as people today.
Facial reconstruction is not 100% accurate, no one claimed it was, but it remains the best most scientific guess we have of what early modern humans looked like.
Let’s just saves ourselves some time and agree to disagree on this point.
“RR, if nothing I’ve said so far has convinced you, nothing I can say in the future will convince you either.”
I can say the same to you in literally almost every topic we’ve discussed.
“I’ve cited 3 studies showing the technique works. You cited one study showing it doesn’t along with a scientist speculating about pre-humans which Eve was not, even though she wasn’t exactly the same as people today.”
It’s not speculation. Soft and hard tissue data is nonexistent for ancient hominin. Fact. You showed me three studies showing it worked on live faces. We’re talking bout inferring how one looked 200kya. Again, our craniofacial morphology has reduced since then. Soooo what’s that tell you?
“Facial reconstruction is not 100% accurate, no one claimed it was, but it remains the best most scientific guess we have of what early modern humans looked like.”
Read fallacy 3 in Stephan (2003).
What type of soft tissue was there on her face, PP? That’s an important question. If there was no soft tissue, then the facial “reconstruction” of “Eve” is completely subjective to the artist who did it. Therefore, that’s most likely not what she looked like.
The best we can say is “yea, she may have looked like that.” OK? And? It’s ridiculous to put so much stock into facial “reconstruction”.
“Let’s just saves ourselves some time and agree to disagree on this point.”
Why don’t we do this for everything we’ve ever discussed and not discuss anything anymore with each other?
That’s no fun though. I come here for discussion, it the childishness of most of your commenters.
That’s no fun though. I come here for discussion
That’s fine but once we’ve exhausted all our arguments, we just start arguing in circles and the conversation stops being educational.
And can you please define “ancestral environment” and how much “races” evolved in different in different environments from it ?
You know that East Africa had a completelly different environment from today when humans appeared some 200ky ago ?
You know that East Africa had a completelly different environment from today when humans appeared some 200ky ago ?
And yet, scientific reconstruction of early modern humans consistently show them to look like modern Africans:
Y chromosome Adam, though to be the father of all living humans:
Mitochondrial Eve, thought to be the mother of all living humans:
Now I realize reconstructions can be inaccurate, but they reflect what scientists think about the ancestral environment
No, reconstruction is trash, you can’t reconstitute soft tissues. They had dark skin, it’s almost certain because there is genetic evidence and UV light remains the same regardless of climate change. But the rest is baseless speculation.
Afro many bright & talented people have devoted their lives to forensic reconstruction & it has solved many crimes.
Dismissing it as trash is very arrogant & very cruel:
Because you were adopted into extreme privelige, you have a huge sense of entitlement & have not learned to be respectful of other opinions.
This blog has been the greatest lesson of your life.
“Now I realize reconstructions can be inaccurate, but they reflect what scientists think about the ancestral environment”
Useless. Look at the post I put from Razib, Our magnificent Bastard Race. The phenotypes we racially code are recent, you know this.
The white race is recent, but that doesn’t mean the macro-races are.
Scholarly source please. I’ll get you mine thus afternoon.
I could be wrong RR, but in my next article I’m going to try to summarize evidence that the Negroid race is very old, but it depends how you define Negroid. A lot of people say negroid when they really just mean a specific type of Negroid (West Africans).
Would you say 200k yo?
And you know that lips can’t be reconstructed.
Fallacy 1: We can predict facial soft tissues from the skull, creating faces that are correctly recognizable
Fallacy 2: Faces are reconstructed from skulls
Fallacy 3: Facial approximation is creditable because it is partly science
Fallacy 4: We know facial “reconstruction” works (i.e., generates recognitions from the constructed faces) because it has been successful in forensic cases
Click to access 10.1016%40s1355-0306%2803%2971776-6.pdf
Sorry buddy.
RR if its such crAp how can it solve crimes?
This study supports it
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01971.x/full
RR
Please educate yourself about facial reconstructions
Here’s excellent research:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12024-006-0007-9
By the way, fallacy 4 should be bolded. =^)
Fallacy 4: We know facial “reconstruction” works (i.e., generates recognitions from the constructed faces) because it has been successful in forensic cases
It’s so damn easy to tell how people never read what they’re provided. Actually read the paper I provided you, because it brings up your exact contention. Continue asserting something even when shown you’re wrong. Typical.
I can’t access your paper from where i am right now, but clearly facial reconstruction works.
But if you need proof see here:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12024-006-0007-9
I’ve read the abstracts you’re providing. Not doing anything for me. The paper I provided brings up the contentions.
