[Comment from pumpkin person, May 10, 2017: the following is a guest post from commenter Race Realist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Pumpkin Person. Out of respect for the author, please try to keep all comments on topic, although I realize discussions naturally evolve over time]
Note: This article is high speculation based on the finding that occurred last week of the modification of mastodon bones in Ice Age California. If it is an actual archaeological site, along with being the age it’s purported to be, there are, in my opinion, only two possibilities for who could be responsible: erectus or the Denisova. Though I will cover evidence that Erectus did make it to America between 40-130,000ya, and rule out that Neanderthals are the hominid responsible.
It was discovered last week that there was human activity at an archeological site in San Diego, California, dated to about 130,000 years ago. Researchers discovered pieces of bone and teeth from a mastodon—that looked to have been modified by early humans. This discovery—if it shows that there was a hominid in the Americas 130,000ya—would have us rethink hominin migrations in the ancient past.
The bones and teeth show signs of having been modified by humans with “manual dexterity and experiential knowledge.” The same pattern was discovered in Nebraska and Kansas, where it was ruled out that carnivorous animals were responsible (Holen et al, 2017).
Now, we only have a few pieces of broken bone and some teeth from a mastodon. It is possible that ‘Natives’ dug up the mastodon skull and modified it, but I like to think outside of the box sometimes. When I first read the ScienceDaily article on the matter, the first hominin that popped into my head that could be responsible for this is erectus. But what is the evidence that he could have made it to the Americas that long ago?
Erectus in America
Evidence for erectus in America is scant. We have discovered no erectus skeletons in the Americas, and we only have a few pieces of bone to go off of to guess which hominid did this (and I doubt it was Homo sapiens or Neanderthals, I will explain my reasoning below).
I’ve been documenting on my blog for the past six months that, contrary to popular belief, erectus was not a ‘dumb ape’ and that, in fact, erectus had a lot of modern behaviors. If it turns out to be true that erectus made it to America, that wouldn’t really surprise me.
Erectus territory
Neanderthal territory
Erectus had a wider territory than the other hominid candidates (Neanderthals, Homo sapiens) and the other candidate—the Denisova—were situated more to the middle of the Asian continent. So this, really, leaves us only with erectus as the only possible candidate for the mysterious hominin in Caliofornia—and there is evidence that (albeit, extremely flimsy), erectus may have possibly made it to America, from a paper published back in 1986. Dreier (1986) writes that there is evidence of Man in America before 30kya, and if this is true, then it must be erectus since the estimated dates are between 50-70 kya—right around the time that AMH began migrating out of Africa. Dreier (1986) goes through a few different discoveries that could have been erectus in America, yet they were only modern skeletons. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (Though I will return to this specific point near the end of the article.)
How could erectus have possibly made it to America?
This is one of the most interesting things about this whole scenario. There is evidence that erectus made rafts. If erectus did make it to Flores (Stringer, 2004; Hardaker, 2007: 263-268; Lieberman, 2013)—eventually evolving into floresiensis (or from habilis or a shared common ancestor with habilis)—then he must have had the ability to make rafts. Since we have found erectus skulls at Java, and since certain bodily proportions of floresiensis are ‘scaled-down’ from erectus, along with tools that erectus used, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that erectus had the ability to navigate the seas.
One way that hominins can get to America is through the Bering strait. However, Dreier (1986) assumes that erectus was not cold-adapted, and insists that erectus could have only gone into higher latitudes for only a few months out of the year when it was warmer. As you can see from the above map of erectus’ territory, he lived along the coast of China and into some of the islands around SE Asia. While we don’t have any skeletal evidence, we can infer that it was late Asian erectus who could have possibly, made it to the Americas. So since it was late in erectus’ evolution, we would expect him to have a large brain size in order to 1) survive in Africa and 2) since brain size predicts the success of a species in novel environments (Sol et al, 2008), erectus would have had a larger brain in these locations. So it seems that erectus did have the same adaptability that we do—especially if he actually did make it to the Americas.
Dreier (1986) posits that erectus could have traveled along the Aleutian island chain in Alaska, eating marine life (shells, mollusks, clams, etc), and so he would not have had to “deviate from the 53 north latitude vitamin D barrier drastically since almost the entire Aleutian Island chain falls between the 50 and 55 north latitude lines, and access via this route may have been possible during glaciation when sea levels in the area dropped as much as 100 meters” (Dreier, 1986: 31). Erectus could have gotten vitamin D from shells, mollusks, and other marine life, as they are extremely high in vitamin D (Nair and Maseeh, 2012). I will contend that erectus rafted to America, but the Aleutian island route is also plausible.
Dreier (1986) ends up concluding that our best bet for finding erectus skeletons in America is along with Pacific coast, and there may be some submerged underwater. However, with the new discovery last week, I await more work into the site for some more answers (and of course questions).
However, contra Dreier’s (1986) claim that we should stop looking for sites with human activity earlier than 30,000 years, this new finding is promising.
Why not Neanderthals?
Neanderthals were seafarers, just like erectus, and later, us. However, there is evidence for Neanderthals sailing the seas 100kya, however, earlier dates of seafaring activity “as far back as 200 ka BP can not be excluded.” (Ferentinos et al, 2012). Further—and perhaps most importantly—the range of the Neanderthals was nowhere near the Pacific Ocean—whereas erectus was. So since there is little evidence of seafaring 200kya (which cannot be excluded), then we’re still left with the only possibility being erectus go to the Americas either by walking the Aleutian islands or rafting across the Pacific.
Could erectus have killed animals as large as a mastodon?
Erectus was killing elephants (Elephas antiquus) around 400kya in the Levant (Ben-Dor et al, 2011). Then, when the elephants went extinct, erectus had to hunt smaller, quicker game and thus evolved a smaller body to deal with the new environmental pressure—chasing a new food source. So erectus did have the ability to kill an animal that big, another positive sign that this is erectus we are dealing with in California 130,000 years ago.
An erectus skeleton in America?
An osteologist discovered a brow bone in the Americas, and in an unpublished report in 1990, he says the brow’s thickness and structure is comparable to African erectus, with a reanalysis showing it was closer to Asian erectus—just what we would expect since Asian erectus may have been a seafarer (Hardaker, 2007). However, the author of the book reiterates the Texas A&M osteologists’ findings writing: “these comparisons do not imply that preHomo sapiens were in the Americas” (Steen-McIntyre, 2008).
Humanlike cognition in erectus?
Humanlike thinking evolved 1.8 mya, right around the time erectus came into the picture (Putt et al, 2017). Volunteers created Auchulean tools while wearing a wearing a cap that measured brain activity. Visual attention and motor control were needed to create the “simpler Oldowan tools”, whereas for the “more complex Auchelian tools” a “larger portion of the brain was engaged in the creation of the more complex Acheulian tools, including regions of the brain associated with the integration of visual, auditory and sensorimotor information; the guidance of visual working memory; and higher-order action planning.” This discovery pushes back the advent of humanlike cognition, since the earliest tools of this nature are found around 1.8 mya. There is a possibility that some erectus may have had IQs near ours, as studies of microcephalics show that a large amount have higher than average IQs (Skoyles, 1999).
Conclusion
Evidence is mounting that erectus was more than the ‘dumb ape’ that some people say he is. If erectus did make it to America—and the possibility is there—then human migratory patterns need to be rewritten. I hope there is more evidence pointing to what hominid was in the area at that time—and if there is evidence of humanlike activity there, it most likely is erectus. It is extremely possible that erectus could have gotten to America, as there is evidence that he was at least in northern China. So he could have sailed to the Americas or walked along the Aleutian islands.
The evidence for erectus in America is compelling, and I hope more is discovered about what went on at this site and who was there. Even if it wasn’t erectus, there is still some compelling evidence that he did make it to America.
Pumpkin Person 
There is a possibility that some erectus may have had IQs near ours, as studies of microcephalics show that a large amount have higher than average IQs
This is to be expected because brain size is only one of many factors thought to determine IQ, and head size is only a rough proxy for brain size, however erectus is not equivalent to a small brained human. There are likely many ways the human brain is different from the erectus brain besides just size, but we focus on brain size because it’s so visible and well preserved in the fossil record.
If selection on the brain was powerful enough to cause such a huge increase in size, it probably caused a huge increase in other brain properties as well, we just can’t see them from the skull. Thus my guess is even microcephalic humans are a lot smarter than erectus were.
But I enjoyed the article. Very readable, informative, focused and well organized.
“This is to be expected because brain size is only one of many factors thought to determine IQ, and head size is only a rough proxy for brain size, however erectus is not equivalent to a small brained human. There are likely many ways the human brain is different from the erectus brain besides just size, but we focus on brain size because it’s so visible and well preserved in the fossil record.”
I agree. But just the fact that some microcephalics have brains the size of erectus and normal IQs should make you think for a moment. Skoyles also cites some studies showing that brain damage doesn’t drop IQ and that people with chunks of their brain missing have normal IQs. So i believe it’s a bit more nuanced than that.
Note, I do believe that brain size is involved in hominin intelligence, I just don’t think it’s the be all end all for hominin intelligence. Skoyles, in my opinion, really made a case for future research.
“If selection on the brain was powerful enough to cause such a huge increase in size, it probably caused a huge increase in other brain properties as well, we just can’t see them from the skull. Thus my guess is even microcephalic humans are a lot smarter than erectus were.”
Of course. But look at the cite Putt et al 2017. Humanlike thinking that long ago, so now we need to think “what happened between Oldawan culture and the Aeuchulian culture?” Fire? Increased tool use? Cooking? New predators? So many questions.
Skoyles’ point is that if brain size explains only X amount of IQ then there are numerous other factors in the intellect of a hominin, which he did show in his paper.
“But I enjoyed the article. Very readable, informative, focused and well organized”
Thabk you very much. It’s kinda diverging from my usual empiricism, but it was fun to speculate and think about how erectus could have made it to America. Once again, thank you for publishing.
Anyways…
PP, if it was erectus that made it to California then it was clearly Asian erectus and late in his evolution. So brain size would have been touching 1000 to 1100 cc. I don’t know anything about temperatures around 2 mya in these areas; do you have anything on this? I recall showing you something from Google books on the matter a few months back, I’ll look for it.
I agree. But just the fact that some microcephalics have brains the size of erectus and normal IQs should make you think for a moment.
It makes me think that brain size is only one of many factors that determine IQ, which has been known for decades.
Skoyles also cites some studies showing that brain damage doesn’t drop IQ and that people with chunks of their brain missing have normal IQs.
That’s intriguing. I’ll have to look into those studies because a study I’ve seen shows people with traumatic brain injury have reduced IQs, though their verbal IQs are relatively preserved, especially vocabulary. Obviously huge sections of the brain govern sensory-motor function, emotions, and other non-cognitive variables, so in theory you could be missing those parts of the brain and not suffer IQ loss, or perhaps such people are impaired in aspects of intelligence not measured by IQ tests which is what Skoyles would say. Another possibility is that we evolved to have a lot of redundant brain mass to help us recover from brain damage (cognitive reserve theory).
Note, I do believe that brain size is involved in hominin intelligence, I just don’t think it’s the be all end all for hominin intelligence. Skoyles, in my opinion, really made a case for future research.
I agree it’s not the be all and end all, but Skoyles actually gives brain size a lot more importance than I do, because he argues that the existence of small brained normal IQ people shows that IQ tests are failing to measure aspects of intelligence important in evolution. In other words, he thinks brain size was so important to the evolution of human intelligence that he believes small brained people with normal IQ people must be stupid in ways not measured by the test (i.e. unable to acquire expertise).
Of course. But look at the cite Putt et al 2017. Humanlike thinking that long ago, so now we need to think “what happened between Oldawan culture and the Aeuchulian culture?” Fire? Increased tool use? Cooking? New predators? So many questions
I’ll have to check it out.
Skoyles’ point is that if brain size explains only X amount of IQ then there are numerous other factors in the intellect of a hominin, which he did show in his paper.
He explicitly states in his abstract that large brains evolved for aspects of intelligence not measured by IQ tests (i.e. the capacity for expertise) so he’s actually giving brain size even more importance. Not only does it influence IQ, but he argues it was also crucial to survival skills that IQ tests ignore.
Thabk you very much. It’s kinda diverging from my usual empiricism, but it was fun to speculate and think about how erectus could have made it to America. Once again, thank you for publishing.
Thank you for writing it. I love learning more about ancient anthropology.
“It makes me think that brain size is only one of many factors that determine IQ, which has been known for decades.”
Of course. Folds, grey/white matter all matter. The explained variance leaves a ton more to explain IQ than just overall brain size. (i.e., if it is as high as .5 correlation, 75 percent of the variation still needs some ‘splainin’.)
“That’s intriguing. I’ll have to look into those studies because a study I’ve seen shows people with traumatic brain injury have reduced IQs, though their verbal IQs are relatively preserved, especially vocabulary.”
Skoyles writes: “Interestingly, even when brain damage is sudden, as with post-traumatic atrophy or focal damage, it can happen with minimal change in measured IQ (Bigler, 1995).“, providing this source:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/87565649509540628
“Obviously huge sections of the brain govern sensory-motor function, emotions, and other non-cognitive variables, so in theory you could be missing those parts of the brain and not suffer IQ loss”
Well the ‘seat of g’ is the PFC, so if the PFC were removed I would expect to see a huge reduction in cognitive functioning. I think we can both agree that the whole entire brain doesn’t dictate the intellect of an individual.
“or perhaps such people are impaired in aspects of intelligence not measured by IQ tests which is what Skoyles would say”
I agree with this. IQ tests don’t test for all aspects of cog ability, such as rationalization or cognitive misering.
“Another possibility is that we evolved to have a lot of redundant brain mass to help us recover from brain damage (cognitive reserve theory).”
In a response paper to Skoyles’ paper on brain size/evolution/expertise, the author proposes that large brains evolved so that we could continue to function in old age. That’s what you’re talking about I believe.
This is the paper:
http://cogprints.org/848/1/skoyles.htm
He says Skoyles made a ‘strong case’ that brain size wasn’t linked to IQ but a ‘weak case’ that it was linked to expertise.
Here is Skoyles’ response:
http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?10.055
“I agree it’s not the be all and end all, but Skoyles actually gives brain size a lot more importance than I do, because he argues that the existence of small brained normal IQ people shows that IQ tests are failing to measure aspects of intelligence important in evolution.”
Do you think that IQ tests would measure most or all aspects of intelligence important in evolution? Skoyles’ point is that large brains cause numerous problems, he argues—pretty well in my opinion—that brain size is not linked to IQ, and then proposes it is linked to expertise, with a larger brain having more cortical columns in which to store information.
Either way, it’s clear erectus was pretty damn intelligent in his own right. In my opinion, this leads credence to Skoyles’ case.
“In other words, he thinks brain size was so important to the evolution of human intelligence that he believes small brained people with normal IQ people must be stupid in ways not measured by the test (i.e. unable to acquire expertise).”
Pretty much. He argues that expertise is a part of human intelligence and is not measured by IQ tests.
Click to access Hyde_MusicTraining_BrainPlasticity_nyas_04852.pdf
Here, for the first time, we demonstrate structural brain changes after only 15 months of musical training in early childhood, which were correlated with improvements in musically relevant motor and auditory skills. These findings shed light on brain plasticity, and suggest that structural brain differences in adult experts (whether musicians or experts in other areas) are likely due to training-induced brain plasticity.
So if expert musicians have larger brains/brain areas than non-musicians, and this effect was noted to be due to musical training which suggests that brain differences in adult experts “are likely to due training-induced brain plasticity”, then this shows that becoming an ‘expert’ changes the brain—this goes with the studies on racecar drivers and cab drivers ‘on the knowledge’ as well.
