Pumpkin Person rating: 8/10
Dark Matter (based on a true story) is a fascinating little film about some of the problems high IQ East Asians face when trying to cope with U.S. universities. The film tells the story of Liu Xing, a large cranium physics PhD student from China with the highest qualifying score in the history of his American university’s physics program.
His professor is eager to meet such a brilliant mind, but finds his extreme humility, bad English and worshipful attitude (yes sir, whatever you say, sir) a bit socially awkward. I remember thinking that if the professor were aware of Rushton’s theory that East Asians are more highly evolved than the rest of us because of their recent divergence from the evolutionary tree, he wouldn’t find this behavior so weird.
The professor makes clear that Xing is allowed to challenge him, which Xing finds refreshing because in his home country, students are so respectful of teachers that they never challenge authority and as a result, they have fallen behind the West culturally despite being genetically more advanced according to Rushton.
Now free to challenge his professors, Xing makes a brilliant discovery that greatly improves his professor’s model for understanding the universe, but because the professor’s ego can’t handle being upstaged by a university kid, and because he cares more about his status than advancing science, he starts giving Xing a hard time.
He tells Xing that his mathematical tests were not rigorous enough to prove Xing’s ideas, even though those tests were previously considered the gold standard.

The professor
Coming from a more evolved race where such psychopathic and aggressive behavior was weeded out in part by 40,000 years of cold winters, Xing simply can’t understand how people can be so evil and shady, and is absolutely devastated.
The professor’s hatred for Xing grows as he notices the irony that someone as humble and worshipful as Xing is publicly correcting his theory. Seeing a group of East Asians on campus, the professor makes the bitter observation that their humility is just a façade to hide their deep arrogance. Rubbing salt in the wound, the professor’s receptionist states that the Chinese achieved civilization 2000 years before whites did.
Furious, the professor forbids Xing from pursuing his “dark matter” theory of the universe, and this leads to Xing dropping out of school to sell lady’s moisturizer, a job he clearly lacks the English and social skills to pursue.
Seeing his fall from grace is absolutely devastating to Joanna Silver (played by Meryl Streep) a wealthy sinophile who so desperately wanted Xing to succeed.

Johanna Silver played by the brilliant Meryl Streep
Adding insult to injury, Xing is rejected by a white girl he has a crush on.

The young woman who rejects Xing’s advances, preferring to find a primitive alpha male
Finally, he just can’t take it anymore, and he returns to the physics department with a gun and goes on a killing spree. This is a classic example of what Lion of the Blogosphere calls beta-male rage. Lion writes:
The overwhelmingly vast majority of violent crime is committed by thugs.
Beta-male rage is rare, but is on the rise. It happens when a lesser beta male, with no history of violence, criminal behavior or thuggishness, surprises everyone by committing a violent crime.
By a lesser beta male, we mean a male who has below-average success with women. Beta-male-rage crimes are never committed by men with girlfriends or wives.
Also, to be beta-male rage, the perpetrator cannot be suffering from mental illness such as schizophrenia. A lot of crimes that initially appear to be candidates for beta-male rage turn out to be schizophrenia.
Sadly, it’s not just primitive thuggish people that engage in senseless violence. More evolved life forms do so too, but their motives for doing so are very different.
I nteresting story. Very dark ending. Suprised to see streep here. Unsuprisngly the good guy is jewish as per hollywood.
Lots of tropes here with the blonde girl, the snivelling asian etc.
How does pumpkin reconcile anti social behaviours with ‘highest iq’. And i dont meab white anti social behaviours. Remember the asian came to the west to study, not the other way around.
Good point.
Surprised his best friend wasnt a wise crackin black talking about slavery and colonialism.
Yo nigga. You think this is baaad? Man, weve been seeing this shit from crackas fo ten thousand years!!
#10000yearsaslave
Interesting.
The professor being unaccustomed to Asian behavior isn’t very believable, though. Asians are like half a regular physics department. There’s no way he hasn’t met at least 500 Asians already and be working closely with at least several Asian professors.
Oh, and there are plenty of evil and shady people in Asia–those 40,000 years of tough winters also forged the Mongols, and they murdered millions of people. Modern China’s also a pretty cut-throat place. I suspect it’s not so much that the Chinese are unaccustomed to evil and shady folks as that extremely smart nerds–especially nerds dealing with a culture they don’t know very well–tend to be a bit naive and sheltered.
The Mongols probably have a lot of caucasoid admixture. That might explain it
http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/mongols.html
14% is significant, but what is more likely the contributor would be the Nomadic lifestyle, being naturally more active and thus more likely internal competitive, would be often threatening compared to agricultural communities.
Also,
“East Asians are more highly evolved than the rest of us because of their recent divergence from the evolutionary tree.”
Then you later said,
“Students are so respectful of teachers that they never challenge authority and as a result, they have fallen behind the West culturally despite being genetically more advanced according to Rushton.”
Yet despite being more “genetically advanced”, his innate behavior didn’t allow him the succeed in in the West despite that rather being the supposed point of superiority..
Despite you distinguishing Biological evolution from “cultural evolution” with the later being simply knowledge, Rushton still considered it in part biological.