Apologies for assuming.
Here’s a paper showing that even using 1960s technology facial reconstruction worked much better than chance
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330330207/full
No’one knows for sure how thick his lips were (soft tissue).
You can cite every single paper ever shown to show that it works, I’m not buying it. You’ve not read the criticisms in the paper to see why facial reconstruction is garbage.
You can cite every single paper ever shown to show that it works, I’m not buying it
LOL! You’re worse than a creationist! The bible Says evolution false so no amount studies can show it’s true
I’ll wait until you read the paper. Then you can take back what you said to me.
I’ll wait until you read the paper. Then you can take back what you said to me.
I’ve now looked at the paper and you can take back what you said about facial reconstruction.
Your paper states the following in its summary:
Despite being practised for over the last 200 years, facial approximation methods remain in their infancy as the soft tissue prediction methods employed have not been tested and justified.
This statement is not true. It wasn’t really true at the time the paper was written and it’s especially not true today, with huge advances in computer based facial reconstruction and MRI in-vivo skulls reconstructed by 3-D printers allowing the skulls of living people to be interpreted by forensic artists with astonishingly accurate results:
I have cite, not one, not two, but THREE STUDIES where it’s predictions have been tested and justified.
Study #1:
Photographs of two reconstructions produced in this laboratory were shown to FAA employees and local policemen who were asked to select the subject’s in vivo photograph when included with those of six other randomly-selected individuals of the same sex, race, and general age. While in both tests the reconstruction subject was chosen with significantly greater frequency than the controls, the results ranged from 26% correct (N = 104) on the first subject, a 67-year-old female, to 67% correct (N = 200) on the second, a 36-year-old male. In both tests policemen and civilian females performed better than civilian males.
Study #2:
Three-dimensional models of the skulls of two white North American adults (one male, one female) were imported into the computer system. Facial reconstructions were produced by two practitioners following the Manchester method. Two posters were produced, each including a face pool of five surface model images and the facial reconstruction. The face pool related to the sex, age, and ethnic group of the target individual and included the surface model image of the target individual. Fifty-two volunteers were asked to choose the face from the face pool that most resembled each reconstruction. Both reconstructions received majority percentage hit rates that were at least 50% greater than any other face in the pool. The combined percentage hit rate was 50% above chance (70%). A quantitative comparison of the facial morphology between the facial reconstructions and the CT scan models of the subjects was carried out using Rapidform™ 2004 PP2-RF4. The majority of the surfaces of the facial reconstructions showed less than 2.5 mm error and 90% of the male face and 75% of the female face showed less than 5 mm error. Many of the differences between the facial reconstructions and the facial scans were probably the result of positional effects caused during the CT scanning procedure, especially on the female subject who had a fatter face than the male subject. The areas of most facial reconstruction error were at the ears and nasal tip.
STUDY #3:
Three 3D computerized facial reconstructions were produced using skull models from live adult Korean subjects to assess facial morphology prediction accuracy. The 3D skeletal and facial data were recorded from the subjects in an upright position using a cone-beam CT scanner. Shell-to-shell deviation maps were created using 3D surface comparison software, and the deviation errors between the reconstructed and target faces were measured. Results showed that 54%, 65%, and 77% of the three facial reconstruction surfaces had <2.5 mm of error when compared to the relevant target face. The average error for each reconstruction was −0.46 mm (SD = 2.81) for A, −0.31 mm (SD = 2.40) for B, and −0.49 mm (SD = 2.16) for C. The facial features of the reconstructions demonstrated good levels of accuracy compared to the target faces.
To PP,
“I could be wrong RR, but in my next article I’m going to try to summarize evidence that the Negroid race is very old, but it depends how you define Negroid. A lot of people say negroid when they really just mean a specific type of Negroid (West Africans).”
I’ll put it to you like this, the type of relationship I think you are trying to build with ancient humans and blacks is more of a low latitude physical adaptation which does exist as a classification.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20774/abstract
The thing is that certain measurements aren’t enough to establish the actual genetic relations and just correlates at best.
I’ve already demonstrated how phenotypes of Negroids in comparison to modern 3D analysis of population skulls showing an overall dissimilarity to fossils representative to OOA people.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/315/5809/226
Click to access 26.pdf
As for early anthropology, NOT taxonomy when it was the most developed prior to the genomic era, making allusions to negroids with ancient people it was obviously because they were the most like them in traits of tooth size, prognathism, dochiocephaly, etc.