His main argument is that natural selection selected hominids that had the highest capacity for expertise—those with more neural columns in which to store more information. So over time, evolution pushed for increased brain size—even with the negatives to increased brain size.
“He explicitly states in his abstract that large brains evolved for aspects of intelligence not measured by IQ tests (i.e. the capacity for expertise) so he’s actually giving brain size even more importance. Not only does it influence IQ, but he argues it was also crucial to survival skills that IQ tests ignore.”
My linking his theory with Inuits and tool-making/use gives it even more credence—along with the fact that they have low 90s IQ.
“Thank you for writing it. I love learning more about ancient anthropology.”
I used to be averse to it but I like it now.
Of course. Folds, grey/white matter all matter.
Other potentially relevant brain properties might be brain glucose metabolism rate, frequency of alpha brain waves, latency and amplitude of evoked brain potentials, degree of brain myelination, and nerve conduction speed. So with this many brain variables, it’s not surprising that size alone would explain only a small fraction of the variance, and that’s not even counting the non-biological variables that can perhaps spuriously affect IQ test performance (i.e. education).
A very rough analogy I like is brain size is to IQ as height is to weight. Being taller tends to make you weigh more, but it’s only one of many factors that affect weight.
The explained variance leaves a ton more to explain IQ than just overall brain size. (i.e., if it is as high as .5 correlation, 75 percent of the variation still needs some ‘splainin’.)
Yeah, and 0.5 is probably way too high. The true within sex correlation in white adult populations is probably around 0.33.
Skoyles writes: “Interestingly, even when brain damage is sudden, as with post-traumatic atrophy or focal damage, it can happen with minimal change in measured IQ (Bigler, 1995).“, providing this source
Although Bigler (1995) showed that among people with brain damage, the degree of brain damage seemed unrelated to IQ, he didn’t seem to show that brain damage itself was unrelated to IQ. The WAIS-IV technical manual has a study showing that brain damaged people scored about 16 IQ points lower than matched controls. I’m sure there are individual cases where IQ is unaffected by brain damage, but these seem to be the exception, not the rule. Even the brain damaged people discussed by Bigler had below average IQs though we don’t know if that was the cause or the effect of brain damage.
Well the ‘seat of g’ is the PFC, so if the PFC were removed I would expect to see a huge reduction in cognitive functioning. I think we can both agree that the whole entire brain doesn’t dictate the intellect of an individual.
At the same time, something as complex as g is probably not located in any one specific area (i.e. PCF) although some areas may be more involved in g than others. Here’s what Rushton said:
Several studies have examined whether different regions of the brain would show differential correlations with GMA. Many appear to show that the size effects are manifest throughout the brain and not specific to any particular region (Andreasen et al., 1993; Reiss et al., 1996). However, other studies show GMA centered in the frontal brain regions (Jung & Haier, 2007). Colom et al. (2006a, 2006b) used the method of correlated vectors and found evidence for both positions—the more g-loaded subtests were distributed throughout the brain but concentrated most in the frontal lobes.
In a response paper to Skoyles’ paper on brain size/evolution/expertise, the author proposes that large brains evolved so that we could continue to function in old age. That’s what you’re talking about I believe.
Except people didn’t often live until old age until recently, so perhaps the large brain partly evolved so we could continue to function after head injuries. Bigler 1995 found that bigger brained people with brain damage had higher IQs than smaller brained people with brain damage, though both groups were probably well below their pre-morbid levels.
Do you think that IQ tests would measure most or all aspects of intelligence important in evolution? Skoyles’ point is that large brains cause numerous problems, he argues—pretty well in my opinion—that brain size is not linked to IQ, and then proposes it is linked to expertise, with a larger brain having more cortical columns in which to store information.
Brain size is indisputably linked to IQ, but the correlation is only around 0.33 so there are many brilliant small brained people. Skoyles is saying “why would evolution select for something as problematic as huge brains, when it’s possible for small brained people to have IQs?”
The problem with this thinking is that it gives evolution too much credit. Evolution is not so efficient that it always finds the optimum solution, it often just stumbles upon the simplest solution. As you’ve said many times, evolution’s not teleological, so it just randomly stumbled upon bigger brains by accident, and then they were selected by nature. Also, making a brain smarter while keeping it small is probably a lot more genetically complex than making it smarter through brute size, so the needed mutations for the former may have been too rare to have been selected through most of our evolution.
But Skoyles makes a good point that brain size might have been selected for parts of intelligence not measured on IQ tests, but I don’t think expertise is a good candidate for his theory. Expertise is just acquired knowledge and skills, and IQ tests probably do a good job measuring the potential to be an expert if one puts in the time and effort (10,000 hours if you believe Malcolm Gladwell). If skoyles had tests measuring the capacity for expertise and could empirically show that these explained a non-trivial part of the variance in brain size unexplained by IQ, his argument would be more compelling.
One very important cognitive ability that is not well measured by IQ tests yet might be independently related to brain size is executive function. Skoyles should have made his theory about that, not expertise in my opinion.
“Other potentially relevant brain properties might be brain glucose metabolism rate, frequency of alpha brain waves, latency and amplitude of evoked brain potentials, degree of brain myelination, and nerve conduction speed. So with this many brain variables, it’s not surprising that size alone would explain only a small fraction of the variance, and that’s not even counting the non-biological variables that can perhaps spuriously affect IQ test performance (i.e. education).”
No qualms here. If I recall correctly, more intelligent people use less glucose in certain parts of the brain, maybe the whole brain I don’t remember. But the point is that brain size doesn’t even come close to explaining even 50 percent of the variation.
“A very rough analogy I like is brain size is to IQ as height is to weight. Being taller tends to make you weigh more, but it’s only one of many factors that affect weight.”
This is a great analogy because weight is affected by numerous variables, the most important, in my opinion, being obesogenic environments. But more often than not, a taller person is going to weigh more than the average (5 8 and 190 pounds for the average American man). So, correct me if I am wrong, a taller person will have a higher chance of weighing more than a person with a bigger brain having a high IQ, all things being equal.
“Yeah, and 0.5 is probably way too high. The true within sex correlation in white adult populations is probably around 0.33.”
That’s the point for using the high end of the estimate (Skoyles used .51), because since it’s much lower, it explains much less of the overall variation.
This meta-analysis shows the correlation between brain size and IQ being .24, r2 .058.
Click to access Pietschnig_et_al_2015_-_Meta-analysis_brain_volume_IQ.pdf
“Although Bigler (1995) showed that among people with brain damage, the degree of brain damage seemed unrelated to IQ, he didn’t seem to show that brain damage itself was unrelated to IQ. The WAIS-IV technical manual has a study showing that brain damaged people scored about 16 IQ points lower than matched controls. I’m sure there are individual cases where IQ is unaffected by brain damage, but these seem to be the exception, not the rule.”
From page 393:
In contrast, the studies reported in this investigation indicate that in the traumatically injured brain, there is little linear relation between the amount of brain atrophy or even the size of a lesion and measured IQ. Surprisingly, as indicated in Study 1, even with traumatic reduction in brain volume, overall IQ in a sample of 72
participants with TBI with significant brain injury was 90.19 (SD = 13.01). Accordingly, even with significant brain injury and morphological changes, the aggregate IQ of this group is within the average range
Full paper here:
Click to access 10.1080%4087565649509540628.pdf
Can you get the source for brain damaged people scoring 16 points lower on the WAIS?
“Even the brain damaged people discussed by Bigler had below average IQs though we don’t know if that was the cause or the effect of brain damage.”
Bigler says that smaller premorbid brain size “may be a risk factor for more significant reduction in IQ following brain injury.” (pg 391)
But as far as I can tell, this was after a TBI.
“At the same time, something as complex as g is probably not located in any one specific area (i.e. PCF) although some areas may be more involved in g than others. Here’s what Rushton said:”
g reflects functioning of the frontal lobe:
Click to access Newman_Sternberg-chapt-2005-intelligence.pdf
And this study shows that neuroanatomic areas underlying the g factor could be found throughout the brain:
Click to access 00b7d51bc7dc0e7168000000.pdf
The frontal lobes are where a lot of our intelligent behavior originates. Scoop that out and I’d expect a large hit to cog ability.
Have you ever heard the story of the guy who had his frontal lobe removed? After his surgery, he couldn’t remember anything and each day was completely new to him. At the end of his life he still believed he was the age he got the surgery and he saw himself in the mirror and saw an old man, yet didn’t remember it the next day. So the PFC is extremely important there. I wonder what this guy’s IQ was.
Sorry I don’t have more information on this, I saw it on a TV show a few years ago.
“Except people didn’t often live until old age until recently”
Stephen Guyenet, obesity expert and neuroscientist says:
Paleolithic skeletons indicated a life expectancy of 35.4 years for men and 30.0 years for women, which includes a high rate of infant mortality. This is consistent with data from the Inuit that I posted a while back (life expectancy excluding infant mortality = 43.5 years).
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/life-expectancy-and-growth-of.html
This paper says:
For human hunter-gatherers, mean life span at birth is about 31 [ranging from 21 to 37 in several populations (3)]. For Swedes, it was about 32 in 1800, 52 in 1900, and is 82 today (17). So life expectancy increased by about 165% from hunter-gatherers to modern Swedes and at a rate of about 12% per generation since 1800.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3497824/
I recall a few conversations on H-G mortality rates here in the past.
“so perhaps the large brain partly evolved so we could continue to function after head injuries. Bigler 1995 found that bigger brained people with brain damage had higher IQs than smaller brained people with brain damage, though both groups were probably well below their pre-morbid levels.”
Even with traumatic reduction in brain volume, in a sample of 72 people, those with TBI who had significant brain injuries had an average IQ of 90 (study 1; Bigler, 1995). She also says that whatever correlation exists between brain size and IQ “does not persist post injury” (pg 387).
See pages 389-391 (study 2) for the study on brain size and IQ post injury. Results summed in table 3 (pg 390). Those with low brain volume (1185), aged 28, had an IQ of 82.61 while those with high brain volume (1584), aged 34 had an IQ of 92 (both cohorts had similar education). Bigler showed in study 1 IQ was maintained post injury, so we can say that this was their IQ preinjury.
“Brain size is indisputably linked to IQ, but the correlation is only around 0.33 so there are many brilliant small brained people. Skoyles is saying “why would evolution select for something as problematic as huge brains, when it’s possible for small brained people to have IQs?””
Right.
“The problem with this thinking is that it gives evolution too much credit. Evolution is not so efficient that it always finds the optimum solution, it often just stumbles upon the simplest solution. As you’ve said many times, evolution’s not teleological, so it just randomly stumbled upon bigger brains by accident, and then they were selected by nature. Also, making a brain smarter while keeping it small is probably a lot more genetically complex than making it smarter through brute size, so the needed mutations for the former may have been too rare to have been selected through most of our evolution.”
Skoyles’ point is that big brains cause problems, and so if people with erectus sized brains could have normal IQs, then large brains are not needed for our intelligence level today and they, therefore, must have evolved for another reason (i.e., expertise capacity).
Large brains are also more energetically demanding. So why would large brains evolve? Now think back to what I say about erectus and the passing down of culture. There is evidence that he cooked which would ‘pay for’ his growing brain and other selection pressures that push the need for bigger brains (i.e., new habitats, expertise). The existence of small-brained people with normal IQs lends credence to his claim.
“But Skoyles makes a good point that brain size might have been selected for parts of intelligence not measured on IQ tests, but I don’t think expertise is a good candidate for his theory. Expertise is just acquired knowledge and skills, and IQ tests probably do a good job measuring the potential to be an expert if one puts in the time and effort (10,000 hours if you believe Malcolm Gladwell).”
Gladwell is a hack:
http://greyenlightenment.com/malcolm-gladwell-continues-to-lose-credibility/
“If skoyles had tests measuring the capacity for expertise and could empirically show that these explained a non-trivial part of the variance in brain size unexplained by IQ, his argument would be more compelling.”
Here is some pretty good evidence that expertise reduces—but doesn’t eliminate—the relationship with IQ to memory tasks involving deliberate strategy:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/016502596385578?journalCode=pibd20
No idea about brain size though. First we need to define expertise. Then we need to see brain size. Maybe we can look at other studies and infer something from them, i.e., expertise capacity and brain size.
“One very important cognitive ability that is not well measured by IQ tests yet might be independently related to brain size is executive function. Skoyles should have made his theory about that, not expertise in my opinion.”
Musical expertise, for instance, enhances executive control on “a nonverbal spatial task” along with enhancing control in more verbal tasks.
Click to access 10.1037%40a0012735.pdf
Funny enough, they state that expert violin players had 10,000 hours of practice by age 21.
The studies on cab drivers ‘on The Knowledge’ and racecar drivers showing structural changes in their brain lends credence to my argument (along with the Inuit/tools/brain size).
“A very rough analogy I like is brain size is to IQ as height is to weight. Being taller tends to make you weigh more, but it’s only one of many factors that affect weight.”
This is a great analogy because weight is affected by numerous variables, the most important, in my opinion, being obesogenic environments. But more often than not, a taller person is going to weigh more than the average (5 8 and 190 pounds for the average American man). So, correct me if I am wrong, a taller person will have a higher chance of weighing more than a person with a bigger brain having a high IQ, all things being equal.
Yes, the height-weight correlation is somewhat greater than brain size-IQ correlation, but they’re both moderate correlations and thus comparable.
This meta-analysis shows the correlation between brain size and IQ being .24,
That’s probably a little on the low side. The meta-analysis included many studies that failed to correct for range restriction which depresses correlations and also used a somewhat biased method of selecting studies for inclusion. I estimate the actual correlation to be 0.35.
In contrast, the studies reported in this investigation indicate that in the traumatically injured brain, there is little linear relation between the amount of brain atrophy or even the size of a lesion and measured IQ.
These studies suffer from range restriction. In order to find a correlation between x and y, both variables need to vary. In a study where everyone has brain damage, it’s hard to find a correlation because there are no undamaged brains to compare with, so you’re forced to slice the data very thin by focusing on degrees of brain damage.
The classic example of the range restriction problem is height and basketball. We know the 2 variables are correlated because the average NBA player is super tall. However within the NBA, there’s little correlation between height and basketball skill (Michael Jordan is actually somewhat shorter than the average NBA player despite being the greatest). That’s because when almost everyone is super tall, there’s not enough variation in height to see the pattern of height increasing basket ball prowess. Similarly, when everyone is brain damaged, it’s hard to see the pattern of brain damage lowering IQ.
Surprisingly, as indicated in Study 1, even with traumatic reduction in brain volume, overall IQ in a sample of 72
participants with TBI with significant brain injury was 90.19 (SD = 13.01). Accordingly, even with significant brain injury and morphological changes, the aggregate IQ of this group is within the average range
But they’re 10 points below the U.S. mean and probably more because the IQ test used had old norms that they didn’t correct for.
Can you get the source for brain damaged people scoring 16 points lower on the WAIS?
Pages 111-112 of the WAIS-IV Technical and Interpretive Manual. That’s where they appear to have published the study, not in a journal.
Bigler says that smaller premorbid brain size “may be a risk factor for more significant reduction in IQ following brain injury.” (pg 391)
But as far as I can tell, this was after a TBI.
Yeah, bigger brained people with and without brain damage have higher IQs than smaller brained people with and without brain damage. The interesting question is whether small brained people LOSE more IQ points following brain damage and I don’t think that’s known, because so few studies of the brain damaged have access to pre-morbid test scores.
The frontal lobes are where a lot of our intelligent behavior originates. Scoop that out and I’d expect a large hit to cog ability.