Click to access 7340.full.pdf
Furthermore, despite believing in progressive evolution in the concept of a continuum of Novel traits in different races, he didn’t confuse that with superiority.
“At the same occasion, when Rushton was asked if he believed in racial superiority, he said, ‘Oh, no!’ He said, ‘from an evolutionary point of view, superiority can only mean adaptive value—if it even means this. And we’ve got to realize that each of these populations is perfectly, beautifully adapted to their own ancestral environments.'[52]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton
So Aside from Modern prestige in Mathematical oriented skills…what makes Asian really Superior? Data suggests that have less crime, but in terms of creating particularly appealing countries you really just have Japan that is the most Western-influence.
At the same occasion, when Rushton was asked if he believed in racial superiority, he said, ‘Oh, no!’ He said, ‘from an evolutionary point of view, superiority can only mean adaptive value—if it even means this. And we’ve got to realize that each of these populations is perfectly, beautifully adapted to their own ancestral environments
That’s what he said after the controversy exploded, but his original claim in his 1989 AAA paper was that evolution might be progressive, with some populations being more advanced than others.
Ain’t Necessarily so
“That’s what he said after the controversy exploded, but his original claim in his 1989 AAA paper was that evolution might be progressive, with some populations being more advanced than others.”
He was talking about the the continuum of “modern” and “archaic” traits of his 3 race model, not genetic superiority.
Further, why should superiority be based solely on his merits?
If we are to look at attractiveness, as I’ve already shown, Asians aren’t the most versatile overall on your data mainly because of the value of paramorphic and neotonous traits between sexes.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/05/15/which-race-is-most-beautiful/comment-page-1/#comment-59337
In terms of facial width and features of cheekbones and chin prominence they are not the most modern, same applies to limb proportions.
In terms of innovations and sociological conditions of their societies (see Charles Murray for the former) it doesn’t add up.
In terms of even the most “Darwinian” principles of displacement and resource acquisition, they don’t reign superior.
So Exactly what makes them modern based on competition with other populations or physically in form?
“So Exactly what makes them modern based on competition with other populations or physically in form?”
Meant to say “superior” based on modern adaptations.
Perhaps the Mongols are the older and primitive variant of the Mongoloid, whose phenotype is closer to that of the Caucasoid. It appears that there are remnants of this earlier version of the Mongoloid. Look at the Japanese. I think some of their members have this phenotype.
Very good point JS!
Now your fairly high SAT scores makes sense!
I think I’ve gotten more intelligent ever since my high school days. So I think SAT scores are not a good measure of intelligence. One’s hobbies and interests are better predictors.
But Europeans are more civilized and rational than the average East Asian. American Whites are a different breed. They are descended from the dregs of Europe.
JS,
you’re classicist, majority of white americans are descendent of oppressed people and yes, on avg, lower class people tend to behave in more rude ways but it doesn’t disqualify them completely as you are suggesting, seems.
”Europeans are more civilized and rational…”
I agree…
so for canada, france, the uk, and italy…
“the big one”…
is WW I.
not WW II.
for germany both wars were “the big one”.
for the russian empire the “great patriotic war” was “the big one”. but russia lost > 1m in the first war.
the third world war is being waged now, but with ideas and business. germany is winning. but it’s winning with constraints. there’s one constraint which if erased would guarantee german world domination. germans pay taxes for unemployed greeks. what is “europe” if there’re no transfer payments from rich countries to poor countries?
I think I’ve gotten more intelligent ever since my high school days. So I think SAT scores are not a good measure of intelligence. One’s hobbies and interests are better predictors.
there are basically zero studies on the long term reliability of IQ tests, let alone studies of specific ethnies.
it seems likely to me that intellectual maturity varies in rate and in height of its plateau by ethnie.
that is, it may be that a given ethnie tested at age 16, 17 scores average, but at age 30 scores higher. i would guess this is true of italian and spanish.
lion’s female stalker (forget her name) detailed her own experience in this. iirc she retook the SAT and scored very high. how much higher would a 30 y old score? higher on the V but lower on the Q…in general. she didn’t give her profile.
there are basically zero studies on the long term reliability of IQ tests
In one of the most fascinating studies in the history of psychometrics, Ian Deary and a team of other scholars tracked down 101 people who took an IQ test at age 11, and tested them again at age 77, on the exact same test!
They found a 0.63 correlation between IQ measured at 11 and IQ tested 66 years later (0.73 after correction for range restriction).
Also, fig 4.7 of Eysenck’s Structure and Measurement of Intelligence reported that when you average IQ tested at age 5,6 and 7, the mean score correlates 0.85 with adult IQ.
And as I told you 3 years ago, long-term stability is probably a better term than long-term reliability. Just because IQ changes doesn’t mean the test is unreliable, it could mean that actual intelligence has changed (i.e. brain damage)
Many psychometricians use these terms interchangeably but I think that’s a mistake.
”Big one” or Great War because it was the first devastating war in human Story, at least with modern ”apparatus”. Interesting the justification for the USA come to this war: a ship bombed by Germany/Prussia. Seems very convenient.