However latter research using the same technology as said before shows that those traits didn’t manage to break the overall association between lineage patterns by neutral DNA and overall cranial affinity even within modern populations.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/03/04/the-problem-with-taxonomy/comment-page-1/#comment-53511
Phil you clearly know a lot about this subject, but one thing I learned from one of your comments is that modern craniofacial anthropology specifically emphasizes skull traits that are not sensitive to selection (analogous to neutral DNA) so people who have preserved an ancient phenotype because they have remained in an ancestral environment, will not have their ancient phenotype fully recognized by modern studies.
Are you going to approve my comment above and my comment about Jewish genetics or leave them in the dungeon? That’s not cool man. . . You’re wrong here. Admit it.
RR, I’m happy to admit I’m wrong about the splitting off date of Ashkenazi Jews but your claim doesn’t jive with this article claiming an extremely recent origin:
An analysis of the gene database shows that the original Ashkenazi Jews were about half European and half Middle Eastern. They lived in the medieval era, about 600 to 800 years ago, according to the analysis – and numbered just 350 or so people.
Also, I’m annoyed that you’re dismissing my studies on forensic facial reconstruction just because they’re based on living people. You realize that with modern technology, they no longer have to wait for me to be dead to know what my skull looks like. So they take the image of my skull and give it to an artist who has never seen me, and he reconstructs my face using 3D software and then proves that people can guess it’s me. These studies clearly show it works. Your claim that ancient humans can’t be reconstructed is empty because until you see an ancient human, you can’t prove the reconstruction is wrong. With living people, you can actually verify, and three studies have vindicated the method, and the paper you cite is outdated.
“Phil you clearly know a lot about this subject, but one thing I learned from one of your comments is that modern craniofacial anthropology specifically emphasizes skull traits that are not sensitive to selection (analogous to neutral DNA) so people who have preserved an ancient phenotype because they have remained in an ancestral environment, will not have their ancient phenotype fully recognized by modern studies.”
Actually what my comment said was that facial traits are more sensitive to climate and there fore are more telling of selection (thus allowing converged evolution) than actual genetic relation. These traits ARE factored in with the overall analysis regardless if you look at my study which breaks them down.
Your theory is based on little phenotype changes occurring due to staying in the same environment, but what these findings tell about overall skull phenotype similarity is that it is still based on divergence and not just mere selection, more superficial traits like external or facial anatomy is what is influenced by selection.
And again, I have demonstrated how your suggestion on affinities of ancient humans do not line up with what was found with the Hofmyer skull as I’ve demonstrated before.
The Hofmeyr Skull does not fit into any MODERN Negroid population, including Capoids, but modern Negroids are such a diverse group, that the Hofmeyr Skull could just be considered another variety of Negroid. While it’s true that it has more in common with the first Europeans than it has with modern Africans, the first Europeans were from Africa, and had not yet lost their sub-Saharan phenotype.
“The Hofmeyr Skull does not fit into any MODERN Negroid population, including Capoids, but modern Negroids are such a diverse group, that the Hofmeyr Skull could just be considered another variety of Negroid.”
Then it still should’ve been closer to Capoids and Negroids regardless.
“While it’s true that it has more in common with the first Europeans than it has with modern Africans, the first Europeans were from Arica, and had not yet lost their sub-Saharan phenotype.”
Except if you read the data from the link, you would see that UP Europeans are very far from Sub Saharans, other studies showing them to be closest to recent european populations.
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/early-upper-paleolithic-europeans-eups/
Again, no dice.
But Phil, just cause Hofmeyr Skull is closer to first Europeans than to modern Africans and just cause first Europeans are closer to modern Europeans than to modern Africans, doesn’t prove Hofmeyr Skull is closer to modern Europeans than to modern Africans
That’s something that needs to tested directly not inferred by proxy
It sure is starting to sound like Phil’s heuristic explanation for the pattern we see is more likely than yours, though.
He definitely knows way more about this stuff than i, but too much knowledge can cloud intuition. The idea that ancient Africans were more like modern whites than modern blacks doesn’t pass the smell test
>The idea that ancient Africans were more like modern whites than modern blacks doesn’t pass the smell test
I have a theory about why that I’m far too lazy to explain but I suspect Phil’s theory is very similar.
If he responds to you with thoughts that are identical to my own on this, there’s a good chance we’re right. Independent confirmation and all of that.
Oh, for the record I don’t actually have definitive thoughts either way.
I more or less agree with your smell test assessment, but what I mean is that in the case that you’re wrong I have a theory as to why.