Right, but scoop the rest of the brain out and leave the frontal lobes intact and I’d expect an even larger hit to cog ability. 🙂
Paleolithic skeletons indicated a life expectancy of 35.4 years for men and 30.0 years for women, which includes a high rate of infant mortality.
Right, so the hypothesis that big brains evolved to keep us sharp in old age is probably wrong since folks seldom reached old age in the past.
Even with traumatic reduction in brain volume, in a sample of 72 people, those with TBI who had significant brain injuries had an average IQ of 90 (study 1; Bigler, 1995). She also says that whatever correlation exists between brain size and IQ “does not persist post injury” (pg 387).
According to Bigler 1995, study II found big brained people with TBI were about10 IQ points higher than small brained people with TBI, so the brain size IQ correlation clearly does persist post injury, and I suspect the ability to cognitively function after injury was one of the selection factors for our big brains, since TBI is one of the oldest and most common afflictions, with evidence of it going back 3 million years.
See pages 389-391 (study 2) for the study on brain size and IQ post injury. Results summed in table 3 (pg 390). Those with low brain volume (1185), aged 28, had an IQ of 82.61 while those with high brain volume (1584), aged 34 had an IQ of 92 (both cohorts had similar education). Bigler showed in study 1 IQ was maintained post injury, so we can say that this was their IQ preinjury.
No he found no correlation between degree of injury and IQ among those who all had brain damage but that doesn’t mean brain damage itself doesn’t lower IQ. Remember the range restriction problem I mentioned above. The people in study I almost certainly lost IQ points as their mean IQ was only 91 on the WAIS-R and if they were tested circa 1995 by which time WAIS-R were 17-years old & thus 5 points inflated, their actual IQ were 86. Since the average IQ is 100, this suggests they lost 14 IQ points from brain damage.
Skoyles’ point is that big brains cause problems, and so if people with erectus sized brains could have normal IQs, then large brains are not needed for our intelligence level today and they, therefore, must have evolved for another reason (i.e., expertise capacity).
Big brains do cause problems, but the IQ they provides solves problems, so if the benefits of the latter trumped the burden of the former, they’d be selected for. Period.
Just because it’s possible to get a high IQ without a big brain doesn’t necessarily mean evolution will stumble on that ideal solution because evolution’s just not that efficient.
Skoyles is probably right about big brains providing other cognitive benefits independent of IQ but he’s provided very little empirical evidence that brain size increases expertise in particular independently of IQ. In fact the same argument he uses against IQ could be used against expertise: It’s possible for a small brained person to be an expert. Anatole France was an extremely eminent expert at the craft of writing yet had a homo erectus sized brain.
Large brains are also more energetically demanding. So why would large brains evolve?
Because the benefits of more IQ were so incredibly great they dwarfed even all the many costs of big brains. Big brains create problems (i.e. energy demands) but the high IQ they provide solves problems (i.e. cooking) which as you say provided energy, and allowed brain size to evolve further.
The studies on cab drivers ‘on The Knowledge’ and racecar drivers showing structural changes in their brain lends credence to my argument (along with the Inuit/tools/brain size).
How so? Structural changes to the brain is evidence of brain plasticity, not brain size evolving for expertise. And while it’s true that Inuit have lower IQs than their brain size would predict, this doesn’t support Skoyles theory unless you can show they have more expertise than their IQs would predict. I’m sure they are experts at being Inuit, but whites have contributed far more to world knowledge, and thus show more expertise.
As far as I can tell, expertise is just IQ + some special talent which varies according to the domain, applied to a specific subject.
“Yes, the height-weight correlation is somewhat greater than brain size-IQ correlation, but they’re both moderate correlations and thus comparable.”
Isn’t the correlation between weight and height between .6 and .7? I don’t recall and I cannot find a good source.
“That’s probably a little on the low side. The meta-analysis included many studies that failed to correct for range restriction which depresses correlations and also used a somewhat biased method of selecting studies for inclusion. I estimate the actual correlation to be 0.35.”
They didn’t correct for range restriction because a majority of the SDs for the samples weren’t reported. And: “Considering this, the present estimate based on the actual observed values was deemed amore reliable estimationofthe overall association. Similarly, no corrections for measurement error of intelligence tests and volumetric measures were applied because both intelligence tests (Hunt, 2011) as well as volumetric measurements (MacLaren et al., 2014) have been typically observed to be highly reliable.” (pg. 427)
But what if the study says “we found a significant correlation between IQ and brain size” and the correlation is not reported. Did they still contact the scientist? Actively seeking out unpublished correlations that are likely to be low (insignificant correlations) while not doing the same for unpublished correlations that are likely high (significant correlations) could bias the meta-analysis downward, however elsewhere in the paper they imply that all unreported correlations were solicited, so perhaps there was no such bias.
This is conjecture and you can either a) contact the lead author yourself and ask him his methods or b) look through the studies they said they used in the meta-analysis and see how many were only ‘significant’ or ‘nonsignificant’, excise them and redo the analysis yourself.
Also, you know that Wicket, Vernon, and Lee (2000) were included in the Pietschnig et al (2015) meta-analysis right?
I have become suspicious of meta-analyses because they seem to consistently undermine established correlations between IQ and a wide range of variables, in favor of smaller more politically correct correlations. For example, Jensen claimed the correlation between IQ and income was 0.4, but a meta-analysis claims it is only 0.25. Scholar Richard Lynn claimed that black Africans score 33 IQ points lower than British whites, but a meta-analysis claimed they only score 20 points lower. Considering that meta-analyses have tried to undermine IQ’s correlation with such Darwinian variables as income and race, it’s not surprising that they would also undermine its correlation with brain size (the most Darwinian correlate of them all).
You can at least try to hide your biases…
Remember when you showed me the meta analysis on dieting and mortality after I showed you my one study (Look AHEAD) showing that diet and exercise don’t work? What has changed now? Oh yea, a dearly-held belief you have is under attack, so switch it up when it benefits you!
Why do you say that ‘meta-analyses have tried to undermine IQ’s correlation with ‘Darwinian variables”? I’m sure you know why meta-analyses are carried out, so you saying this is clearly ideology talking.
On the other hand, it could be that the meta-analyses are accurate and that HBDers have inflated these correlation by selective reporting. However a problem with meta-analyses is that crappy studies get lumped in with good ones, and the more error that gets included, the less likely you are to find a strong correlation between any two variables.
Let me check your pieces on Rushton and Ankney’s meta-analyses…. was this same criticism given there? Nope!
There is variation between studies, so meta-analyses are a pretty damn good thing.
https://www.meta-analysis.com/pages/why_do.php
And so it is my opinion that the best way to get the truth is to look at the very best single studies ever done.
So why do you look at Rushton and Ankney’s meta-analyses and only look at ‘the very best single studies ever done’? So selective… Wonder why…
So two massive data sets on adults both agree that the correlation between brain size and IQ is about 0.35. Further, I have shown that even the anomalously low 2015 meta-analysis would have likely yielded a correlation of 0.35 had range restriction been corrected for. Thus, 0.35 is very likely to be the true correlation between IQ and brain size among (white) adults in Western countries when either sex or body-size is controlled. Jensen and Rushton’s finding of 0.4 was likely not nearly the overestimate as we have been led to believe.
Second sentence, that’s a huge guess. You’re extrapolating one point from meta-analysis to another? That doesn’t make sense. You should email Pietschnig and ask him his methods on data collection. The ideology bias oozes through this article. They explained why they didn’t correct for range restriction. Did you even read the paper or did you only read the abstract….?
“Similarly, when everyone is brain damaged, it’s hard to see the pattern of brain damage lowering IQ.”
Do you know how easy it is to tell how someone didn’t read a thing that they’re commenting on?
“But they’re 10 points below the U.S. mean and probably more because the IQ test used had old norms that they didn’t correct for.”
Here is another study (though brain size is not measured; I guess education is a good enough proxy) showing the same thing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2077538/
Tested 74 people 16 years after injury. Pre-injury IQ scores were also obtained.
The whole cohort pre-injury (PI) had a 99.79 IQ. T1 (early measure) IQ for the cohort was 90.96 while T2 (late measure) IQ for the cohort was 92.37. For people with greater than 11th-grade education (n=30), IQ decreased from 106.57 PI to 95.19 in T1 to 100.17 in T2. For people with less than an 11th-grade education (n=44), IQ PI was 95.16 and decreased to 86.99 in T1 and increased to 87.96 in T2. Male (n=51_ and female (n=23) were similar, with male PI IQ being 99.04 to women’s 101.44 with a 90.13 IQ in T1 for men with a 90.72 IQ in T1 for women. In T2 for men it was 92.94 and for women, it was 92.83. So this cohort shows the same trends as Bigler (1995).
The most marked difference in subtests post-injury was in vocab (see table 3) with similarities staying the same, and digit symbol, and block design increasing between T1 and T2. Neither group differed between T1 and T2. The only significant association in performance change over time was years of education. Less educated people were at greater risk for cog decline (see table 2).
The difference for PI IQ after T2 for less educated people was 7.2 whereas for more educated people it was 6.4. Though more educated people gained back more IQ points between T1 and T2 (4.98 points) compared to less educated people (.97 IQ points). And: “The participants in our study represent a subgroup of patients with severe head injury reported in a larger study assessing long‐term psychosocial outcome.”
“Pages 111-112 of the WAIS-IV Technical and Interpretive Manual. That’s where they appear to have published the study, not in a journal.”
Thanks no thanks for providing the source.
Any idea if there was a follow-up done on the 22 examinees? The study I cited had a follow-up, though the test used was the NART-Revised (National Adult Reading Test) and showed an increase in some sub-tests.
“Yeah, bigger brained people with and without brain damage have higher IQs than smaller brained people with and without brain damage. The interesting question is whether small brained people LOSE more IQ points following brain damage and I don’t think that’s known, because so few studies of the brain damaged have access to pre-morbid test scores.”
I agree. The question is answered. Read the study I cited here. I guess education is a good enough proxy for brain size right? People with low education had a difference of 7.2 points between PI scores and T2 scores whereas highly educated people had a difference of 6.4 IQ points between PI and T2 scores. Though, small sample, etc (same with the WAIS study).
“Right, but scoop the rest of the brain out and leave the frontal lobes intact and I’d expect an even larger hit to cog ability.”
Can a human still function with the rest of the brain scooped out and the frontal lobes intact? People can still function with their frontal lobes removed.
“Right, so the hypothesis that big brains evolved to keep us sharp in old age is probably wrong since folks seldom reached old age in the past.”
I agree.
“According to Bigler 1995, study II found big brained people with TBI were about10 IQ points higher than small brained people with TBI, so the brain size IQ correlation clearly does persist post injury, and I suspect the ability to cognitively function after injury was one of the selection factors for our big brains, since TBI is one of the oldest and most common afflictions, with evidence of it going back 3 million years.”
In the discussion of study 1, paragraph 1, pg 387 he writes: “Positive correlations have been consistently observed between MRI-determined brain size and IQ in healthy, normal individuals; the current findings indicate that assumption does not generalize to the traumatically injured brain. In other words, the degree of trauma induced cerebral atrophy, per se, does not necessarily relate to IQ. Likewise, whatever positive relation is present between brain size and measured IQ preinjury apparently does not persist postinjury.”
“No he found no correlation between degree of injury and IQ among those who all had brain damage but that doesn’t mean brain damage itself doesn’t lower IQ. Remember the range restriction problem I mentioned above. The people in study I almost certainly lost IQ points as their mean IQ was only 91 on the WAIS-R and if they were tested circa 1995 by which time WAIS-R were 17-years old & thus 5 points inflated, their actual IQ were 86. Since the average IQ is 100, this suggests they lost 14 IQ points from brain damage.”
See table 2 pg 388. Significant differences in brain volume, but same IQ scores (moderate-to-severe and mild-to-moderate brain injuries). Also, he does say that “Small brain size at the time of injury may result in greater cognitive impairment
postinjury.” (pg 388)
There was no PI testing, so it’s specualtive, but they had differing brain sizes and the same education level. Smaller premorbid brain size may (probably is) be associated with decreased cognition. The study I cited lends credence to that claim.
“Big brains do cause problems, but the IQ they provides solves problems, so if the benefits of the latter trumped the burden of the former, they’d be selected for. Period.”
“Period”. Whatever that means.
Big brains cause birth complications for the child and mother (death risk for both). SO if people can have IQs with erectus sized brains, then you don’t need a large brain for a high IQ—even Jensen agrees.
“Skoyles is probably right about big brains providing other cognitive benefits independent of IQ but he’s provided very little empirical evidence that brain size increases expertise in particular independently of IQ. In fact the same argument he uses against IQ could be used against expertise: It’s possible for a small brained person to be an expert. Anatole France was an extremely eminent expert at the craft of writing yet had a homo erectus sized brain.”
Of course he is right. Unless you believe IQ tests to be a perfect measure of human cognitve ability, testing every facet of human intelligence.
Anatole France had high intellectual ability despite having a brain size the size of erectus—which is the point and why Skoyles brought him up.
“Because the benefits of more IQ were so incredibly great they dwarfed even all the many costs of big brains. Big brains create problems (i.e. energy demands) but the high IQ they provide solves problems (i.e. cooking) which as you say provided energy, and allowed brain size to evolve further.”
Correct. Not just cooking, but meat eating and food processing before consumption as well. Nevertheless, IQ is one possible reason that brain size increased—and looking at Skoyles paper, he provided sufficient evidence for the claim. And you know in regards to energy demands, I say with an overall decrease in energy for the human species that a smaller brain would be selected for, and I don’t think the hit to cog ability would be too high.
“How so? Structural changes to the brain is evidence of brain plasticity, not brain size evolving for expertise. And while it’s true that Inuit have lower IQs than their brain size would predict, this doesn’t support Skoyles theory unless you can show they have more expertise than their IQs would predict. I’m sure they are experts at being Inuit, but whites have contributed far more to world knowledge, and thus show more expertise.”
Of course they are experts at ‘being Inuit’. The point is, you cited Lynn citing another author who cited yet another author on tool use/complexity. I took that as evidence for my point on brain size/expertise capacity. That’s the basis of the argument. Since you need to ‘be an expert’ to craft/teach someone else to craft complex tools for survival. Then compare to the tropical peoples in the study who also had fewer tools.
“As far as I can tell, expertise is just IQ + some special talent which varies according to the domain, applied to a specific subject.”
Expertise is defined as “elite, peak, or exceptionally high levels of performance on a particular task or within a given domain“.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3941081/
1) Someone can’t just have a higher IQ than someone else with no relevant background in a subject and be ‘better’ than someone with a lower IQ with a background in that subject (which I believe you will agree with).
2) The individual in question also needs to be exposed to relevant experiences in which he can use the knowledge acquired to its fullest potential.
3) Therefore, without these 2 requisites, one cannot become an ‘expert’ in a domain—IQ be damned.
Bigger brains means more neural columns/chunks. Chess players, for instance, tap into these chunks more during a game for memory recall. You also need to look at ‘perfectionism’. A school of EvoPsych though proposes that the brain increased in size for noninnate cognitve skills, be it something learned on your own or something shown to you culturally. Therefore, evolution must have selected for “specialised motivation, perfectionism, so that humans could become capable of the perseverance necessary in order to learn noninnate abilities.” (Skoyles, 1999: 5)
Click to access Psycoloquy%201999%20Evolutionary%20psychology%20of%20perfectionism.pdf
So it’s more than just brain size increasing for expertise—a certain ‘perfectionism’ was needed along with it which also evolved.
Damn that was a long comment.
Isn’t the correlation between weight and height between .6 and .7? I don’t recall and I cannot find a good source.
I’ve read 0.4 to 0.5, but it may depend on whether you use same sex samples or mixed sex samples
They didn’t correct for range restriction because a majority of the SDs for the samples weren’t reported.