President Wilson was blackmailed by Cheim Weizmann. In return fo getting the USA into the war, the UK was to give the zionists the palestine mandate.
Its mentioned in Henry Goldman’s biogrpahy by his graddaughter. Goldman was a pro Germany jewish banker. Funnily enough, like the Rothschilds were. And there was a pro Zion faction of jews. At that time, not all jews wanted an Israel.
Read about the history of Mordor. Its quite interesting and explains a lot of world history.
My impression is that childhood IQ scores are wildly off. This may be because at that crucial juncture, entropy is developing differently for nutrition, familial and environmental reasons, rather than a longer time series letting genetics ‘push through’.
When I hear about 11 year old ‘geniuses’, I’m quite skeptical. I have a book on my reading list about the lives of these child geniuses when they grow up. It was an important study they did way back when on child genius.
I would assume any child with schiz tendencies would knock off quite a few IQ points via drugs, sleep deprivation, alcohol or normal meds. The aspergers children will maintain the scores due to Quant not declining and stable hormones and sleep patterns.
I have a friend whos an economist in the Bank Of England and we used to disagree whether Quant can be developed. I said it was innate. But I suspect he may be more right than I am. It can certainly become crystalised, if practiced daily. In essence, there are only a finite set of logicla problems, and you can take out a blueprint and work on it if someone’s deducted the blueprint for you. We do it all the time. We never originate from first principles.
The biggest myth then is that quant is more fluid than verbal.
As robert says, at a certain level of communication, you can definitely tell someone who is innately gifted verbally. This is the same in math obviously. But a lot of math can be rote learned or made into heuristics.
I was playing around with a Rubicks cube the other day. I used to be shit at these. And then I started out with a new premise. Instead of trial and error, I’m going to create decision rules on how to solve it.
In a set of 16 variables, I realised I had to align a certain variable in the 4th row with the below and so a new heuristic was that you have to find the magic variable to align the rest. Possibly its a root of the the sequence plane.
Not the corners. Not the base 2.
I suspect people like Zuckerberg or Ordos would immedtaitely chunk in their heads ‘intuitively’ the right heuristic without trial and error. Or saying: I will find a heuristic.
I have that intuition for propositional stuff. I don’t know why I ‘feel’ a tendency in what I see, and can’t explain why I logically inducted it. But I can provide a rationale.
I think our old colleague Gypsyman really struggled with that concept. That one can have inordinate deductive reasoning to get answers, rather than inductive reasoning to reality as per a scientist. As per the rubics puzzle above, I’m well aware of what its like to ant crawl in a weaker side of my logical repository.
From what i can tell there are 4 or 5 logical paths:
1. Induction.
2. Deduction/Categorisation
3. Analogy-logic
4. Instinct
5. Pure Data Chunking or numerical reasoning
Isn’t this show based on the real life scenario of Gang Lu, a Chinese student who shot up a bunch of people, because the professor working with him didn’t like his PhD dissertation? And back then, it was the early 90s, this was a time when East Asians were not as ubiquitous in the colleges/universities.
My vague memory of the early 90s was that there were plenty of Asians around, and I was living in the suburbs in the South at the time, not exactly a happening urban center w/lots of exotic groups. I used to bike down to the Asian neighborhood and hang out. Can’t imagine a professor at any major uni at that time being mystified by Asians–even our local community colleges were full of Asians in the early nineties. Maybe in, like, the fifties.
When did jews branch off and why?
As in Ashkenazi Jews they share a Levantine ancestry like others, but with additional S. Italian admixture maternally along with some Eastern european.
So “chronologically”, they’re genepool’s components arise in the range of 12k-2k, though by PP’s logic this is talking about subraces though his concepts of splits is talking Macro-racially.
As he said himself. The best way to a womans heart is to beat her in scrabble.
*not joiking he said that*
I said dominate her in general. I sued a lot of harmless examples like scrabble because I don’t want my readers to start hitting their women.
You can hit your woman and pull her hair while making love, or go so hard that it’s gory. It’s cool, no joking.
Thanks Afrosapiens for your knowledge.
LMAO, I take it as a compliment.
When did he say the beat her in scrabble line?
Always hard to keep watching a player whose legs have gone. Totti should have retired last season after bailing out the team a few times.
Very distressing actually for some. Same in boxing when formerly great fighters just dont have it anymore. Circle of life is a very sad thing to watch as people age and lose their abilities.
“Coming from a more evolved race where such psychopathic and aggressive behavior was weeded out in part by 40,000 years of cold winters, Xing simply can’t understand how people can be so evil and shady, and is absolutely devastated.”
Laughable.
Trump is dismembering the media. Last 24 hours 10 tweets on fake news.
Hes so good. Hes dumped the jewish media in with the democrats succesfully i think.
Its good he doesnt go for the reveal to early on the true wizard of oz.
Trump is nuts. I’ve lost faith.
Question. Is there any possibility that you’d stop saying this “more highly evolved” rubbish? I rebutted Dale Russell (I just got his book the other day so I’m able to go more in depth), I rebutted the great chain of being, I rebutted John Bonner, and I rebutted Rushton in REB. Yet you still persist with this notion of “progress”. What would be enough to evidence to show you its wrong? I’m sure I’ve rebutted the notion enough times. In my opinion Rushton’s “best argument” is Russell’s garbage, and that was rebutted!