“But Phil, just cause Hofmeyr Skull is closer to first Europeans than to modern Africans and just cause first Europeans are closer to modern Europeans than to modern Africans, doesn’t prove Hofmeyr Skull is closer to modern Europeans than to modern Africans”
Of course it does, you’re aware that phenotype is an adaptation to environment and that the ancestors of the first Europeans had been living for tens of thousand years out of East Africa.
Knowing the climatic conditions of the African paleolithic, it is impossible that OoA people looked like modern blacks. Current day indigenous East Africans barely look like blacks.
1) the paper assumes Jews are 30th cousins. Jews aren’t an inbred group.
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/ashkenazi-jews-are-not-inbred-2/
2) once again, I’ve shown that Jews migrated to Rome 2000 ya and took Roman women as converts. If Jews popped up 600 ya, then how did that occur in Rome 2000 ya?
“Also, I’m annoyed that you’re dismissing my studies on forensic facial reconstruction just because they’re based on living people. You realize that with modern technology, they no longer have to wait for me to be dead to know what my skull looks like”
Point is, they can see if they’re correct if your face is analyzed. For extinct hominin, obviously, this isn’t the case.
“Your claim that ancient humans can’t be reconstructed is empty because until you see an ancient human, you can’t prove the reconstruction is wrong. With living people, you can actually verify, and three studies have vindicated the method, and the paper you cite is outdated.”
Oh, OK. She could have looked like that so I should accept it.
True or false. Most of the facial phenotype is consisted of soft tissue.
Check out this quote.
Additionally, since there are relatively few tested soft to hard tissue relationships currently known for modern humans, it is clear that the use of facial approximation techniques on ancestral skulls of modern Homo are fundamentally flawed, as previously reported by Montagu [4]. The decomposition of the soft tissue parts of paleoanthropological beings makes it impossible for the detail of their actual soft tissue face morphology and variability to be known, as well as the variability of the relationship between the hard and the soft tissue. As a result, the faces of earlier human ancestors cannot be objectively constructed or tested. Attempts based on modem ape morphologies (and variabilities) are likely to be heavily biased, grossly inaccurate, and invalid because the hard to soft tissue relationships of modern apes are unlikely to be the same as hominid ancestors due to changes arising from secular trends and evolutionary forces [4]. Hence any facial “reconstructions” of earlier hominids are likely to be misleading [4].
Click to access 10.1016%40s1355-0306%2803%2971776-6.pdf
You are wrong.
Check out this quote.
That quote concerns pre-human ape-men. It doesn’t apply to ancient members of our own species.
RR, Roman Jews weren’t yet split in Ashkenazim/Sephardim. And Jew is not a race, let alone a branch on an evolutionary tree, homo-sapiens has no subspecies.
Moreover, as we both know, recency of migration = more evolved makes no sense because it tended to result in losses in genetic diversity and ancient hominid admixture. For these two reasons, Subsaharan Africans are actually the genetically fittest population on earth.
“But Phil, just cause Hofmeyr Skull is closer to first Europeans than to modern Africans and just cause first Europeans are closer to modern Europeans than to modern Africans, doesn’t prove Hofmeyr Skull is closer to modern Europeans than to modern Africans.
That’s something that needs to tested directly not inferred by proxy.”
Yet the studies show the distance in their contintuity with each other other than with sub-saharans, you can certainly make the relation out that they closer to Europeans relative to African ones .
For example, Hofmeyr is generally closer to UP europeans than Africans, the relations being quite distinct,
“The placement of Hofmeyr with Eurasian UP
crania rather than with recent, geographically
proximate humans is important given the specimen’s
geochronological age and the ability of
craniometric data to differentiate recent human
populations in accord with their geographic and
genetic relationships. Our findings are consistent
with the hypothesis that UP Eurasians descended
from a population that emigrated from subSaharan
Africa in the Late Pleistocene. The
Hofmeyr cranium affords potential insights into
the morphology of such a population.”
UP in turn shows continuity to modern European Crania over by a clear majority.
“The results presented in Table 1 are consistent with the idea that Upper Paleolithic crania are, for the most part, larger and more generalized versions of recent Europeans. Howells ([1995]) reached a similar conclusion with respect to European Mesolithic crania.”
But Phil, Upper Paleolithic Europeans looked semi-Negroid:
Hence any facial “reconstructions” of earlier hominids are likely to be misleading [4].
Eve is an earlier hominin. And it does apply to ancient humans. It says so directly. No inference needed.
Eve is an earlier hominin.
She’s an early MODERN human. Technically modern humans are hominins but they’re referring to pre-AMH.
And it does apply to ancient humans. It says so directly.
Where?
“But Phil, Upper Paleolithic Europeans looked semi-Negroid:”
This is incredible. Even after all you’ve been shown, still push this.