Then their results are meaningless. As I already explained, range restricted samples tend to have much smaller correlations than general population samples.
Here is another study (though brain size is not measured; I guess education is a good enough proxy) showing the same thing.
Did you understand the study? It confirms my point that brain damages lowers IQ, however it might not accelerate cognitive ageing.
“Pages 111-112 of the WAIS-IV Technical and Interpretive Manual. That’s where they appear to have published the study, not in a journal.”
Thanks no thanks for providing the source.
I provided the source.
Any idea if there was a follow-up done on the 22 examinees? The study I cited had a follow-up, though the test used was the NART-Revised (National Adult Reading Test) and showed an increase in some sub-tests.
Some but not all
I agree. The question is answered. Read the study I cited here. I guess education is a good enough proxy for brain size right?
Wrong
In the discussion of study 1, paragraph 1, pg 387 he writes: “Positive correlations have been consistently observed between MRI-determined brain size and IQ in healthy, normal individuals; the current findings indicate that assumption does not generalize to the traumatically injured brain.
But study II in the same paper proved that it does.
Also, he does say that “Small brain size at the time of injury may result in greater cognitive impairment
postinjury.” (pg 388)
I agree
Big brains cause birth complications for the child and mother (death risk for both). SO if people can have IQs with erectus sized brains, then you don’t need a large brain for a high IQ—even Jensen agrees.
Small brained high IQ people are the exception not the rule. Evolution works on general trends, not rare exceptions.
Of course he is right. Unless you believe IQ tests to be a perfect measure of human cognitve ability, testing every facet of human intelligence.
No but they’re the best measure of intelligence we have. If skoyles wants to invent a better measure of intelligence and correlate it with brain size, he’s free to do so, but until he has a way of measuring his construct, he’s simply not doing science
Anatole France had high intellectual ability despite having a brain size the size of erectus—which is the point and why Skoyles brought him up.
Skoyles cites high IQ people with small brains to prove brain size evolved for expertise not IQ. Yet France, whose IQ is not known is incredibly high in expertise and still incredibly small in brain size. So the correlation between brain size and expertise might be lower than the correlation between brain size and IQ, debunking Skoyles. Because his whole theory is based on cherry picked anecdotes, it can be debunked by cherry picked anecdotes.
“I’ve read 0.4 to 0.5, but it may depend on whether you use same sex samples or mixed sex samples”
Do you have an academic citation? I can’t find a good one for the life of me.
“Then their results are meaningless. As I already explained, range restricted samples tend to have much smaller correlations than general population samples.”
How did it pass peer review if the paper is meaningless? Must be a conspiracy to lower the brain size/IQ correlation.
And they didn’t correct for it because a lot of the SDs were wrong, and also further explained why they didn’t correct for it.
“Did you understand the study? It confirms my point that brain damages lowers IQ, however it might not accelerate cognitive ageing.”
Yes I did understand it. I should have been more careful with my word choice earlier—brain damage with minimal change to IQ. Which is what Bigler (1995) showed. Though Bigler (1995) didn’t have PI IQ, but Wood and Rutterford (2006) did, and from T1 to T2 (Bigler 1995 tested what would be equivalent to T1 in the Wood and Rutterford 2006 study), Iq hardly increased for those with lower edication (.97 points) but substantially increased for those with higher education (4.98 points) with there being a similar difference between PI IQ and T2 IQ for both groups.
“I provided the source.”
Kinda. I still had to find it myself. Providing the link is better. Thanks.
“Some but not all”
What were the results? Source?
“Wrong”
Education is correlated with intelligence; intelligence is correlated with brain size; but education isn’t correlated with brain size?
“But study II in the same paper proved that it does.”
1) Let’s accept the correlation of .35 as true. That only explains 12 percent of the variation. Why do you think I used the higher .51 correlation to prove the point that I wanted to make?
2) I know you didn’t read the paper because he says, pg 388: “… has a mean IQ in the normal range“, which is “in the normal range”.
3) People with lower lower brain volumes did have a higher cog hit. On pg 398 he says that “… the brain must be related to intelligence” and “ This is evidently so because considerable structural damage can be imposed on the human brain with minimal change in measured IQ. Because these are damaged brains but still functioning “intellectually,” it suggests that there must be considerable redundancy in the brain that underlies measured intelligence.” and that “greater redundancy within brains with larger volume may be a protective factor.” I don’t disagree with any of this. MRI also only shows a static measure of the brain—not its function, which Bigler 1995 showed that sever damage can occur to the brain with minimal change to IQ, still in the normal range, which was Skoyles’ point.
4) In study 1, they people were tested 42 days after injury which would be T1 in Wood and Rutterford (2006). In study 2, the participants were the same except only men were included and study 3 used, yet again, the same participants. So as you can see in Wood and Rutterford (2006), from PI to T1 and T2, IQ gains were dissimilar (described above), yet both still ended up gaving around the same number of IQ points lost (with some other neat tidbits thrown in there). That’s why I cited the study—as a compliment to Bigler (1995). The participants in Wood and Rutterford (2006) also had very mild to very sever head trauma.
“Small brained high IQ people are the exception not the rule. Evolution works on general trends, not rare exceptions.”
OK so brain size only explains 12 percent of the variation—per your .35 correlation. This leaves a ton of room for other factors.
For instance, the left rostar anterior cingulate cortex (rACC) uniquely accounted for between 11 and 16 percent of the variation in WAIS-III Full-Scale IQ scores.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0112691
See table 4a in this paper.
https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/brain/119/5/10.1093/brain/119.5.1763/2/119-5-1763.pdf?Expires=1494982495&Signature=e3eMcizCLfl2rNVekU0PqD1p6jQwNtVWDA2ezgXpmzfF~cnP~tLKFwWsxP4Wl5ONx~0wDbgJt97soBOdkiDCsCzcHp2FB4aYgPkIoK6AH-X2-Jm0jo0DOwFDVh5iCRRyElKC25NevOoC58f98KAO7lJ~Ypp0k1iS9~obf0z~MPC4agHQG3h~PxogRl~5ozdXZMpQdJo~6vhq9ejopYV2BKwwZxzFvNBU9hAn~Xxa7KGkxFTyaBzQPrMlwYs8crTrCYWdrar~raAhBQbiI~33Z3RLQ7130ygbUXnhw8NN4g~zQ8RPQPhHDnxDYV6x24Uqeqdl5QoxkM95HBtWLmjH8w__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIUCZBIA4LVPAVW3Q
IQ increased with cerebral volume to a point, then began decreasing as the size got bigger in adolescents 5 to 17 years of age. Hmmm….
“No but they’re the best measure of intelligence we have. If skoyles wants to invent a better measure of intelligence and correlate it with brain size, he’s free to do so, but until he has a way of measuring his construct, he’s simply not doing science”
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.427.387&rep=rep1&type=pdf
“Yet France, whose IQ is not known is incredibly high in expertise and still incredibly small in brain size.”
“We are told that the fissures and sulci which separated the relatively simple lobes were deep, that the ventricles for the brain were small, and that there fore, in relation to mass, there was extensive development of of the cortical grey matter.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2525321/?page=1
There is also a quote in French in the paper, commenting on France’s brain size, which I asked Afrosapiens to translate for me which he says, paraphrasing “his brain was as comparable to a piece of goldsmithry, a precious watch.” Further, the author noted ““We are told that the fissures and sulci which separated the relatively simple lobes were deep, that the ventricles for the brain were small, and that there fore, in relation to mass, there was extensive development of of the cortical grey matter.“‘
“So the correlation between brain size and expertise might be lower than the correlation between brain size and IQ”
Skoyles cites a paper showing that Raven’s doesn’t correlate at all with expertise but I can’t access it. Either way the onus is on you to prove this since you made the claim.
“debunking Skoyles”
Prove it.
“Because his whole theory is based on cherry picked anecdotes, it can be debunked by cherry picked anecdotes.”
It’s really not. He shows that brain size leaves a lot to be desired in terms of IQ; he shows that as brains get larger, IQ begins to decrease; and he shows in the !Kung bushmen that they need a certain expertise. Motivation for ‘perfectionism’ was also a key component—which you ignored.
He didn’t provide ‘cherry-picked’ anecdotes. He showed that the brain size IQ correlation measured at its highest still needs to explain a ton of the variation (when in reality the correlation is not that high). Tracking prey would be a very important skill in our evolutionary past, no? He cites a study on the !Kung to back his claim.
Further, some of the first cultural transmission/acquisition occurred when we began making/using stone tools; cooking, etc. So this is further in line with his theory—with cooked food increasing the bioavailability of important nutrients for brain growth (along with the slew of factors I noted in Man the Athlete that began with erectus. This is just the proverbrial icing on the cake.
How did it pass peer review if the paper is meaningless? Must be a conspiracy to lower the brain size/IQ correlation.
Sigh. It passed peer review because it was the most comprehensive listing of such studies ever done, and may have provided a good estimate for the typical correlation found in scientific studies. But the typical correlation found in scientific studies doesn’t tell us the correlation in the general population because the typical study sample is range restricted and they did not correct for this.
And they didn’t correct for it because a lot of the SDs were wrong,
That’s not my problem RR
Yes I did understand it. I should have been more careful with my word choice earlier—brain damage with minimal change to IQ.
Minimal change to IQ? Have you ever known anyone who suffered brain damage? Many have lost the ability to dress themselves so dismissing the effect on IQ is silly. In addition, a recent meta-analysis found:
FSIQ impairments were absent for patients with mild TBI, medium-sized for patients with moderate TBI (d = -0.61, P < 0.001) and large for patients with severe TBI (d = -1.09, P < 0.001).
In case you’re wondering, the d values are probably roughly equivalent to the IQ difference expressed in standard deviation units, so multiplying d = 1.09 in severe TBI with the IQ SD which is 15 points tells us that severe brain damage depresses IQ by 16 points, just as the WAIS-IV study I found mentioned, except this isn’t just one study but a review of the entire literature
Education is correlated with intelligence; intelligence is correlated with brain size; but education isn’t correlated with brain size?
Education is only moderately correlated with IQ which in turn is only moderately correlated with brain size, which means education is only weakly correlated with brain size.
OK so brain size only explains 12 percent of the variation—per your .35 correlation. This leaves a ton of room for other factors.
Yes but small correlations can have big effects. The 0.35 correlion implies that for every 1 SD increase in brain size, IQ will increase 0.35 SD on average. So when our ancestors mutated brains that were 250 cc bigger (2.75 SD more brain size), their IQs were 0.96 SD higher (14 points). If the bigger brained tribe averaged 14 IQ points higher than the smaller brained tribe, the former would obliterate the latter with very little effort ceteris paribus. Yes a huge brain comes with massive metabolic and physical burdens, but they’d still win out because they’d have the technology and strategy to kill off their rivals very quickly. So it’s very easy to see how huge brains were selected for despite the mediocre correlation with IQ and all the problems big brains cause.
IQ increased with cerebral volume to a point, then began decreasing as the size got bigger in adolescents 5 to 17 years of age. Hmmm….
Your link doesn’t work but they probably failed to exclude pathological cases which is essential when looking at the extremes of any human trait.
Skoyles cites a paper showing that Raven’s doesn’t correlate at all with expertise but I can’t access it. Either way the onus is on you to prove this since you made the claim.
No, the onus is not on me, but your challenge is so easy I’ll do it anyway. Expertise in chess is positively correlated with IQ.
Prove it.
The fact that there was a world class expert in writing who had a brain the size of homo erectus proves you don’t need a big brain to be an expert anymore than you need a big brain to have a high IQ, thus destroying the whole foundation of Skoyles’s argument. And on top of that, the cognitive capacity to acquire expertise is largely just a reflection of IQ, as proven by the chess research, further undermining Skoyles’s claim that it’s an alternative explanation for our big brains.
It’s really not. He shows that brain size leaves a lot to be desired in terms of IQ;
This has been known for decades.
he shows that as brains get larger, IQ begins to decrease
Not when you exclude pathological cases.
; and he shows in the !Kung bushmen that they need a certain expertise.
And they needed IQ to acquire that expertise
Motivation for ‘perfectionism’ was also a key component—which you ignored.
No, he’s arguing brain size increased the COGNITIVE ABILITY to acquire expertise, not the motivation.
He didn’t provide ‘cherry-picked’ anecdotes. He showed that the brain size IQ correlation measured at its highest still needs to explain a ton of the variation (when in reality the correlation is not that high).
Virtually every trait we have only moderately correlates with the function it evolved for. This is to be expected for an organism as complex as humans
Tracking prey would be a very important skill in our evolutionary past, no? He cites a study on the !Kung to back his claim.
Learning to track prey would correlate with IQ just like learning any other skill does and coming up with the idea in the first place would also require IQ
END OF DISCUSSION
NO FURTHER COMMENTS OR REPLIES
Erectus may have covered more territory:
But Neanderthal covered colder territory:
Being able to handle the cold matters if they came via the Bering Straight, although phil78 notes that it sometimes wasn’t especially cold.
Those maps look kinda similar. I wasn’t able to find data in longitude/latitude for erectus and Neanderthals. So the map is the next easiest thing.
“Being able to handle the cold matters if they came via the Bering Straight, although phil78 notes that it sometimes wasn’t especially cold.”
True. And Dreier assumes they weren’t cold-adapted in Asia. But, as I showed in the Solid et al citation, mammals with larger brains survive better in novel environments. So from this we can infer that Asian erectus had a bigger brain (along with it being later in his evolution). So if erectus did get to the Americas through Beringia, then it was when it was warmer. Remember that erectus lost his first around 2 mya which helped with sweating. I don’t know if erectus may have evolved fur again in Asia, I doubt it though.
And some researchers believe that erectus died out a lot later than is usually thought. So I believe erectus is a great candidate. It’s a ton of speculation but the pieces do fit. I think Asian erectus may have rafted here. But I did find a new book to read and I just bought it yesterday, the Hardaker 2007 book. Looks good.
But yea, on my opinion it’s very likely erectus made it to the Americas. I doubt it was neanderthals because they didn’t have the range, erectus had the ability and the range to make it to California.
Alec baldwin young looks similar enough to a guy in my class. If you are alpha you get some interesting offers from women. Alec is a picture book alpha. In fact textbook.
Im agnostic on chest hair.
What women like is masculinity. If the chest hair adds to that then it should help.
I tried propecia. It killed my libido. So im using nozoral and minoxidil. Propecua effects 5% of men that way according to their own paid for trials . I suspect its more based on the large permenantly eunuched internet community..
Masculine men almost always tend to be self centered assholes. Because contra gloria steihem thats the way the world ahould work.
Hmmmm
Nothi g more to add.
Nothing personal but rr is not a very readable guy.
His prose feels like its hitting me over the head forcing me to accept it or it will put a horse in my bed.
However afros is far worse.
“HELLO EVERYONE. BONJOUR. BONJOUR. I am an insurance model. To sell the insurances one must be 5 foot and the 10 cms exactly or more. Many times i said that women really like me. I believe that this can happen to you sirs. Yes. For $14.99 and postage i wil give you the secret !
Oh dont be shy little one. Many men have gotten my secrets in public restrooms all over the world!
Anyways enough about you lets talk about me. Today i went on a boat tide around lake geneva in my 500ft yellow floating bouncy castle. This is proven on the instagramme. Ok? And then i met president obama and we played basketball to show the stupid le pen voters that obama is more french than they will ever be. My life is amazing. Simply amazing. And you to can have it for just $14.99 plus postage.
That is all for now. I am thinking very seriously about writing a book on me. But this is difficult to think about conceptually should i refer to myself in the 1st or 3rd persons. Te nehsi coates said it best – i must find a jew to publish my secrets for $14.99.”