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/05/20/dinosaurs-brains-and-progressive-evolution/
Also, source for that phylogeny? Reverse image searching doesn’t bring it up.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/260484606_fig4_Phylogenetic-tree-of-the-major-human-populations-Africans-Type-1-East-Asians-Europeans
From the provided Context:
“The origin of the Ainu people is still an unresolved issue (Tajima et al. 2004). On the basis of our results, we propose a possible scenario for the origin of the Ainu people, who now live in the north-most island of the Japanese archipelago, Hokkaido. The Ainu people have European phenotypic characters, but they are genetically closer to East Asians than to Europeans (Watanabe 1975). These contradictory features of the Ainu people are puzzling. As shown in figure 4, Europeans may have diverged from East Asians ∼41,000 years ago, it is possible that hybrid individuals were born before the divergence, and some of them looked more like the Europeans while possessing a generally East Asian genotype. We suggest that the ancestor of the Ainu people was such a group of the hybrid individuals. We note that the present Ainu people share the mtDNA haplotype not with the Japanese but with the European living in Siberia, Russia (Adachi et al. 2009). Thus, we furthermore suggest that the ancestor of the Ainu originated in northern Eurasia and took a route through Siberia and north China before settling in northern regions of Japan and nearby places. There is a report that other people than the Ainu also lived in the northern regions but disappeared (Adachi et al. 2009). As the people in Okinawa islands are closest to the Ainu people in the East Asians (Jinam et al. 2012), they might also be descendants from of mixing of East Asian and European lineages.”
From the study’s abstract.
“To study the male and female lineages of East Asian and European humans, we have sequenced 25 short tandem repeat markers on 453 Y-chromosomes and collected sequences of 72 complete mitochondrial genomes to construct independent phylogenetic trees for male and female lineages. The results indicate that East Asian individuals fall into two clades, one that includes East Asian individuals only and a second that contains East Asian and European individuals. *Surprisingly, the European individuals did not form an independent clade, but branched within in the East Asians.* We then estimated the divergence time of the root of the European clade as ∼41,000 years ago. *These data indicate that, contrary to traditional views, Europeans diverged from East Asians around that time.* We also address the origin of the Ainu lineage in northern Japan.”
Divergence of East Asians and Europeans Estimated Using Male- and Female-Specific Genetic Markers (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260484606_Divergence_of_East_Asians_and_Europeans_Estimated_Using_Male-_and_Female-Specific_Genetic_Markers [accessed May 29, 2017].
Think in Prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells and tell me if evolution is not [diversely] progressive…
Also, source for that phylogeny?
What part do you disagree with?
Phil, it seems the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans belong to the type 1 that diverged before whereas type 2 are people like the Ainu.
To Afro,
If that’s the interpretation of the study, then that would contradict what PP claims as I suspected when reading the abstract.
I oddly can’t find genetic phylogenic trees that are recent and replicated, the common ones with PP’s results were done in the 90’s. Though that doesn’t mean they’re unreliable, it doesn’t tell whether this study’s findings has been recently integrated in population genetics.
This is the best one I could find but it seems quite lengthy, can you find any concise quote from it in terms of West and East Eurasians?
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep29890
I oddly can’t find genetic phylogenic trees that are recent and replicated, the common ones with PP’s results were done in the 90’s.
The one in my article is from a peer reviewed study published in 2014, but it confirms wahat Rushton wrote in 1989:
Genetic distance estimates calculated from DNA sequencing indicate that in years since emergence from the ancestral hominid line, Mongoloids = 41,000, Caucasoids = 110,000, and Negroids = 200,000.
For more details, see this post from our very own evolutionstx.
LMAO, this is a Rushton study confirming another Rushton study 🤡🤡🤡🤡
My bad, I clicked the wrong link. Still, your 2014 study just says Asians and Europeans diverged at the same time, they ain’t saying one population is newer and I can’t tell who are those type 2 east Asians.
To Phil, I’ll try to make time and figure it out later on.
I assume based on Cavalli-Sforza’s 1994 research that type 2 East Asians are the more recently emerged Northeast Asians:
But who are those type 2 east Asians and how did they diverge more recently when the tree shows the same date as Europeans?
Cavalli Sforza’s tree is about genetic distance, not divergence timing
But the longer ago in time 2 populations diverge, the more their neutral DNA diverges too, so the latter is used to infer the former, which is why Cavalli-Sforza tried his best to use neutral DNA.
Look at this chart and tell me jow is it possible that Native Americans diverged before east Asians? The tree is not about divergence timing, why are you arguing otherwise?
Cavalli Sforza often separates bushmens and blacks and he doesn’t use the negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid terminology.
To PP,
From the study.
“We then estimated the divergence time of the root of the European clade as ∼41,000 years ago. ”
As in Europeans splitting from Asians. Second, “Africans” at 100k was for the cluster that aligns with “Capoids”, not Negroids.