How was the soft tissue reconstructed? As I’ve said, that’s where most of the facial phenotype is, and if it’s not there then it’s just subjective to the artist.
If the artist was subjective that’s even worse for you RR, because his subjective bias would have been to make the guy look European since he was found in Europe. Instead he obviously had some scientific reason to make him look African.
Not really. It’s mostly subjectivity.
Now, please answer my question. How was the soft tissue reconstructed?
You again appeal to external phenotypes sensitive to climate, *reconstructed ones at that*, rather than ones relevant towards genetic relations which my crania data does account for.
Do you admit at least its external phenotype looked negroid? And why do you ignore external phenotype?
To PP,
“Do you admit at least its external phenotype looked negroid? And why do you ignore external phenotype?”
Because that is less telling of genetic relationship than it is to it’s selection.
For instance, this thing is closer to a Koala Bear than to an actual Sabretooth Cat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thylacosmilus
Also show the sources for “Adam and Eve”, as I have already shown you that the original you had for the phylogram you made WASN”T Eve, but an AMH closer to OOA populations.
With that said, based on what you believe on EVe’s age, she would be this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_idaltu
plenty of room for differences to mislead.
“He definitely knows way more about this stuff than i, but too much knowledge can cloud intuition. The idea that ancient Africans were more like modern whites than modern blacks doesn’t pass the smell test.”
You see, there are multiple problems here.
1. Confounding African with “black”.
2. Forgetting we are talking specifically about the African Subgroup that BECAME “modern whites”.
For Instance, SSA Groups in Relations to Eurasians declines from Horners, Nilotics, West Africans and descendants, to Capoids using Both Admixture and the relative Eurasian Affinity the East African Cluster has compared to West Africans.
Capoids being more distinct suggests multiple Human Lineages in Africa aside from OOA populations. See my link on East African genetics from the taxonomy C.S for more context.
3. Reliance on external phenotypes over more telling skeletal ones.
that was so disgusting.
just not as disgusting as english people.
sad!
afro is so sad!
just sad!
the black guy who goes to confession and has fucked 100 women in 10 years.
well..
i’ve learned…
there’s no hope for black people. NONE!
just sad!
like the high IQ white porn star…
but it’s the whole population!
no hope!
sad!
my advice to all those who would be subjects of the bgi study…
1. https://magnoliadays.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Hearty-Burgundy-Gallo.jpg
2. https://magnoliadays.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Hearty-Burgundy-Gallo.jpg
3. i’ll say if any are interested.
i wanna be sedated.
i’ll say more if any…
try harder fucktards.
he know!
euro-abos who know say…
he know…
he know…
hegel is funny…
why?
he said it.
the whole thing.
for all time.
yet today…
he’s a faker.
a charlatan
a jive turkey.
sad!
who’s a jive turkey now?
wtf?
try for the 3d time…
or perhaps…
i
tal
ee
an!
sad!
try harder negores.
so fucking sad!
looking back…
my dad and his family were so fucking ridiculously elite…
but my dad didn’t get it.
he still doesn’t.
my own family is a YUGE lesson.
will detail later.
What happened to your post?
A commenter in the last thread, I think it was Jimmy mentioned how Jews in Europe and Israel are stupid unlike America.
?!
You must be kidding.
Amschel Mayer Rothschild was from a ghetto back when discrimination was legal. Jews could not study, leave the quarter, own property outside it. Only a certain number of marriages per year were permitted and only to other jews. Jews had to move aside on the street if a gentile hailed them.
Being a nice person means liberalising these laws. And now Zion does this to us, but in a far more subtle manner.
THE STRUGGLE OF THE WILL!
Two of the jews you posted moved to the US
The vast majority of top jews moved to the US for obvious reasons.
There was another selection pressure in the 20s when we introduced the immigration act of 1924 to keep jews out. Only the sneaky jews could get passed that.
The law kept out other undesirables but jews were the main target.
The HBD cult cherry picks which jews they use to show that jews are the master race.
oh and i forgot to say that Indians in the UK were absolutely selected for.
Think about it
How many Indians could afford a plane ticket in 1945? the country was >90% peasant
Other south asian immigration was later on so they were not very selected.
The US is selection on steroids.
The indians in California are easily the top 1% of Indians. The ones i met at Berkeley were smarter than Asians.
Every pakistani i met in California was smart and had very light skin . You can not say the same for the UK .
I have also met Afghans with green eyes and brown hair.
I haven’t met that many Bangladeshis. The few that i have met were very dark like Tamils, but they were smart like the Khan academy guy.