LMAO, this is the first time Philibuster makes me laugh.
One inaccuracy though, my full-time coaching program costs £400k, not $14.99 (I couldn’t even buy lotion with that). Jimmy booked it but he disappeared.
IQ test question: can you detect the pattern?
Meanwhile, your language is basically a Franco-Germanic Creole, our life expectancy is at a level you Americans can’t even dream of, our chefs become millionaires, your ladies crave our luxuries, la crème de la crème of your upper class speaks our language with pride, and your balance of trade with us is alarmingly negative.
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c4279.html
And you’re jealous of our new President.
Try again Mug of Pee.
la crème de la crème of your upper class speaks our language with pride
hardly any of them speak more than one language afro-tard. those who speak 2 are immigrants. and the second language is almost never french.
delusional is not just a river in egypt.
and everyone knows french chefs suck compared to spanish, danish, italian, and even london chefs.
try again afro-tard.
How would you know from your trailer park ? Rich and classy Americans crave French high culture and most of them master conversational French.
And Mug of Pee, it’ denial (Da Nile) that’s not just a river in Egypt. The pun makes no sense otherwise.
And lol on French chefs. There is no high cuisine that is not French or French-inspired. You really don’ t know how to live.
How would you know from your trailer park ? Rich and classy Americans crave French high culture and most of them master conversational French. FALSE
And Mug of Pee, it’ denial (Da Nile) that’s not just a river in Egypt. The pun makes no sense otherwise. IT’S CALLED A JOKE AUTISTIC FROG.
And lol on French chefs. There is no high cuisine that is not French or French-inspired. You really don’ t know how to live. FALSE
john kerry and mitt romney. romney because he did his mormon mission in france. of 20th c american presidents only two spoke french. they were both roosevelts. of all presidents only three more spoke french. j q adams, monroe, jefferson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multilingual_presidents_of_the_United_States#Bill_Clinton
the elite speak ENGLISH afro not frog talk. americans have no reason to learn another language and even its elite has little opportunity. it’s impossible to learn a language without being in country for a long time. that means either really long vacations or schooling abroad. foreign languages aren’t even part of the curriculum in american schools until high school usually. and the older you are the harder it is to learn a new language.
you really don’t get it afro. do you?
1. macron said, “there is no such thing as french culture.”
2. the french think of themselves as sophisticated, cultured, thinkers, but…
3. they’re just ridiculous. the whole world laughs at you and you’re oblivious. you’re worse than americans in that way.
Macron said there is no French culture, there are cultures in France. Can you see the nuance? For instance: I’m a Norman aristocrat, my culture isn’t the same as that of an Alsacian in Mulhouse or a French-Algerian in Avignon.
1-you are ridiculous
2-the world looks up to us and laughs/cringes at Trump’s America.
patriotism is trailer park afro.
i hate my country more than i hate yours.
just because your country sucks doesn’t mean mine doesn’t suck more.
do you get the nuance?
you’re a belligerent nationalist who hates nationalism.
a black haitian who thinks he’s norman french.
a gay man who thinks he’s straight.
there’s hope for you afro, but you have to blow out the cobwebs.
You said countless time the French were inferior ? To who ? You never cared to tell except saying only Germans can think. And your German worshipping is ridiculous, the stats hide a horrific social reality there. France is the opposite, our stats arzn’t brilliant but our lives are lit.
We’re one of the very few Euro countries with a strong fertility rate, we have a material and immaterial heritage that only Italy comes close to, we have an unequaled art de vivre, a mild temperate climate and amazing landscapes.
more info here:
http://us.france.fr/
And we don’t like Jerry Lewis, we don’t even know who this guy is in 2017.
for example you might go on a date with santo.
the stats hide a horrific social reality there
what’s that?
Germany has large and populous poor areas:
You’re aware that Germany has a huge working-poor population, the service sector is probably as harsh as America’s, that they have very low fertility, a welfare state that isn’t as protective as France’s.
This country was technically dying before the refugee crisis. Unfortunately for them, the migrants don’t come from high fertility countries like in France, and their daycare infrastructure is deficient.
the working poor in germany are a new phenomenon due to neoliberal brainwashing of the german elite. but still a small phenomenon.
as you can see germany has the SMALLEST % of working poor in the OECD.
less than half that of france. sad! and those poor areas are in east germany looks like.
germany makes things unlike france. its industry and education have the closest relationship in the world. it has apprenticeships for everything. it has the highest current account surplus to gdp of any non-OPEC country.
what are fertility rates among actual french people afro? not people like you and your girlfriend. your adoptive parents had ZERO children. remember?
historically speaking germans make the french look like children. great thinkers, artists, scientists, engineers, brewers, etc. whatever the list, the germans come out on top of the french. sad!
it’s good that you love your country afro. ignorance is bliss.
of course scandinavia is the best for the average person. australia and canada are best in the anglo-prole-sphere.
and seriously afro…french? do you know what you sound like? but all languages other than english are weird.
notice the yuge gap between n an s italy.
genetic? i really really doubt it.
but there’s one thing at which s italians are the world champions…organized crime!
some have blamed this n/s divide on organized crime.
maybe.
seems like transportation is the issue. s italy is isolated. more isolated than any other region in europe.
here’s a&e’s 100 most influential of the last 1000 years.
http://wmich.edu/mus-gened/mus170/biography100
it’s american so it will have a british and german bias, but…
aquinas (mispelled) is # 24. 4 italians are ranked higher. columbus (who sold out to the spanish) is the highest ranked italian. i think aquinas was from south of these 4.
it’s just geography.
i mean think about alpinists.
greatest alpinist ever is an italian…but with a german name. ’cause he’s from the northern border. reinhold messner.
“some have blamed this n/s divide on organized crime.”
This is a huge cause.
The Mafia accounts for around a 20 percent drop in GDP in Southern Italy.
https://www.rt.com/news/312599-mafia-poverty-southern-italy/
Click to access en_tema_868.pdf
Schooling is also another variable.
Ok, I read RRs post 4 times back to front and I think you can make a coherent case that Race ‘Realist’ may harbour racist beliefs.
For me the funniest comment in this blogs history was the time Deal mentioned she had read the blogs back catalogue for a few weeks and realised Pumpkin might hold the belief that the races are different.
[redacted by PP, may 12, 2017]
[redacted by PP, may 12, 2017]
[redacted by PP, may 12, 2017]
Remember Remember the 4th of November.
{Physiognomy is real}
Intense dysgenics make it easier for certain Danish high IQ people to ramrod people.
Whites are becoming more East Asian. Hence the growth of manga, virtual reality gfs, living in basements and posting under pseudo intellectual pseudonyms as ‘The Philospher’.
OOpppSSIEES.
Anyways theres an east asian accountant I’m working with who is intensely autisitc. He literally walks away mid conversation and has no affect. I understand why he does it unlike the other guy, but it still pisses me off when he does it. I suppose people would tend not to believe what I say despite my cognate commentary if I told them I was diagnosed as ‘mildly psychotic’ the other day.
It just struck me that most of the Hollywood movies today would be considered arrested development.
I haven’t seen that term used in years. Possibly since the early noughties. Its appropriate.
Comic book movies, however well written are not the golden age of cinema material.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4092134,00.html
This is very interesting though. I didn’t know Stan Lee was jewish. Magento is the only pop culture jewish villain….nice essay on this from the jewish perspective.
At a meta level, magneto is not a commentary on malcolm X vs MLK, but Zionists vs civic cosmopolitan jews. Sometime in the mid to late 20th century, the Cheim Weizmann gang beat out the Marcus Goldman gang, egged on by the possibly [redacted by PP, May 10, 2017], turning some moderate jews into the people that post black men crowding around white women in canadian newspapers.
https://voat.co/v/Niggers/1850537
Here’s our resident guido mongrel, who calls himself a anti-racist, why should be a part of a group that is racist and hateful by its name itself?
So if that is me, then this must be me too:
https://www.reddit.com/r/HBD/comments/6aaqlb/homo_erectus_in_america/?st=j2j84h66&sh=f1f8b4d7
and this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/HBD/comments/65wi62/race_testosterone_and_honor_culture/?st=j2j866uv&sh=cf53940e
Orrrrrr people see my content and put them on message boards to read…. you assume they have to be me. Makes sense. Logic, not even once.
I’ve said that I used to harbor those types of views in the past and then I grew up. But your assumptions suck; just because people post my content to message boards doesn’t mean it’s me.
Logic, not even once.
For me, ive always honestly found rr scary. I would be gebuinely frightened of meeting someone as unhinged as rr in real life. If you look back i was saying rr is full of wanton rage and hate from day 1.
There is nothing frightening about me. Hate and rage? I know you’re trolling but for those who think you’re serious:
Hate and rage are a waste of time. I have better things to do with my time than waste it ‘hating and raging’ about something that I cannot change myself. I worry about things I can personally change—nothing more, nothing less.
Now let’s get back on topic. You too Jason. If you have a problem with me, cool. Stay on topic though, and most importantly, talk about what I wrote not anything off-topic!
Thank you.
Roma look like they’re going to do very well in the coming years. The American owner, Palotta is a a very high IQ hedgie guy who has socal intelligence and grit. The new sporting director Monchi is the best youth talent scout in Europe. And they look like they’ll have Baldini back for negotiations and wheelin dealin.
If they can keep Spaletti, the guy that invented the false 9 formation and most talented young coach in Europe, I think the trophies are inevitable even with Milan/Inter Chinese money laundering inflation.
Juventus are similarily well organised.
Juve’s owner is the Agnellis of Fiat/Ferrari fame who part control The Economist magazine with Rothschild. Berlusconi used to own Milan, so would have many run ins with the Agnellis match fixing tendencies which they were doing well before ‘Lucky’ Luciano Moggi.
Agnellis are worth studying if you’re Italian.
Berlusconi is a very interesting guy. The Italian Trump more or less. Hates open borders. [last sentence redacted by PP, May 10, 2017]
I suspect Berlusconi is troubled financially to be selling AC Milan. The courts have hounded him for decades. Theres nothing in Berlusconis closet the other Italian elite probably don’t have.
AC Milan are legit European royalty, perhaps more so than Juventus who have not been anywhere near as successful in Europe as they can’t match fix those games. Although Brian Clough doesn’t think so:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/champions-league/5292028/Footballs-great-conspiracy-theories.html
Apparently the Moggi tapes showed Moggi fixed a match with Ajax in the CL.
I can’t understand why you would need to fix matches when you are a superior team?
Risk aversion? Habit? Its ridiculous.
The italians maybe evolved to be more clannish to stave off the jewish infusion under Rome. Its not rocket science to see the Italians are much more tribal than the eunuchised Brits.
Remember, the jews honed in on Rome first in Europe. Not Germany. The italians have been fairly successful in beating off the jews for centuries and retaining control of their media. Maybe the Catholic Church was a decisive factor as well.
That’s another bow in the sring to the idea the Italians are the highest IQ European country. The Anglo Saxons/Normans/Teutons folded like birthday cards under sophistry. Maybe they lack a the how do you say, papal protectione?
Bizarro that Afro is catholic in that context.
so pill is not a lifeguard?
if pill is working in private equity despite being fired 14 times this proves my point regarding credentialism.
does pill have an advanced degree in economics?
those with advanced degrees in maths have higher IQs but basically zero job prospects compared to pill. only the very best will ever land jobs as quants.
contra jimmy and american politicians the US economy, at least, has a yuge surplus of STEM grads. it’s least for the E part, but there’s still a glut.
is it a real glut? could these people be more productive in a different system? the answer is yes.
the so-called STEM shortage is just a way to lower wages.
typical PhD in synthetic organic chemistry from top 10 school in the field working for a big drug company might make $100k per year if he was lucky.
the US is just one yuge scam. but scams are cool because free market, because communism, because stalin, because…
getting rich in a retarded system run by and for retards moral and intellectual is NOT “the ultimate validation”. but less than 1% of the people can stick their heads up from the fold, and see. an even smaller % of sheep dogs or shepherds. and the sheep don’t listen to them. the herd is just too big.
like my penis.
on april 3 wallace shawn and chomsky, two jews, kibbitzed at the nypl.
chomsky made the point that belief in “american exceptionlism” is much more common among the american elite.
if you don’t believe it…good luck getting into the elite.
so again…
america selects for a certain kind of stupidity in addition to IQ, obedience, and sociopathy.
this is the problem with revolutionaries like sanders.
they think the whole problem is just defeating the current elite.
but the problem is much more complex and difficult. it is…
1. a system which prefers people based on some virtues, but also some vices…thus the evil but clever elite.
2. systemic stupidity. long standing institutions like formal education, winner take all electoral system, private insurance, privatized health care, or organized religion which are stupid and evil in themselves irrespective of who’s running them.
but afro (aka peepee) brings up an interesting question.
why are lesbians ugly?
why is this a question?
1. make-up, long hair, jewelry makes a woman LESS attractive. men who claim otherwise are GAY. and until recently women almost never wore makeup or jewelry. they did have long hair though.
2. if lesbians aren’t physically different from straight women, why are they ugly? do they try to look like men? lesbians look tired and beat up. they look miserable. they look like they have a yeast infection that has spread to their brain.
3. maybe it’s just that lesbians try to signal that they’re lesbians, and men pick up this signal.
let’s see. let’s do another test of afro’s orientation. women he’ll know because they’re french. scratch that. here’s a list of france’s 10 sexiest women. they’re all PLAIN or just weird looking. http://brosome.com/top-10-hottest-french-women/
the french just have bad taste…in everything…they’re just inferior.
sad!
Mug of Pee, lesbians try to look a bit like guys because it sexually arouses them to look & feel a bit masculine
Many lesbians are beautiful and feminine, mug of pee is full of shit.
Thats implying they recognise a gender pumpkin. There is no such thing as masculine. Shutup i havent found a fundamental fault with feminism by looking at homosexual identity patterns. No. I said shutup.
“make-up, long hair, jewelry makes a woman LESS attractive. men who claim otherwise are GAY. and until recently women almost never wore makeup or jewelry. they did have long hair though.”
That just screams insecurity. Make up and jewlrey on women is fine as long as it isn’t too overboard. I’ve seen the women you find attractive Mugabe, you may as well tuck your dick in between your legs and call yourself tootsie.
Either you or philosopher needs to go, Philo is smarter and funnier, but he is more annoying than you(if that’s even possible). Everyone on this blog has annoying traits but you’re like that loud belligerent uncle who always gets too drunk at the family reunion. At least Afro and RR can be normal human beings sometimes.
no. it screams insecurity in your sexual orientation that you like makeup.
pill and i are the only reason any one reads this blog.
afro is autistic. are you too?
sad!
“that you like makeup.”
I just don’t care really. I guess this explains why you hit on pumpkin like a 5th grader with a crush, you’re into bull dykes.
“pill and i are the only reason any one reads this blog.”
So then leave and we can test out this theory.
All of my science teachers in high school were lesbians. They were all fat with short haircuts and relatively narrow hips (compared to straight women). Two of them also liked lumberjack shirts.
1. make-up, long hair, jewelry makes a woman LESS attractive. men who claim otherwise are GAY. and until recently women almost never wore makeup or jewelry. they did have long hair though.
LMAO. Almost wanna post it on twitter to make my followers laugh.
You’re full of shit. First, long hair wasn’t the norm in the past in the West, it was hidden. Only prostitutes wore their hair wild and long in public. And jewellery is often the most abundant form of art that remains from ancient civilizations.
Girls not only look better with their make up and hair and well done but they also do it as a gift to their man. Whenever your girl stops wearing make up and making sur she’s on fleek for you, you can tell the magic is over. And if your girl spends more time in the bathroom before going out without you, piece of advice: stalk her, she’s not going to a gay bar.