Rushton was Using the basic ancient groups of African and non Africans without establishing routes to modern populations.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2016/06/population-history-with-physically.html
“We inferred that the separation between hunter-gather populations and other populations happened around 120,000 to 140,000 years ago with gene flow continuing until 30,000 to 40,000 years ago; separation between west African and out of African populations happened around 70,000 to 80,000 years ago, while the separation between Massai and out of African populations happened around 50,000 years ago. ”
Also from our “evolutionistx”.
As in Europeans splitting from Asians.
41,000 years ago is just the last time Caucasoids and Mongoloids shared a common ancestral population, I believe.
Second, “Africans” at 100k was for the cluster that aligns with “Capoids”, not Negroids.
I don’t separate the two, and neither did Rushton, Jensen, or even Cavalli-Sforza (though he used the term “African” not Negroid).. I consider Capoid a sub-group of Negroid, based on both genetics and phenotype.
“That’s what he said after the controversy exploded, but his original claim in his 1989 AAA paper was that evolution might be progressive, with some populations being more advanced than others.”
As he said here as well.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1454929
And he was talking about distributions between ancient and modern traits, basically conforming to IQ and R/K traits, not actual genetic superiority.
But as I’ve also addressed, if we are to assign superiority, again why East Asians and why solely on the merits of Rushton Three Race Model?
At this point in Human History, if we are to agree with superiority and base it objectively by your own merits of wiping out other races and getting their resources, Asians don’t fit the bill.
If We are to look at Comprehensive facial and Bodily anatomy, Asians maybe more Neotonous but not more “Advance” in overall human trends of Facial dimentions of Width, Limb Proportions, hair textures, or overall Attractiveness aggregated by both Sexes which could be in turn a Proxy for Sexual dimorphism which was another human trend.
If we are to look at behavior, looking at overall conditions of local modern societies in terms of being models for others or by rates of individualistic behavior they again don’t cut it.
So I ask again, what makes them objectively superior that is consistent with what is actually occurring?
“I assume”
Never assume:
While Type 1 includes East Asian individuals only, Type 2 contains East Asians and European individuals together.
Type 2 East Asians are the relevant ones because they write in the abstract:
We then estimated the divergence time of the root of the European clade as ∼41,000 years ago. These data indicate that, contrary to traditional views, Europeans diverged from East Asians around that time.
This is consistent with Rushton’s 1989 claim that Mongoloids split-off 41,000 years ago.
“41,000 years ago is just the last time Caucasoids and Mongoloids shared a common ancestral population, I believe.”
It specifically said the “root of the European Clade” and how it was “Within the Asian one”.
“I don’t separate the two, and neither did Rushton, Jensen, or even Cavalli-Sforza (though he used the term “African” not Negroid).. I consider Capoid a sub-group of Negroid, based on both genetics and phenotype.”
Doesn’t mean evidence is lacking to support a separation.
And if you look at the Chart you would see that the group that would respond with pure capoids (Mbuti are mixed) being intermediates between the separation of Major Caucasians and the Subraces of each, and how their closest relatives are just borderline Negroids (Ethiopians), consistent with my Data on geneflow.
They are about as distant as Aus. Aborginals are from Modern Phillipines, which have major separations in genes and phenotype.
I also supplied more recent relationship Data that explains how the have a diifferent Split from West Africans and how geneflow accounts for them to be their closest relatives, how this is different from the typical nature of sub-racial relation which is supported by EX’s Phylogeny.
Rushton and Jensen were neither geneticists by trade, so why would their conclusions on older data trump the conclusion of my provided data?
Phenotype doesn’t help you either as Coon’s model, the most recent one based purely on phenotype before genomics, proposed that they would be separated as well.
It’s time to learn to read PP, you’re very source saus Euros diverged from Asians, not the other way around.
As far as I’m concerned, I think it still makes little sense because the history of human migrations is so complex that it can’t be translated in populations branching off a lineage. But if we have to use this stupid model, then Rushton’s theory makes no sense, what has to be expected from a layman.
As our phylogenetic trees demonstrate, the European alleles at the five loci have diverged from the ancestral East Asian alleles.
End of story.
Afro good catch!
But Rushton’s theory still can be salvaged by separating southeast Asians from northeast Asians, a distinction rushton failed to make given the state of genetic knowledge in 1989
No, rushton’s theory is trash, the Asian samples in the study were north-east Asian.
I haven’t read the paper but let’s not get carried away. Anytime 2 populations split, both will have alleles that are ancestral to the other. I’m sure humans have many alleles that our ancestral to chimps. The relevant question is who has the more ancestral phenotype
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡 Dude you don’t even know what the paper you use to make your point talks about. So read the paper and get carried wherever you wish to.
Novelty of phenotype is only relevant among different populations living in the same environment. If chimps are clearly different from humans in the Congo rainforest, it’s because they took radically different evolutioray paths. If Asians look different to Africans, it’s only because they evolved in a different place and the timing of this evolution is just a function of recency of settlement, nothing more. It’s not like East Asians had become mongoloid in Africa and then settled East Asia. Following your logic, native americans are the most evolved.