I also met a Somali guy at Berkeley who had straight hair and a 1500 SAT. He looked Tamil as he had very caucasoid features but dark skin.
The Iranians were a strange group. I found that the darker skinned ones were smarter than the white ones.
I knew a White-Egyptian from an AP Class,
I’ve also seen some White Saudis at internships during college. I was on the same team as one of them and i found out that he was doing an M.S at Stanford.
I met a white Kuwaiti when i was in the waiting room for a job interview at Texas Instruments.
I also met some white Turks at Soccer practice
I mention all of them to let you know that immigrants in the US are heavily selected and we tend to get the best LEGAL immigrants.
If you’re smart and have the right work ethic then there is no place better than the US for $$$
The only exception is finance where London is the place to be .
When i say work ethic i mean not being lazy otherwise you end up being a loser like Steinberg.
Steinberg’s life might have been different if his parents cared enough to put him on Adderall.
I remember getting a B in 10th grade and my parents put me on 30mg of Adderall.
I truly believe that parents are a major factor in success. The more committed the parents the better the outcome of the kid
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on the Indian question. I’ll have to travel to India to see for sure. You may well be right on this.
As for Jews. Well to me its obvious they’re more intelligent. For some reason, you and a previous regular here, JS, take that to mean ‘superior’ or ‘master’. There have been many instances where lower IQ barbarians ruled over higher IQ populous – the Yuan Dynasty or the various dinaric city states of northern Italy, the Berbers/Saracens over the visigothic Spaniards and so on.
The reason jews win is not because they’re smart Jimmy, it’s because they are willing to do anything – fraud, lies, betrayal, blackmail, genocide, etc. Whites west of the Hajnal have a kind of sense of ‘fair play’ and ‘honour’. You might notice not many tribes have that. This is because sparsely populated lands with little obvious resources required even tighter bonding and empathy maybe.
As for parenting, yes that matters. It actually matters even more who your parents are. If my parents had even been middle class, I wouldn’t have wasted so many years in the wilderness and figured it all out much quicker. The only book in my house growing up was the bible. My sister dealt drugs in school. My father can’t write. And my mother has more advanced schizophrenia than I. I would tend to side with Robert’s marxist argument that class (or lack of ‘class’ in a sociological sense) reproduces itself, but I also agree with you that if you are very smart and risk taking (not just ‘hard working’), you can force it if you’re completely bloody minded, ruthless and ‘jewish’ about it.
You also need discipline and a placid temper. I don’t have that. So I will struggle to be a man servant.
There are some people who naturally for whatever reason cannot follow rules, and must strike out on their own as entrepreneurs, artists, soldiers, explorers, hustlers, criminals or even whores like our esteemed colleague, Marsha Murphy.
Its quite possible the reason why it never works out for me in offices is that I should actually be doing something in the arts.
Even in my new posting my manager has asked me to sit down once I come back from Oxford for a dressing down. I imagine its because I came in late 3 days in a row.
I can’t control it to be honest. I just don’t take work ‘seriously’ for some reason.
I see office work deep down as a kind of joke. I don’t know why. I might even find the content interesting but see the structure of my job as kayfabe. I took wrestling more seriously as a teenager. It might even be better for me to be digging ditches or tilling land maybe. The most fun I ever had in work was a warehouse job doing manual labour with an ex army guy as boss. Satisfying.
I get very angry when I get canned though. Its obvious to me that if I was more neurotypical or aspergers I’d do better in these environments. I’d piss myself from stress of what my manager thought if I left 10 minutes early or wet the bed thinking about a report or jerkoff to the water cooler’s ass or something.
The average office workers in these various banks, consultancies and tech firms I’ve worked in are far more aspergery than me, but normal to most people. i.e. they follow rules when nobody is looking.
Tavistock research is very advanced. The reason jews rule gentiles is because they are willing to do whatever it takes, including sacrificing their own, to win supremacy.
Not because they are ‘superior’. In a funny way, race is right. If a crook swindles an old woman out of her life savings i.e. jew, is that ‘superior’. If a person of magical descent breaks into a house, is that ‘superior’.
And you are all thinking of the the present. When I can see the future.
Zion will not give up. It will throw the brainwashed, orcs, and mercenary armies of the Haradrim against the gentiles should they awaken.
Mugabe is proof that high IQ is maladaptive. I wouldn’t wish a very high IQ on my worst enemy. It’s usually accompanied by neuroticism, misanthropy, social aloofness, high inhibition, etc. Mugabe hasn’t been able to fulfill his basic human desires because of his high IQ.