And your list is bullshit, it’s not possible to make rankings of women by beauty, it’s too subjective. And this ranking wasn’t even made by French guys. I told you what I like: Kim K, Ciara, Gabrielle Union, Eva Mendes, Jennifer Lopez…
have you told your parents?
would they disown you?
i know you have no taste. stop telling me.
Kim K, Ciara, Gabrielle Union, Eva Mendes, Jennifer Lopez…
eva mendes yes. j-lo is ok.
so you like the drug addicted lesbian look too?
sad!
Lol, all these girls are gorgeous and sensual. Kim K is the most searched celeb on pornhub. You have no taste at all, you like tomboys and women from the past. I hope you never lose your right hand or the other if you’re left-handed.
i do it with my own mouth afro. or i use a glory hole at the local public restroom. $14.99.
and those are rich folks afro.
the average peasant, serf, or slave didn’t wear makeup or jewelry. these were luxury goods.
and they’re un-Cynical. they detract, because they add nothing. they’re fake.
Yes they’re luxury good and luxury is the incarnation of what is thought as the most desirable in any society. But in traditional societies in Africa, Asia or Europe peasants wear jewels made of simpler materials.
https://goo.gl/images/JYXIkg
https://goo.gl/images/CZdJql
Don’t try to argue, jewels and makeup clearly enhance beauty. Now if you tell your girls to cut their hair, wear plain clothes and no jewels and make up, don’t ask why you’re single and I can tell it won’t change anytime soon.
I used to like Kim K but she looks like something awful now:
Lol, ewww. The young/photoshopped Kim K is a 💯 though
she was NEVER pretty afro.
stop pretending.
come out!
what do kermit and macron have in common?
they’re both frogs, and they’re both puppets.
Very disrespectful to co compare wholesome kermit with the snide face of a high iq psychopathic races of man. Very bad.
actually the difference in life expectancy between americans and french is not that great. much smaller than that between various states of the US and smaller than that between white and black americans. this is surprising given america’s shitty healthcare system, totally inadequate superannuation schemes, and immense stress of american life.
the french aren’t fat. i’ll give them that. but neither are the spanish or italians or swiss or norwegians. the icelanders and australians are fat yet are both longer lived than the french.
moral of the story seems to be that stress and poor diet and even lack of access to healthcare just don’t take that many years off your life.
but the US is a land of extremes. the american “health nut” probably doesn’t exist in france. idk.
But many years of quality life.
Also the french are richer than the Americans in terms of median because they have a better system. But what you are making me reconsider is whether the French have the better system because they’re smarter, or because their Macron like pluto-elite are so cartoonishly kleptocratic and provoke animosity from Marcel the baker?
If you read the history of the 1800s, France was the problem child for the aristocracy of Europe. France has had many awful kings. It seems to select for gamma male leaders. Wormtongues.
No surprise their gamme elite would fold to the even higher IQ gamma race of man. At least the Germans/Dutch/Brits can blame teutonic asperger blindness.
THAT IS A CORRECT POINT. IF WE DONT ABOLISH OUR BORDERS WE WONT BE NICE PEOPLE. THATTH MAKETHH SENTTH. THAT IS LOGICAL.
yes. very surprising.
latinos in the US have longer life expectancy than the FRENCH.
yet they are the most likely to have no access to healthcare.
genetic? maybe. but even though they tend to be fat, their jobs tend to involve more exercise.
Jimmy dore is hilarious. So theres a new astroturf jew democrat rabble rousing org called Indivisible 54.
Notice their description of themselves: “We are a united diverse group who will lead the resistance [against pro gentile nation state Trump]”.
The key word kids is ‘diverse’. The other aspect Jimmy notes is that the necon dems only raison d’etre seems to be nailing Trumpy and promoting magic negro.
You see goyim? Jimmy can’t see it. He calls “pathological liar and cheater” Debbie W. Schultz in this video ‘white’. The brackets around their names was actually a revolution. I didn’t see all the links myself before it.
I think it works like this (verbal IQ/prop logic):
100IQ – dont care about politics beyond celeb factor
110IQ – care about politics in relation to what it does for oneself
120IQ – silly smart ideas about rac-ism, women should be green berets, the only reason high T men feel rac-ism is bad parenting. ‘Stereotype threat’. ‘Institutional Racism’.
130IQ – start to talk about Marx and the plutocrat vs people historical continuum. Still agnostic or even more passionate about racial equality and open borders due to slanted historical case presented by….
140IQ – the first inkling of sum-ting-wong. Ability to deconstruct Derrida/Foucalt sophistry. Ability to see Bernays techniques in action around you. Full integration of Marxist critque to one’s economic ideology. Has the tools in place to see the [redacted by PP, may 11, 2017] if he is schizo and willing to entertain alternative ideas.
150IQ+ – Can describe the way the economy, politics, women, nature, sociey, culture and history work delving into these areas. Is now very ‘jew aware’. No need to be schizo. But likely schizo at that VIQ level due to the well known link between VIQ and neurosis.
Likeiwse high Quant is linked to aspergers.
So schizo is a very VIQ trait. And aspergers a quant one.
Prop logic and predicate logic.
Symmetrical, no? I’m sure you get guys like Einstein, Descartes, etc who are very gifted in both.
The one thing that disproves this is the black low VIQ. They have charisma and charm, typical of any sociopath….but not prop logic.
Dell is to Mac as Pumpkin is
(a) Sailer
(b) Steve Hsu
(c) Oprah
(d) Pinker
It’s so transparent. Like I could use you as a psychological experiment. If everybody could pay attention real quick you’ll notice how he protects his ego by the promulgation of completely unsubstantiated information. Everything he says is to justify his delusion and failures in life. The Ultimate cuck. I bet you voted “yes” when pumpkin asked whether you’d be cool if your daughter married a black guy.
Afro and I are magical, but that’s better than the attempt at magic you display. Fuck it I’ll even play by your games too. You’ll never live in Southpark, simply because you’re a White dwarf. Enlightenment is reserved for those who can shed their lead and continuously add curves to the half circle not for those who have already established their revolution and simply rotate until they burn out. If you can’t understand this then you’re simply too low T.
Melo is always on my back about calling the race of man all other races regard as barbaric ‘magical’. Its for ironic effect. Its not like you dont get enough over the top positive portrayals out there in the jewish media/academia.
If you want a blog celebrating black oscar winers go to gq, nyt, wapo, cnn, vice, vox media, msnbc etc etc There are plenty of options.Why subject yourself to a hbd blog? You know people will have similar opinions to me in these circles right?
Because you are a voyeur of the truth.
Hahaha.
You get a gina tingle everytime i say magic negro. Because….
Its all true and deep down you know it.
Now watch the cog dissonance.
3
2
1
💯^💯
speaking if gina tingles…
on my glory hole i’ve written in sharpie around it’s circumference “AFROSAPIENS”.
i hum the theme to jaws and say, “get ready her it comes.”
deal with it says, “don’t hurt me.”
They call me JJ le Terrible.
“There are plenty of options.”
Not really, no.
“You know people will have similar opinions to me in these circles right?”
Of course, the schizo doesn’t get the point. I don’t really mind them that much, you just never shut up. With the amount of incoherent bullshit you post on a daily basis it’s no wonder you’re constantly getting fired. That’s okay though, I’m sure you like to think of yourself as a fiery rebel.
“You get a gina tingle everytime i say magic negro. Because….
Its all true and deep down you know it.”
Haha No, what is magic is how you disguise your inadequacies as a result of jewish supremacy. White woman don’t want me more than you because of jewish magic, they want me more because my dick is bigger. Something you need to come to grips with.
I dont do badly in the girl department with white or black girls or arab or latina. But east asians i am very insecure about. I cant compete with godzilla.
Its all jewish magic.
Rac-ism
Wars against 7 mid east nations simultaneously
Financial deregulation
Ripping off white people pensioners
Open borders
Social construction
End of christianity
Sloot culture
Homosexual worship
And
Magical negero neeegero negillo. Fa so la tee do!!!!!
Hbd is the study of psychological warfare. Not biology melo. Heres some more psy warfare:
If you are mixed race why try so hard to be magical as opposed to asian? Thats right – you are insecure and want to glom onto a jewish illusion. Obama lite as it were. You belong with the other confused kids on iamaconfusedseminigletbaby.com.
I bet your pussy is sopping now. You voyeur!
“I dont do badly in the girl department”
I doubt that.
“If you are mixed race why try so hard to be magical as opposed to asian?”
Why try so hard to be white as opposed to the retarded snow nigger you imitate.?
“Hbd is the study of psychological warfare. Not biology melo.”
No. It’s the study of biology.
Meanwhile mugabe tries to make a meme out of an already existing meme. He’s an outdated troll.
snow nigger.
they can’t even get the insult right. it hardly ever snows in most of western europe. the correct term is “white nigger”. or “vanilla ice”.
Meanwhile mugabe tries to make a meme out of an already existing meme.
wtf? not any meme i’ve seen.
“the correct term is “white nigger”. or “vanilla ice”.”
Not at all, then again your knowledge in evolution is shoddy so I don’t expect you to get it anyway.
“wtf? not any meme i’ve seen.”
That’s because you’re 60 years old. You don’t know DBZ or oney. Again, outdate troll is outdated. PHilo is your replacement.
How are you supposed to know anything about 150+ philosopher?
If you are 140 why do you even care that propaganda works when you are at the apex.
It doesn’t work on my, I don’t give a shit.
Obsession over race is for insecure people.
You cannot do anything about it and are just seething in anger.
You would have been better off being born with an IQ of 95 living a happy life.
Right now you are powerless and as trump says, SAD!
Seeing the truth is painful because you can’t do shit about it.
so you wine and complain. You’ve wasted your life obsessing oversee the propaganda you will never overcome. Because of everyone one ist stupid and you cannot change stupidity.
Your angry that everyone is stupid instead of being productive with your own life.
You probably know nothing about being 150+ IQ.
The don’t obsess over trivial things you do.
They realized it was trivial, to begin with.
They got over it, it doesn’t matter.
Find something better to do with your life philosopher.
1. I never said I had a 140 IQ. You said that. In fact I have never mentioned my IQ nor posted test results, nor pictures, nor even mentioned what school I went to.
2. You think jews or very high IQ don’t worry about race and politics? Are you living under a rock…
Don’t answer that!
3. Have you ever been to a dinner party or talked to professionals? Politics is a common topic.
4. Would you be quiet if you were Winston Smith in 1984?
5. No obsession of invasion is not for ‘insecure’ people. Just like obsession over oscars, aa, womenz rights, ‘equality’, ‘diversity’, ‘rac-ism’ isnt necessarily ‘insecure on their side. Drop the higher than thou pretense, its retarded, imbecillic and in my personal experience that only people that kept thinking about ‘being the bigger man’ and ‘turning the other cheek’ in life were complete and total fuckin losers.
Just because you notice a pattern doesn’t mean some kind of race war will happen or any other illusions you have. the reason I am into technology is because I am a sci-fi nerd that sees advancements all the time that will subdue any hopes of a race consciousnesses that even has a hope work doing anything to change demographic decline. You just don’t get it, half of the people are stupid, half of the people are liberal and don’t give a shit about race. Mordor as you call it will always be in control because of technology. Artificial intelligence is becoming so smart and the PC culture is advancing so fast you cannot stop it. I don’t need to be on a high horse to see past your delusions. I read 1984 when I was 20 years only but you philosopher are too dumb to realize Marx was right about technology. The A.I. controls everything, the profile everyone. They take out the people that are the real threat, not some cousin Timmy. Rats would eat the eyes of Winston Smith but you follow the wrong propagandist. Read Huxley. Read cybernetics. Read stuff about the technology of the elite, not the buck-toothed hillbillies who watch Paris Hilton. Your failer to think technology has no power just gives you little credibility in my eyes. Race wars are stupid. And only low IQ people think they can make it work. The high IQ people understand technology and they understand conditioning the masses and they read brave new world, not 1984. The soviet system is not the future system. You think jews have some master plan. Your Bullshit eyes eaten by rats cannot see that the elite doesn’t give a crap about blacks. They give a crap about power and power comes from technology because technology is a tool and humans use tools. Racism is one method to maintain power but it only works on low IQ people like you. High IQ people understand that real power comes from controlling full spectrum dominance. Low IQ people care about race because they fucking don’t understand the super intelligence found inside supercomputers in Arizona. Jews think about race because jews have low IQ’s like you philosopher. High IQ people build artificial intelligence. The Blacks pose no threat. Low IQ people pose no threat. Only low IQ people think blacks pose a threat. Stop being so low IQ philosopher. All you need to do is say do it to Julia and the rats will eat her eyes, not yours. Orwell was a bullshit author talking about the soviets. Huxley was a prophet of the West control system. Orgy-porgy.
Translation.
Philosopher. Many people say i have no social intelligence. This qualifies me to talk about the humans and sasquatch. In the future sexbots and vr will mean nobody competes for everything and they will join a new human race where everyone is autistic like me and mark zuckerberg, who is ibjectively sexy based on google page rankings.
Technology is the future . Thats why the aristocracy gave in after the industrial revolution and shared productivity 160 years after spinning jenny because they were nice and saw the entropic effects of fordism.
My xbox will save the world. You just cant see it because you dont have an xbox.
Furthermoresly, i find racism low iq. Jews are low iq because they believe in selfish genes. They are irrational unlike my sexbot katamomo who momos me to sleep every night.
Technology now means we all have mcjobs and social decay just like it says in the textbook. I cant understand why marx agitated for a revolution despite saying tech will solve everything. I cant hold those 2 propositions in my head at the same time.
Somebody once said autism is microlgic within a well defined space set by others like philosopher. I disagree. I am fully animate and think therefore i follow. #error145 run error report…processing….complete.
Pumpkin should publish this as debating against an inanimate object is not rational. Update complete.
nothing changes philosopher.
I think the ‘higher than thou’ meta tapeworm is possibly the worst. Its essentially a cheap way of getting people to down tools and roll over.
Who care if blacks win oscars beccause they whine? YOURE BIGGER THAN THAT.
WHO CARES IF YOU GET DISSED IN A SUPERMARKET BY AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT? YOURE BIGGER THAN THAT.
WHO CARES IF YOU NO LONGER HAVE A NATION? Bigger! Bigger!
Try being bigger with someone pounding your head with a baseball bat. This is why people refer to modern christianity as ‘cuckianity’ and why adopting magic negroes is a fashion statement for these ‘religious’ men whose t levels and pozzed out face would make madonna weep in disgust!!
If illuminaticat ran the world I bet he’d host a peace conference and get everyone to do an analysis and agree on being peaceful and not tribal and essentially forget about their evolutionary instinct. This would involve castration. I don’t see any other way around it. Or he could ask the jews to brainwash themselves and the blacks.
Except brainwashing …funnily enough….doesn’t work on blacks. And that is a topic I’ll discuss at length another day.
it’s worked on afro.
The philosopher is a dumbass because he thinks that brainwashing can suppress instincts. He believes sexuality is a social construct. He thinks jews will make white people disappear. He is a dumb ass because he thinks low IQ people are the elite. He thinks that the elite are in power because of jews. He thinks jews control the high IQ people and make them believe in social contracts. Philosophers is a dumb ass because he believes low IQ people control high IQ people. He is a dumb ass because he believes in dumbass shit like. [redacted by PP, May 11, 2017] is possible and philosopher is just as dumb as Oswald whole thought communism is better than capitalism. Instincts don’t matter in a system where your instincts don’t bring about revolution. Revolution is for retards like the philosopher.
I am repeating this here:
Instincts don’t matter in a system where your instincts don’t bring about revolution. Revolution is for retards like the philosopher.