Anyway, you know what? I think you should stop trying to find reasons to hold on to Rushton’s bullshit. Your intellectual dishonesty is becoming laughable and tiring.
There’s still some more:
Humans are traditionally viewed as falling into three major populations, Africans, East Asians, and Europeans, with the latter two diverging from the African ancestors ∼55,000 years ago. We sequenced Y-STR makers in Y chromosome and collected complete mtDNAs for many East Asian and European individuals to reexamine that view. Phylogenetic trees of Y-STR makers and Mt genes suggest that the Europeans interbred with East Asians until ∼41,000 years ago. On the other hand, East Asians diverged from their African acestors ∼55,000 years ago. Therefore, we suggest that the European and East Asian lineages diverged ∼41,000 years ago.
Then where do they get the 115,000 year figure?
Read the study.
“But Rushton’s theory still can be salvaged by separating southeast Asians from northeast Asians, a distinction rushton failed to make given the state of genetic knowledge in 1989.”
Then that Begs the question, where would South-East Asians fit then in the 3 race model if North East Asians would be the ones that “count” as mongoloids based on Rushton’s genetic “data”?
“As far as I’m concerned, I think it still makes little sense because the history of human migrations is so complex that it can’t be translated in populations branching off a lineage. But if we have to use this stupid model, then Rushton’s theory makes no sense, what has to be expected from a layman.”
True, it could work for ancestral clusters but not for the composition of modern populations.
“The relevant question is who has the more ancestral phenotype.”
Fairly sure I made that clear.
“Then where do they get the 115,000 year figure?”
I’ve answered this with my link on African Hunter Gatherer origins.
To PP,
Nevermind, you meant the date for Caucasians. He got them from here.
Click to access p4845_1263.pdf
“Since the body of data from protein systems is also larger,
the results from protein analyses are probably the most relevant
here, and support the recent African origin model. These have been
used to calibrate divergence times (again assuming selective neutrality
and absence of gene flow) of about 110,000 years ago for the
African-non-African split and about 41,000 years for the EuropeanAsian
split (38). ”
His thinking was that due to the closer affinity to West eurasians that Africans had than with East Eurasians, he made the assumption that therefore basal eurasians were Caucasoid despite what modern research shows.
His thinking was that due to the closer affinity to West eurasians that Africans had than with East Eurasians, he made the assumption that therefore basal eurasians were Caucasoid despite what modern research shows.
Yes, I know Ruston got his 110,000 and 41,000 figures from Stringer & Andrews 1988, and for years I was annoyed with Rushton for constantly citing such old splitting off dates and ignoring newer research. But it seems like this new 2014 study came up with virtually the same dates:
I still think type 1 East Asians are southeast Asians.. Even though the study did not use southeast Asians, data shows that Northeast Asians have some southeast admixture so the ones with the southeast Asian admixture got classified as type 1 and the rest got classified at type 2 and shared a clad with Europeans.
Ultimately, southeast Asians are probably East Asians with negrito admixture, so when they imply type 1 East Asians are ancestral to Europeans and type 2 East Asians, what they’re really showing is that Negritos are ancestral to Europeans and East Asians, and type 1 East Asians are just the East Asians with negrito blood.
My interpretation could be wrong but it perfectly fits with Cavalli-Sforza’s tree.
The study’s actual conclusions give a different date for divergence from Africans
“Humans are traditionally viewed as falling into three major populations, Africans, East Asians, and Europeans, with the latter two diverging from the African ancestors ∼55,000 years ago. We sequenced Y-STR makers in Y chromosome and collected complete mtDNAs for many East Asian and European individuals to reexamine that view. Phylogenetic trees of Y-STR makers and Mt genes suggest that the Europeans interbred with East Asians until ∼41,000 years ago. On the other hand, East Asians diverged from their African acestors ∼55,000 years ago. Therefore, we suggest that the European and East Asian lineages diverged ∼41,000 years ago.”
TO PP, Actually those dates are essentially his dates cut in half for Negroids and Caucasians, plus my studies on members of the “African clade” focusing on Africans gives better context.
And Technically this study in turns gives a later date for Caucasians with them Appearing roughly 40k.
TO PP, Actually those dates are essentially his dates cut in half for Negroids and Caucasians, plus my studies on members of the “African clade” focusing on Africans gives better context.
And Technically this study in turns gives a later date for Caucasians with them Appearing roughly 40k
Phil78, Rushton’s splitting off dates (Negroids = 200,000 years ago, Caucasoids = 110,000 years ago, and Mongoloids = 41,000 years ago) were based on the fact that he believed modern humans first appeared in Africa 200,000 years ago, there was an African/non-African split 110,000 years ago, and a Caucasoid/Mongoloid split 41,000 years ago.
The tree below, from the 2014 study, shows an African/non-African split 115,000 years ago and a European/East Asian type 2 split 41,000 years ago:
So Rushton’s dates may have been roughly right, but his interpretation of them perhaps wrong.
It doesn’t work like that PP, you can’t infer race, and even less paleolithic race from haplogroups. And no matter how you tryna remix this study, it’s novel European alleles diverging from ancestral East Asian ones and not the other way around like Rushton claims.