Mugabe is just a single data point. I know plenty of people with +140 IQs who are doing great.
If Mugabe was black he’d – I’m not joking here – probably be at least a millionaire.
Mugabe could probably walk onto the street and open fire on people (mainly white people) and he’d be given the Nelson Mandela Book Prize, a book deal to talk about ‘instituional raci-sm and witch burning’ and then paid speeches about the need for ‘reparations’ and more money for wars for Israel.
By his 60s he’d win the Nobel Lit/Peace Prize (same thing) for ‘firing the the gun of oppression on a shopping mall crowd to show the emptiness of white consumerism’.
Don’t mod this for god’s sake. Its a bit tongue in cheek.
If Mugabe was black he’d – I’m not joking here – probably be at least a millionaire
Your assumption that life is a cake-walk for smart black people is insulting and not supported by the empirical literature. In the book The Bell Curve, they found that when you equated black and whites on IQ, blacks did indeed have much higher occupational status, but they were no higher in wages, and still had much higher rates of poverty and incarceration.
I understand your argument that affirmative action and tokenism are part of an anti-white agenda, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t current and historical anti-black forces that require negating. Two things can be true at the same time.
Now, if Deal was black she’d be in Harvard.
I’m not joking again either. If she is not lying, or maybe even if she was lying about her GRE, that score would possibly give her a book tour and column in the New Yiddish Times talking about intersectionality of gender dildos. How patriarchy and racism are the 2 demon dogs of Chalaba and the need for everyone to get prayer beads and dildos and learn Rihanna’s lyrics by heart.
“historical anti-black forces that require negating.”
“Require”.
Do tell.
Philibuster, what are you lifts (BP, SQ, DL) ?
Affirmative Action isn’t a golden ticket to anywhere in life. I should be a millionaire also if AA was as magical as you claimed.
I am a bit perplexed, though, that Trump hasn’t come out more against AA. Considering that Trump is the champion of working class whites, it seems that the promotion of meritocracy and transparent college admissions would mesh well with his anti-immigration and fair trade policy. So what’s up?
If I were Trump, I would replace race-based AA with class-based AA. Or maybe get rid of it altogether. But class-based is better than race-based.
” I am a bit perplexed, though, that Trump hasn’t come out more against AA ”
grievances = votes
that’s true for both blacks and whites.
Abortion, AA and tinkering with non-effective tax rates are the only issues between the blue team and the red team.
“But class-based is better than race-based ”
It wouldn’t make any difference on the minority numbers as most minorities are
working class.
Handing out AA places irrespective of class has helped make AA more palatable because the elite colleges select affluent blacks of Caribbean decent like Eric Holder.
Those blacks are competent and so they wont expose the reality of AA at all levels (hiring, promotions etc)
I met a black girl at college who was clearly affirmative action as she was majoring in gender studies and she had very light skin.
There was a time when a white man could win social brownie points by marrying a black woman (Bowie+Iman) and so there are a lot of ” black” kids at elite colleges who come from such couples.
I met a mixed girl with a russian surname. Thats how far that fad spread.
I dont think its that trendy today
today its all about black men and white woman.
Miscegenation, immigration and homosexuality are the 3 pillars of the agenda to end the white race.
Yes, There Is An Extraordinary Difference Between “Average” Genius Of 140, And Then Off-The-Charts Scores.
Those People Still Aren’t Intelligent Enough If They Are Maladapted, Though. Intelligence, By Definition, Means Knowledge. They, Therefore, Lack More Knowledge To Get Enable Them To Bypass The Social Discomfort Of Being Socially Productive At Such An Outlier Level.
The True Genius Is Adaptable In ANY Situation.
The Philosopher: what are your thoughts on the Austrian school of economics? Just another brand libertardianism?
*brand of
its not another brand. It is libertarianism at least most of it
The main reason that the Austrian school doesn’t get any respect is because they simply don’t use any math or even econometrics.
They also appose the current paper money system and call for its end which is just not practical
everything they say about the fundamentals of paper money is 100% true but they fail to recognize what can be done with a competent government.
I went to FreedomFest in 2006 and it was hardcore anti-war. The only problem i had was that they kept on using terms like ” military industrial complex” which is similar to terms like ” new world order ” which is another way of not mentioning the J word.
Libertarianism is very much a jewish trojan horse but libertarians are easily red pilled.
I would say that Libertarians and the far left are the two groups with the most potential.
I recently read an article by a guy who used to go on protests outside walmarts complaining about low wages. He’s now writing pro-Hitler pieces.