I don’t really hate philosopher but he goes on and on about instincts and how every race has different instincts. But I have never ever believed that any one race has total control. Or that anyone can ever have total control. Philosopher just hates it that the propaganda is pushed on him and other people of his ethno interests but To me I funking don’t care because I don’t believe you can change people instincts unless you are the liberal PC crowd that go to university and can be brainwashed. If philosopher has any compassion he will feel sorry for university students not working class Americans. If The brainwashed can be brainwashed then who gives a fuck about them. What effect will quant IQ have on society and what is the plan of the verbal IQ to counter it. Please, mugabe knock some sense into philosopher. Brainwashing is not based on IQ it is a personality trait. My quant IQ is (77) goddamn it. I am slow as hell, I don’t have time for this bullshit that propaganda will brainwash everyone. Be specific philosopher, be goddamn specific. I am tired of hearing all the time that the jews make people have low verbal IQ.
Translation
In my opinion, social engineering does not work because I said so. For example, I am a christian with an adopted Haitian baby and am absolutely not out of my mind.
How can you prove brainwashing philosopher? Give me a schematic and quantitative metrics with the necessary p values.
You should have more sympathy for the barbarian races of man. Just because they grew up without centralised states to weed out their psychopathy, doesn’t mean you should be guarded. About 20% of them are nice. So thats worth putting up with social liquidation in my book.
Why do you care what happens to your family and friends and world you grew up in? Who cares? The basement and virtual reality is the future.
Xbox will save the world. Soma is xbox. Xbox is soma. QED. The end.
End status update.
Would you say that Philosopher says that the races have different “essences”?
Why brainwashing doesn’t work on Blacks ?
because in order to be brainwashed one must first have a brain.
^^^
nationalism without chauvinism = democracy.
why?
because democracy without national identity is impossible, a farce, a tragedy.
free trade without open borders means whole countries lose. the “free exchange benefits both parties” is not even true at the level of individuals without equal information and sophistication let alone at the level of states. the free trade preachers are autistic. see Life and Debt. see the mass immigration from mexico following NAFTA. etc.
open borders makes democracy impossible.
who’s in favor of free trade, no capital controls, and open borders?
the same people who hate democracy.
without limits on trade, capital flows, and immigration democracy becomes impossible. the sovereign state ceases to exist along with popular sovereignty. it’s replaced by one world government by pseudo-intellectuals who are really just puppets of capital, private moneyed interests.
there’s a saying which applies to US college admissions, hiring, and promotion decisions…
if you can’t measure it, you can’t change it.
in the case of hyper-globalization it might be…
if you can’t control it, you can’t change it. it controls you. you’ve lost your sovereignty.
as macron inter alia and his puppeteers want. sad!
If we look at departures
from these group size effects, however, Protestants show the lowest levels of in-
breeding homophily, while Catholics, those with no religion and “other” religions,
and Jews show higher levels of homophily (in that order) (Fischer 1982, Marsden
1988, Kalmijn 1998). As with race/ethnicity, we see a tendency for inbreeding
homophily to counteract the likelihood that members of smaller categories will
have almost totally outgroup relationships by chance. The Jewish men in Fischer’s
(1977) Detroit sample, for example, have 80% of their friendships with other Jews,
while few would be predicted by random assortment. And 80% of all Jewish mar-
riages are to Jews in this group that makes up less than 2% of the population
(Kalmijn 1998).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/200110353_Birds_of_a_Feather_Homophily_in_Social_Networks
still waiting for pill to explain his vast conspiracy theory.
Thats more evidence for it you dumbass. You posted another ‘smoking gun’ the other day that was evidence against your swallow migration theorem of geopolitics.
Next you post a study showing jews are psychopathic and infer they cant work together because they are psychopathic. This is the kind of reasoning im seeing.
how is jewish homophily evidence of a vast conspiracy?
They ain’t selling insuraces… LMAO
bullshits!
My jam:
Second jam
medalion, yuge polo pony, horrible music, porn star level promiscuity…
afro…
you ain’t he’pin’ yo case!
you’re more stereotypically black than most black americans raised by their single mothers in the projects.
sad!
has any noticed that the spell check on this blog is british? or is it canadian? can you check a box when you start the blog or what?
Lol, shut up mug of pee. I’m on your mind 24/7, you don’t just dream about me, you dream to be me. I understand.
reality afro.
whites with IQs > 85 look at these rap videos and think…
blacks being black.
same as it ever was.
blacks pose.
blacks talk.
and it satisfies them.
great black medicinal chemists…
there are none.
racism!
Yeah mug of pee, meanwhile, you’re having a boner from thinking of me and my Gucci life.
Are East Asians part of your brown boys ?
Nah, they’re yellow. Southeast Asians are brown boys though.
Btw, it’s “ulcanisé”, participe passé.
If real madrid win 3 euro cups in a row robert would say its because they had easy draws, the other teams had diahorrea and their astrology chart predicted it not that the team is inherently a good team.
How the hell do you fight the media?
You said everyone’s IQ can’t be immune to brainwashing.
It’s hopeless.
But let blame jews for everyone’s low IQ anyway. (dumb)
wrong. but you would say it’s because the refs were paid to make sure they won.
Lets prove the illusion.
Melos nightclub results in 1950.
Melos in obama era american collapse under zion.
Case closed.
Social engineering works. That s why our elite are 1% of the racial composition of the nation. If it didnt work we would never hear about the mid east in the news and the wasps would never allow the media to promote interracial sex just like they did until15 years ago.
Ever wonder why eddie murphy in hills cop is asexual? Denzal was only allowed bang latinos?
Connect the dots. Im here to help you kids.
Melos results in russia vs chicago.
You can see it in the stats afro posted. He just cant infer from data because hes a hack .
I’ve done well with Russian chicks on the French Riviera.
“Social engineering works.”
“Connect the dots. Im here to help you kids.”
You can’t do shit about any of this because everyone has high quant IQ and Low verbal IQ.
There is no way to fix this, Don’t you read what I wrote. The technology did this to everyone and you don’t get it. Who controls the technology, I don’t give a fuck because you won’t even admit technology is a variable. You think it’s autistic to question the cause of low verbal and the rise of high quant. So is it the television that that is doing it. What kind of crap is that? How the hell are you going to stop people from watching television? How are you going to stop conservatives from watching fox news? What kind of media shit are you going to pull philosopher to stop all the brainwashing? Nothing can be done. You admit people have low IQ. How do you fix stupid, how do you fix the stupid people philosopher? Television is the technology you can’t fix philosopher, at least not for the liberals watching it.
My existence is a threat to philosopher. It’s a constant reminder of his sexual inferiority, and why he’ll never find a woman who won’t cuck him.
I bet afro has either grown out an afro or walked around with a gaudy gold dollar sign around his neck growing up (ongoing).
And in russia hed be walking around with chopsticks and saying sucky sucky 2 dorrar at late night subway denizens.
WHY?!!!!!
BECAUSE MELO IS TOO FUCKING RETARDED TO SEE THE REAL SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION.
Melo had one look at wheres wally and thought ‘this is some high level philosophy shit man, wheres my kfc’
I bet melo has….
Correctionzione
Correzione. (Italian)
I’d put my dog on Melo fist bumping the fat black woman behidn the counter or anyone remotely darker skinned to feel more black.
Or pretend to be.
He has no idea what the hell he is doing. You could probably convinve Melo to give Jaime Foxx a rimmer in high heels if he thought it would make him more magical.
Melo in Moscow
yesss!
ultimately the the problem with diversity is sexual. race based homophily starts at puberty. it’s innate. it can’t be beaten out of people. as bruce hornsby said, “that’s just the way it is.”
the ONLY real exception i know of is that ne asian women tend to prefer white men. all other races and genders are in general sexual racists.
even homosexuals are sexual racists. milo is the exception.
race based homophily starts at puberty. it’s innate. it can’t be beaten out of people. as bruce hornsby said, “that’s just the way it is.”
YES! This is an amazing point; I noticed this myself as did my brothers. My friends were much more diverse before puberty. Around middle school, people almost consciously began hanging out with their own racial group, even at my diverse school.
Yes good observation Videla. I used to think bit was because people didn’t mature into notions of right and wrong cognitively, but your sexual animus theory is probably more true.
Freud would enjoy that.
Black culture> white culture. White women recognize this.
I laughed.
at least once you have to post this peepee.
Are you asian on mondays, tuesdays and wednesdays and black when on thursdays for your basketball game and then for da club on friday?
Or is it a coin toss?
Don’t get offended RR, This is just meant for the neighborhood schizos. I mentioned my superior dick and the jews like one time and now you can literally see the butthurt through the computer screen.
Schizo’s are far too easy to trigger.
Words on a screen don’t control my emotions Melo. My skin is extremely thick.
This black guy told me when I was as 18 that if you give someone control of your emotions then you’re giving them power over your day. That stuck with me for ten years, ever since then I don’t let words bother me.
“Or is it a coin toss?”
I’m asian and white everyday of the week until i fuck your daughter, then I’m black.
Whoa, congrats MeLo, you set them creeps on fire.
Oh yeah, I seem to have struck a nerve. People can’t really handle the truth.
That you’re confused about your racial identity and a fraud?
LOL, My identity isn’t a racial one, this is why you’re so miserable, Why you’ll always just be a cuck, why you’ll never live in southpark ;).
You’re so used to living a dichotomy, it’s literally ruined your life, now you just stay home and spam a blog nobody wants you on while you repeat the same uncreative talking point every other snow nigger does. It’s funny how the most interesting people on this blog are all brown boys. No wonder your women love us, we aren’t boring.
Could Denisovans or some other hominid descended from heidelbergensis (as neanderthals and sapiens also are) be responsible?
It is possible that Denisovans once lived a bit more widely. Melanesians, Australians, and Papuans have Denisovan dna, though this could be from their ancestors passing through a region somewhere to they west of where they now live—maybe somewhere arround the Indian subcontinent or southeast Asia, through or near which they wuld have passed at some point—(though certainly south of where the Denisovan bone was found, as they have no history of living that far north. Itcould also possibly be an unknown hominid in the heidelbergensis lineage (perhaps a close relative of Denisovans or something less close to them, maybe something closer to us, or to Neanderthals. We don’t know).
I am rather skepticlal of Erectus rafting (though I do not rule it out), but rafting across the Pacific is simply not plausible. In Sapiens there is some evidence/indications) of early riverine (and perhaps also at times for shorter oceanic/sea transportation) rafting/boating in Africa prior to and/or around the OOA (and in early out of Africa groups—and of course later), and Neanderthals might have done it too in the Mediterranean or elsewhere. But I believe the oldest evidence of deep sea fishing/travel comes from paleolithic Sapiens in the South Pacific not far from Australia and Papua (and for instance, the mesolithic ancestors of the Jomon made it to Japan quite a long time later)—and nothing like crossing an entire ocean (let alone the Pacific), which no humans (even Sapiens) did until relatively recently (e.g: the Polynesians, the Chinese, some Europeans).
If Erectus (or any other hominid, but esp. in the case of Erectus) made it to America, walking and/or island hopping across the Aleutian islands (or some land bridge) seems more likely.
Sapiens is not very likely (not one hundred percent impossible but of course very remote at best), Sapiens has existed since around 200-250,00 bc, and early movements out of Africa are known from at least 100,00 bc (the Skhul Quafzeh people for instance), but to the chance of any sapiens making it there by anything like 130 ka ago is improbable.
My guess is some unknown hominid in the Heidelbergensis lineage (all of its branches being generally smarter than their earlier ancestor, Erectus), maybe closerf to Denisova than others currently known. Several new hominids have been discovered in recent years and it is likely that there were many we don’t know about. Hopefully more evidence will be found.
Should be:
“…200-250,000 bc, and early movements out of Africa are known from at least 100,000 bc…”
Evidence that the hominin was erectus:
1) erectus had a large population & wide geographic range, which increases the odds it was them
2) erectus is primimitive enough to have evolved into sasquatch (which is almost certainly bogus, but all the eye witness accounts are evidence nonetheless)
3) unlike Neanderthals erectus had the physique to travel long distances
Evidence it was Neanderthals
1) Neanderthals probably had much bigger brains than even Asian erectus & thus were more likely to have the heat retention & intelligence to travel across The Bering Strait or the intelligence to build quality rafts
2) If you look carefully at the map I posted, Neanderthals survived in slightly more colder territory than erectus and thus were presumably better adapted to make the cold trip across the Bering Strait (though it may have been warmer at the time per phil78)
3) The Neanderthals survived in areas that were geographically closer to the Bering Strait, increasing the odds that they walked there
Evidence it was Denisovans
1) We don’t have fossil evidence but they presumably had large brains like Neanderthals judging from how late they emerged in the hominin tree
2) Unlike Neanderthals, they probably had the physique to travel long distances, since they were not so strictly adapted to cold climate
Seria A and La Liga are very corrupt leagues. Saw Torino had a man sent off against Juve for no reason and there was 8 minutes of extra time for Juve to equalise against Milan. Otherwise Roma would be closer. Roma never get anything. When Calciopoli broke 7 teams were done for match fixing – basically all the title contenders except Roma.
No surprise to see the Agnellis, who associate with the Rothschilds on The Economist board are not above cheating.
Real Madrid also get away with a lot of fixing. Nonsense penalties, red cards against opponents and offside goals. In Spain the referees are trigger happy.
The reason FIFA is against video evidence is because its harder for officials to take Russian hookers in hotel rooms if they can’t offer anything.
Bizarrely people accept the governing bodies of football are nakedly corrupt, but not the matches, when the evidence is pretty obvious. You could do a basic stat analysis and show Real and Juve, our two CL finalists are probably the most corrupt establishment teams.
In rugby, the cheating is much less. But a lot of the lads do steroids. Rugby is a much tougher game to corrupt as it has video evidence and no one player can decide a game unlike bribing a goalie to get a sudden case of cystic fibrosis.
Fashanu, the nigerian ‘english’ footballer was a big match fixer. He mentioned buying the goalie is the best way, or a defender as well. Nigerians are the jews of Africa. My old ghanian friend mentioned all the other africans hate them. I can understand it very easily. My experience in Singapore with Nigerians was that they are complete bullshit artists and scammers. I would put money on P Diddy being of nigerian descent.
Or Afro. 100% fucking afro.
I bet Mikey Blaze must be of Ghanian descent as other than Jason, he’s the only black guy in the history of this forum that didn’t lie in under 2 words.
yesss!
why is ghana the richest black african country?
so when there are grad students in your class from ghana or maybe botswana you think…”they’re competition”…instead of…”usual affirmative action bullshit.”
No surprise to see the Agnellis
may-beee!
i would’ve bought the agnellis’ EXO, but it’s head is now very young, very stupid looking, and half jewish…a poor jew married into the rich italian dynasty and his son now runs the family company.
sad!
i’ve seen it before.
my dad’s best friend was a danish lawyer. this danish lawyer was from an “inferior background” to my dad. my dad hired him, because…get this!…because in the interview he showed he did NOT take the job seriously!
what did he do? what did i “see before”?
this danish lawyer married the daughter of a rich local non-danish lawyer.
what’s so weird about that?
it’s very sad!
she was a paraplegic or worse. she didn’t have full control of her arms. she’d been in a car accident age 20 or so. and it was horrible. this danish lawyer cheated on her. he had a child with another non-danish woman. but there was never a divorce. he inherited the house after she died at the ripe old age of 49…
what’s more?
i attended the wedding at the country club. it was a big thing. the non-danish rich lawyer father “put on the ritz” for his daughter. good on him. he’d never heard of denmark.
what’s more?
this danish lawyer is still working. he’s found a niche. he’s a specialist in defending men accused of molestation. he’s a pedophile lawyer. in my town, he’s THE pedophile lawyer.
not making this up!
this same dane was annoying. my dad disliked him. but my dad has no friends. few men past 30 do. so “friendship” isn’t the right description. but when this dane’s latest wife left him…first thing he does is call my dad.
what’s more?
this dane said that my dad was the smartest person he had ever met.
so…
i know…
from experience!
not just anti-danish jive talk.