Anyway, I don’t think you’re amenable to reason on this topic. We’ll only be able to have serious discussions when you understand that the aim of science isn’t to salvage your favorite theories but to draw objective conclusions from factual evidence.
It doesn’t work like that PP, you can’t infer race, and even less paleolithic race from haplogroups.
The point is they show a Eurasian clade that splits into a purely East Asian sub-clade on one branch and into an East Asian/Caucasian sub-clade on the other. One explanation for this is that the purely East Asian branch reflects Southeast Asian ancestry (very common in many Northeast Asians) since this was the pattern found in Cavalli-Sforza’s study.
And no matter how you tryna remix this study, it’s novel European alleles diverging from ancestral East Asian ones and not the other way around like Rushton claims.
But you’re assuming novel European alleles diverged from BOTH type 1 and type 2 East Asians. Did the study explicitly state this? If so, that’s a problem for Rushton’s theory. Based on the fact that both sub-clades included East Asians but only one included Europeans, they’re inferring that the common ancestor of both sub-clades was East Asian, however the ancestral East Asian alleles may reflect a southeast Asian origin per Cavalli-Sforza’s tree and also this one:
the aim of science isn’t to salvage your favorite theories
The aim is also not to reject the theories you most hate. 🙂
No, they say one Purely East Asian ( clade (Type 1 east Asian) emerges from an African one, then an Eurasian clade emerges from the African one (Type 2 east Asian), then an European one (European) emerges from an Eurasian one. South-East Asians are nowhere to be seen in the movie.
When are you gonna read and understand this study that you brought up? The authors don’t speculate on where the splits happened, they just estimate the dates when gene flow between various populations became so reduced that it changed allele frequencies between them. But the source populations of all branches likely lived somewhere between the Middle East and India and had an unidentifiable phenotype.
And I tell you for the thousandth time, these phylogenetic trees are a gross summary of a region’s genetic history: each locus has its own phylogeny and divergence timing, the 2014 study uses five loci, Cavalli-Sforza averages 120 loci. The branches aren’t strict separations, they just schematize the affiliations between alleles that make the bulk of a population’s genetic makeup. But there is still a huge degree of inter-regional overlap and the date of any split says nothing on how many recent alleles an individual of any ethnic group possess. For instance you might say Africans diverged from non-Africans X time ago, it changes nothing to the fact the African malaria resistance and lactose tolerance alleles are not older than the neolithic.
The aim is also not to reject the theories you most hate.
It’s not about what I like or dislike, it’s about what makes sense and what doesn’t. You understand nothing on phylogeny, your concept of progressive/primitive is ridiculous.
Look at that: lately I read a paper stating that homo erectus had “races” like homo sapiens. So with your reasoning we should say African homo erectus was primitive and east Asian homo erectus was progressive. Yet homo rhodensis emerged among African erectus, not among pretendedly superior Asian erectus.
A new clade only represents a new stage of evolution when two populations inhabit the same environment yet do not form a common breeding population.
Evolution is not necessarily progressive either: for instance, Bonobos emerged from Chimpanzees, yet no species replaced the other. Various mass extinction events decimated complex big brained species while letting simpler organisms thrive.
On the other hand, in hominids, newer species have tended to replace older ones. Sometimes it was quick, other times it didn’t happen, like Neanderthals did not cause the extinction of homo erectus (the most successful hominid to date). Only homo sapiens got on the level of undisputed supremacy over the animal kingdom.
No, they say one Purely East Asian
FALSE! The Northeast Asians in their sample were almost certainly not all “pure”. Japanese, Koreans and Mongolians all have substantial loadings on the Southeast Asian component in a principal component analysis of 29 polymorphic genes and 121 alleles.
South-East Asians are nowhere to be seen in the movie.
They’re seen in the genes of many Northeast Asians. If you have substantial southeast Asian admixture, certain parts of your lineage may trace to a Southeast Asian clade.
But the source populations of all branches likely lived somewhere between the Middle East and India and had an unidentifiable phenotype.
I never claimed the studied identified the phenotype of the source population. I was merely citing it because it seemed to confirm Rushton’s claim that Mongoloids (at least narrowly defined) and Caucasoids split 41,000 years ago. It was Rushton who inferred from that split that Mongoloids were more recently emerged, but you can’t make such an inference from a single split. Now, if the NORTHERN Mongoloid branch further subdivides, which I believe it did with the splitting off of Native Americans and Arctic people, then I have argued that it showed more evolutionary development than the Caucasoid branch, because splits seem to be correlated with evolutionary change. But the number of splits also depends on how the races are subdivided. For example if one divided Africans into ten different races, then would could argue the most evolution happened in Africa.
And I tell you for the thousandth time, these phylogenetic trees are a gross summary of a region’s genetic history: each locus has its own phylogeny and divergence timing, the 2014 study uses five loci, Cavalli-Sforza averages 120 loci.
Thank you Captain Obvious.
The branches aren’t strict separations, they just schematize the affiliations between alleles that make the bulk of a population’s genetic makeup. But there is still a huge degree of inter-regional overlap
Which is why it was silly of you to think all the Northeast Asians in the study were “pure”
and the date of any split says nothing on how many recent alleles an individual of any ethnic group possess. For instance you might say Africans diverged from non-Africans X time ago, it changes nothing to the fact the African malaria resistance and lactose tolerance alleles are not older than the neolithic.