Libertarians think the bad guy is ” the government ” . Leftists think the bad guys are ” the corporations” . All you need to do is show them a long list of jewish names and you have effectively red pilled them all.
An even quicker way to turn a libertarian is to make it clear to him that only whites care about freedom.
There are no libertarian clubs in the congo.
Libertarianism is a purely northern european concept.
The less nordic america becomes the less free america becomes.
Yes. It’s not empirical. Its theoretical for a reason. But I would have to read Mises and Hayek closer to see for sure. Reading a synopsis of their thoughts, it seems obvious to me that these people perhaps wore rainjackets indoors.
Even monetarism is more sound in that sense. Friedman was actually more of a statistician than most economists.
His key work on the GD, is somewhat socially retarded in the sense that he believed a lack of credit perpetuated the depression. Ie, not enough diner’s club cards were handed out from the ‘stylised’ fact that thousands of banks went bust.
Like most conservative economists he puts the cart before the horse and thinks credit could reflate asset prices leading to more demand or at least investment or financial supply side economics. I’m not saying it has no effect. But its a bit like saying you can avoid getting kneecapped by the money you owe the mob for gambling by having someone else to borrow from.
He can’t bring himself to say that social and economic structural reform or the government giving you money to pay off the debt is less retarded because he would rather set himself on fire than say one negative word against his corporate masters that gave him money to get laid because he’s too ugly and uncharismatic otherwise.
QED.
I remember Gregory Cochran saying he didn’t think either Friedrich Hayek or Ludwig von Mises had any major contributions to economic thinking.
No its a regurgitation of stuff Adam Smith was saying 200 years previously.
PP what’s Equatorial Guinea’s IQ?
We don’t know because that was one of the data points Lynn was most criticized for
He was ‘criticized’ for it because it’s the IQ of mentally retarded Spanish children:
> The data point for Mexico was based upon a weighted averaging of the results of a study of “Native American and Mestizo children in southern Mexico” with result of a study of residents of Argentina. Upon reading the original reference, we found that the “data point” that Lynn and Vanhanen used for the lowest IQ estimate, Equatorial Guinea, was actually the mean IQ of a group of Spanish children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain. Corrections were applied to adjust for differences in IQ across cohorts (the “Flynn” effect), on the assumption that the same correction could be applied internationally, without regard to the cultural or economic development level of the country involved. While there appears to be rather little evidence on cohort effect upon IQ across the developing countries, one study in Kenya (Daley, Whaley, Sigman, Espinosa, & Neumann, 2003) shows a substantially larger cohort effect than is reported for developed countries.
Click to access 10.1016%40j.intell.2006.11.002.pdf
Hahaha Lynn and Vanhanen.
So shouldn’t you be suspicious of other numbers from them now, or no?
Everyone makes mistakes though that was a big one. Lynn is not as young as he used to be so no longer has the energy to catch his mistakes.
But his is the only source that looked at all races using the same method. When new data emerges, I’ll use that instead, but until then, Lynn’s all we have
Oh yeah, people make mistakes, that’s why peer review exists. But launching a book that’s full of mistakes directed at the general public is not science.
Will pumpkin publish commenter guidelines? [rest of comment redacted, April 5, 2017]
Philosopher, you’re one of my best commenters and I’d hate to lose you, and while you do show an impressive ability to discuss a wide range of topics with such knowledge, intelligence and wit, you always manage to slam Jews in every single one. I get that this is just a backlash against the extreme censorship in the mainstream media and other HBD blogs, but your severe criticism isn’t fair to all the good Jewish people who aren’t the way you describe, and many of them might be reading including Jewish kids. Please be more balanced and emotionally detached when discussing such a sensitive topic, and please phrase your criticism of Jews in such a way that an open minded Jewish person could agree with you.
Also, please don’t talk about Jews/zion in every single comment. Even when you discuss Jews in a diplomatic way, seeing multiple consecutive comments about Jews comes across as obsessive.
i found this picture of pill and deal doing it.


sad!
afro is in the middle.
sad!
That looks a lot like a bassist named Nathan East in the middle.
autism is sad!
https://duckduckgrayduck.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/im-done.png?w=500&h=509
PP,
What do you mean by this?
”Even more fascinating: I have found that human races that do not border the dark Caucasoids, who evolved in the Middle East and expanded to South Asia and Northern Africa, score significantly lower on IQ tests than races who do (on average).”
Arent ‘races’ of north africa and south asia themselves dark caucasoid?
Yes, and they border themselves. 🙂
Too bad that South Asians and SW Asians cluster in opposite directions on any PCA– SW Asians are closer to Europeans than to S. Asians genetically!