1. highest ethnocentrism/homophily
2. media control
3. intellectual control
4. antipathy for white gentiles
5. greed + ambition
=
1. parasite
2. appearance of conspiracy without actual conspiracy
3. the endlosung is the same. they must dwell alone.
1. highest ethnocentrism/homophily
2. media control
3. intellectual control
4. antipathy for white gentiles
5. greed + ambition
You see seagulls. I see the perfect conditions for a conspiracy.
People forget the origin of the term conspiracy theory is to be found in the Warren Report on JFK’s assassination. Allen Dulles oversaw that report. Read the Devils Chessboard. A psychological operation then ensued called Operation Mockingbird whereby all major media outlets were managed and coordinated by the establishment to infuse then term with ‘crazy’ connotations. Even now the majority of the public believe Oswald was not the killer.
In reality conspiracies are a fact of life in sport (FIFA and Qatar World Cup), industry (cartels), banking (FX/Gold/LIBOR rigging), hollywood (all young actors are mostly jewish), and of course who decides who to attack who.
Conspiracies are politics. There is no difference.
Consider the 3 historical facts:
1. Russia was initially bulldozed in the early 20th century by the Bolsheviks, of whom at one time were completely jew dominated.
Summing up the situation at that time, Israeli historian Louis Rapoport writes:19
Immediately after the [Bolshevik] Revolution, many Jews were euphoric over their high representation in the new government. Lenin’s first Politburo was dominated by men of Jewish origins.
Under Lenin, Jews became involved in all aspects of the Revolution, including its dirtiest work. Despite the Communists’ vows to eradicate anti-Semitism, it spread rapidly after the Revolution — partly because of the prominence of so many Jews in the Soviet administration, as well as in the traumatic, inhuman Sovietization drives that followed. Historian Salo Baron has noted that an immensely disproportionate number of Jews joined the new Bolshevik secret police, the Cheka And many of those who fell afoul of the Cheka would be shot by Jewish investigators.
Now you can say it was seagulls again as Marxism would appeal to higher IQ people…but it happened again in the 90s when Khordovsky and his gang were again the multitude of the oligarchs. When Kohrdovosky tried to seize media control, Putin stepped in and purged the jews somewhat.
This is really why ‘Russia hacked our election’. The goyim must fight ZIons enemies for him.
This is also why Khordovsky and his acolyte Abramovich decamped to London. Khordovsky had previously gave his money to Rothschild for safekeeping. Rothschild has large sway in London. Abramovich made the Israeli football manager manager of Chelsea just because he was jewish. For American readers that would be like The New York Mets Cambodian owner putting a Cambodian coach in charge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky
Contol F this article for ‘Rothschild’. Its illuminating and damning. They really hate Russians and cant get over the pogroms of the 1800s. Never forget!!!
2. The Neocons. Self explanatory. Its co-ordinated in their media, thinktanks and donors. 75% of the CFR is jewish. The CFR coordinate it. Also more informals deals and calls. All high level pols have jewish handlers eg Obama and Rahm Emmanuel, Romney and Senor, Bush and Perle/Wolfowitz, etc, Ted Turner got stuffed when he tried to buy back CNN. They know what they’re doing. Its an occupation.
3. The sophistry of academia. Strange how ‘liberals’ endorse SCIENCE!
And how at the same time psychology has a replication crisis (because its fraudulent), philosophy is semantic studies, economics regurgitates 200 year old ideas that were false 200 years ago, anthropology studies gays more than races of man and history is put into a shredding machine.
Jay Gould, Herzl, Friedman, Betty Friedman, Steinhem are all proven frauds.
You have to ask – is it a conspiracy.
Unz, a jew, has demonstrated beyond doubt that it is indeed a conspiracy. They control who comes in. So they must control who get published and whos says what.
That is enough for today.
I can’t be everyones tutor here.
then how is it carried out? what’s the organization? does it have officers and a board of directors? who are they? [redacted by pp, may 12, 2017]
homophily for us is good. (lion says it doesn’t exist. it’s all down to our intellectual superiority.) homophily for you is bad is one of the media messages for sure. but do they believe their own lies? they’ve always struck me as weak and emotional people. talkative and pushy but not very bright. it’s like they’re always on speed.
Philosopher: “In my opinion, social engineering does not work because I said so.”
Stop being a dummy, I never said that, what I said was that nothing can be done about it. You think the elite will give up power, You must be brainwashed like everyone else. You say you care that your people are brainwashed. Well, what you going to do about it big guy. Make more comments on this block, deny that the elite has super technology that helps them maintain control. Call me autistic for pointing out that race awareness is not the solution because Trump has Jewish relatives. No philosopher may care that that social conditioning works but you are deluded in that you think a major event will happen, You are deluded if you think Mordor will lose power. The best we can do is elect more people like Trump that will do what you as a useless citizen can’t do. And even then nothing will change. The economy may bet better but this will never stop the brainwashing. You are too dumb to realize how good it works that it will never stop. It can be mitigated but never stop. making fun of deals with it’s 72 genders will do nothing. Don’t be dumb, just realize that lots and lots of people want to watch television and you cannot stop the liberals from watching the liberal media.
And now we come to a realisation I had today.
Without centralised states, the people are selected for psychopathy as there is no ‘law and order’.
But in the African case it was for pure physical ferocity and strength.
This is the interesting thing I’ve figured out then – why would the jews develop high IQ psychopathy and not brute strength?
Because the jews did live under laws and regulations.
By dint of coincidental geographic location, the jews were at one time or another occupied or ‘enslaved’ by Egyptians, Babylonians, Romans, Turks, Persians, and so on.
They did have to follow rules. But because they were not their own rules, they were selected for a race of man that could bend and defy the rules, as brute force was simply not an option.
This is why the jews are the only barbarian race of man to develop high IQ. There is practically very few places in the world where all major empires and historical trade routes converge other than Canaan. Diamond is right that the environment selects for racial characteristics, but it goes so much further than he could ever imagine.
In the most ironic of twists, no races of man have been more enslaved or mulcted than blacks or jews. However blacks sold blacks into slavery. And jews are objectively the most gamma male race of man.
until the endlosung danes exaggerated their mistreatment at the hands of their enemies. in medi-eval europe they lived like minor nobility.
their holy books, bible, midrash, talmud all say over and over again that they are victims and other races must be enslaved or killed. the greeks felt the same way. this sentiment was revived by the nazis.
what explains the gypsies
Shoutouts to Afrosapiens. This is whats knockin’ in Atlanta:
sad!
you guys are too old to listen to contemporary pop music…or any kind of music at all.
i was born too old. that was unusual at my hs, but not that unusual.
we made fun of the kids who listened to contemporary pop. we called them “stoners”.
i’ve had no interest in music since high school. it’s gay and un-Cynical. it’s judged good or bad to the extent it does something bad, suborns one’s emotions. this may be odd as i have superior musical ability.
A wise man once told me, “if you can’t beat them, join ’em”
This is what you have to listen to to get laid.
Mug of Pee, you don’t even realize how ridiculous you are. Your superiority complex and lectures on things of life make me laugh so hard. Dude, look at yourself, every man in this world would hate to be you, and you actually hate your life.
As meLo said, you’re boring but it’s not the only problem: you’re also delusional, creepy, ugly, sexually frustrated and retarded and bitter. You’re smarter and funnier than philibuster, though. At least it is possible to have something that looks like a conversation with you, which is not the case with philibuster. But you’re both annoying (and cringy) and talking to yourself most of the time.
of course i’m talking to myself afr-autist.
afro has taught me a great deal.
he has taught me that racists are right about blacks.
and that france is a pathetic, ridiculous, silly, delusional country.
not what i expected going by his first comments on this blog and on lindsay’s blog, but true.
france is doomed.
sad!
he’s also taught me that the pius x cult has members for whom religion is just a handbag.
sad!
virtue is the reward afro.
capiche?
i am what matters, not my life. i am content. very. much more than you will ever be.
your life, your absurd post on tricking women into spreading their legs, your genuinely horrible taste, your identification as a norman “aristocrat”, your absurd claim to be heterosexual, etc.
you’re looking for satisfaction in all the wrong places. you’re very confused.
some can live their whole lives lying to themselves. most can’t. that one can is not a virtue.
until the very end…then the lies stop abruptly. the truth is blinding. for everyone.
you have to listen to a certain type of music to get laid?
wtf?
you and afro are both FAGS.
not kidding.
i would win The Voice.
if i deigned appear.
i don’t.
Be of good hope in the face of death. Believe in this one truth for certain, that no evil can befall a good man either in life or death, and that his fate is not a matter of indifference to the gods.
LMAO, I feel like I’m the happiest man on earth and that’s what you hate the most about me:
-I am in love and engaged to the baddest chick in the galaxy
-I enjoy the finest things and go to the finest places
-I’m handsome, popular and respected
-I’m young, smart, educated, professionally successful, and healthy
All those things you’ve never been and you will never become.
yep.
i’ve had all those things and still have the last three. i gave up on being in love. love is a drug. people kill themselves for love. people ruin their lives for love. and however sincere it disappears after a few years. for men and for women.
LMAO, come back when you’re sober.
OMG I’m bumping that song in my car.
pathetic loser ^^^.
sad!
Not what girls think when they hear that fat ass bass blasting out of the Rover. Try again, and buy a (decent) car.
afro’s shallow-ness is profound.
Yup, basic brow all the way, and proud of it.
the story regarding NAFTA and mexican immigration is…
many mexican farmers simply couldn’t make a living after restrictions on US ag imports were dropped. american farm production is subsidized and mechanized. the same thing happened in jamaica. and it happened to WHITE jamaicans TOO. a white jamaican dairy farmer appears in Life and Debt.
the mexican farmers could 1. starve or 2. move to the US.
the danish media agrees.
http://www.npr.org/2013/12/26/257255787/wave-of-illegal-immigrants-gains-speed-after-nafta
are you reading pill? i am. i’m reading my own comment. sad!
those who oppose diversity past a certain point are called names. “racist”, “intolerant”, whatever.
i am NOT a racist. unlike pill and jimmy.
but i DO see that diversity is bad past a certain point. a certain small point.
how can that be you ask?
because irrespective of whatever hypothetical bullshit “racial psychological traits”,
the benefits of homogeneity exceed any benefits which require diversity.
this is how i know that hbd-ers are still sucking universalist (aka jewish) cock. they simply cannot understand norms of reaction.
it’s funny watching labor vs the conservatives. all labor has to do is say…”yes! we get it! no more immigration.” they’d WIN the election in a LANDSLIDE! but they don’t. they say, “we subordinate immigration to economic welfare. the economy…blah, blah, blah.” they forget two things.
1. quality of life in blighty, or anywhere else, is NOT solely economic.
2. “the economy” can do well while most people do poorly.
think of it bernie but with trump’s stance on immigration!
bernie would be the first and only US presidential candidate to win every single state.
bernie actually showed he gets it in one interview, before he had to kiss latino ass. chomsky doesn’t get it. so that’s THREE things chomsky doesn’t get. 1. israel 2. global warming 3. immigration. he is 88 years old. maybe that’s an excuse.
You’re talking about Bernie in the Vox interview from 2015. But then he did a 180 about-face on immigration not long after that.
what he really thinks in one interview.
a politician trying to win in the other interview.
the counter to the “racist” name is so obvious.
if they all came from blighty it’s STILL a YUGE problem. it didn’t USED to be a problem. but NOW the US has 320 million people. it’s a problem. it’s the 3d most populous country on earth.
it should be especially obvious to black americans who are MORE american than most white americans.
the truth and politics…would that they should meet!
i can’t imagine if i were black…oh wait…
i am basically black…
you turn away…
you turn toward things greater than your country, your time, your place.
you give up.
if you’re smart.
if you’re not afro.
i don’t know if it was ever true, but my dad told me…
harvard’s professors are great, because anyone who does anything great harvard BUYS.
it’s the same thing with immigration.
if immigration really did benefit developed countries…
it HURTS developing countries.
“brain drain” is BAD!
what immigration booster says, “what the world needs is more brain drain!”
they don’t.
cunts!
asian americans live longer than any asians in asia.
which proves the point:
america is fucked up. but when it’s not fucked up…it’s not bad!
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/life-expectancy-by-re/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22desc%22%7D
makeup. what’s the deal?
high heals and jewelry…what the deal?
what’s the point?
jesus christ!
my RC grandmother never wore makeup. her ears were never pierced. she was against my mother getting hers pierced.
victorians didn’t wear makeup. except the whores of course. makeup and jewelry were considered whore-ish. good on the victorians. good Cynics!
this is the thing…
when americans declaim the saudis’ treatment of women, the saudis RIGHTLY respond, “so you want our women to dress like whores?”
i’m a YUGE feminist, women’s brains ARE under-utilized…
BUT…
if they wanna put on makeup, wear jewelry, wear “uncomfortable shoes”, long hair…
girlfried…you’re still afflicted with stockholm syndrome.
do you have to dress like that to attract your manfolk? are they all faggots or what?
no country is more gender equal than iceland. yet no country has more manly men. and these manly men are the LONGEST lived men in the world!
the bullshit is so PROFOUND that…
some men think they can put on a dress and lots of makeup and they’re…VOILA…women…
maybe to afro…
not to anyone else.
YUCK!
and if lesbians are in to them…
TRANSPHOBIA!
…aren’t…
i blame the danes for my typos.
Why don’t you just fuck off and get laid with a Victorian in her grave?
contra pill, same-sex marriage was the law in non-danish countries before it was the law in denmark. and by denmark i mean the US not denmark. and by denmark i don’t mean denmark, i mean denmark. and by that i do not mean that denmark is marklar or og. but starvin marvin is afro. sad!
the point is…
1. denmark doesn’t rule by force. it’s sway is partly the fault of the non-danish.
2. despite inferior numbers and resources, italy is not yet part of the danelaw.
3. paolo rossi is the greatest footballer ever.
4. Tyger Tyger, burning bright…and did those feet in ancient time…three quarks for muster mark…sad!
i learned yesterday that barclay’s CEO is surnamed “staley”.
STALEY?
i don’t remember why i was dragged along. some soccer team thing iirc. for my bro.
these staleys had two sons. the first was a transsexual. the second was arrested for molesting…boys.
what’s my point?
the rigidity of american class structure.
the CEO staley’s father AND grand-father were ALSO CEOs…AND NOT of the same company! NOT a family company thing.
AND…
gay rights is JUST a distraction…
founders and leaders of ACT-UP are…
rich dane…
larry kramer
and…
rich non-dane
PETER STALEY…
BROTHER OF BARCLAY’S CURRENT CEO.
SAD!
FUCKING!
SAD!
there is this weird theme that all commenters other than me have.
they esteem themselves and others by their hypothetical “sexual market value”.
this is pathetic.
if peepee loves capitalism she should move to guatemala. lowest govt spending as % of gdp of any country. but myanmar has the lowest taxes.
so it’s guatemala or burma.
which is it peepee?
i think anyone who doesn’t think myanmar and guatemala are the greatest countries on earth is an elitist who wants to take peepee’s hard earned money.
there were many different kinds of denisovans. the denisovan in east asians is distinct for the denisovan in melanesians, so considering the broad range it existed in, i think that the american remains could have been the result of denisovan action.