Correct, but as I’ve argued, the greatest amount of evolutionary change occurs on the trunk of the tree, so the earlier you diverge from it (on average) the less evolutionary development you experience. This happens in part because variables that tend to cause one population to split into two (migration to a novel environment, a drought cutting through a habitat impeding gene flow) tend to be major selection pressures. In addition, the mere splitting of a population causes genetic drift which is another huge evolutionary force.
You understand nothing on phylogeny, your concept of progressive/primitive is ridiculous.
No Afro, its you who doesn’t understand. And I’m not the only one who thinks this way. Some of the greatest minds in biology said evolution was progressive including Princeton University emeritus professor John Bonner.
Look at that: lately I read a paper stating that homo erectus had “races” like homo sapiens. So with your reasoning we should say African homo erectus was primitive and east Asian homo erectus was progressive. Yet homo rhodensis emerged among African erectus, not among pretendedly superior Asian erectus.
The exception that proves the rule, assuming it’s even an exception. In that species there may have been more races within Africa because that’s where the bulk of humanity lived. It was only after “behavioral modernity” that huge numbers of hominins lived outside Africa.
A new clade only represents a new stage of evolution when two populations inhabit the same environment yet do not form a common breeding population.
Huh?
Evolution is not necessarily progressive either: for instance, Bonobos emerged from Chimpanzees, yet no species replaced the other. Various mass extinction events decimated complex big brained species while letting simpler organisms thrive.
Yes of course. Progress is just a general trend, but there are tons of exceptions.
The Northeast Asians in their sample were almost certainly not all “pure”.
They say one cluster only has east Asians (what I mean by purely east Asian) whereas the other is European and East Asian.
They’re seen in the genes of many Northeast Asians. If you have substantial southeast Asian admixture, certain parts of your lineage may trace to a Southeast Asian clade.
Common ancestry and admixture are two different things. Just because North-East Asians share markers with South-East Asians doesn’t mean they are descended from them. It can be the opposite, or both can come from another population that’s neither north or south East Asian.
because splits seem to be correlated with evolutionary change.
They’re only correlated with migrations.
For example if one divided Africans into ten different races, then would could argue the most evolution happened in Africa.
First of all, most evolution indeed happened in Africa where genetic diversity is the highest. Secondly you can decide that each tribe is a race and identify distinct markers to draw a phylogenetic tree with and your splits will be very recent. You don’t seem to understand how arbitrary the clusters are.
Thank you Captain Obvious
Glad to teach you things, hope you’ll be able to write non-farcical posts someday.
Which is why it was silly of you to think all the Northeast Asians in the study were “pure”
That’s not what I said and your not allowed to call me or anything I say silly.
so the earlier you diverge from it (on average) the less evolutionary development you experience
No, the only things that cause the emergence of novel alleles are population growth and the number of generations. The other phenomenons you mentioned change allele frequencies, not the pace to which new alleles emerge.
Some of the greatest minds in biology said evolution was progressive including Princeton University emeritus professor John Bonner.
On orthogenesis:
The orthogenesis hypothesis began to collapse when it became clear that it could not explain the patterns found by paleontologists in the fossil record, which was non-linear with many complications. The hypothesis was generally abandoned when no mechanism could be found that would account for the process, and the theory of evolution by natural selection became the prevailing theory of evolution. The modern synthesis, in which the genetic mechanisms of evolution were discovered, refuted the hypothesis for good. As more was understood about these mechanisms it became obvious that there was no possible naturalistic way in which the newly discovered mechanism of heredity could be far-sighted or have a memory of past trends.
A few hung on to the orthogenesis hypothesis as late as the 1950s by claiming that the processes of macroevolution, the long term trends in evolution, were distinct from the processes of microevolution (genetic variation and natural selection) which were by then well understood and it was known they could not behave in an orthogenetic manner. Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit paleontologist, in The Phenomenon of Man (a book influential among non-scientists that was published four years after his death in 1959) argued for evolution aiming for the “omega point”, while putting man at the center of the universe and accounting for original sin (Dennett 1995, von Kitzing 1998). This form of orthogenesis has now also been abandoned as more about evolutionary processes has been discovered (Wilkins 1997).
The refutation of orthogenesis had some ramifications in the field of philosophy, as it refuted the idea of teleology as first postulated by Aristotle and accepted by Immanuel Kant, who had greatly influenced many scientists. Before the scientific and philosophical revolution that began with Charles Darwin’s ideas, the prevailing philosophy was that the world was teleological and purposeful, and that science was the study of God’s creation. The refutation of these concepts have led to a shift in what science and scientists are percieved to be.
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Orthogenesis
The exception that proves the rule, assuming it’s even an exception. In that species there may have been more races within Africa because that’s where the bulk of humanity lived. It was only after “behavioral modernity” that huge numbers of hominins lived outside Africa
1-Most erectus fossils were found in Asia although Erectus emerged in Africa
2-Most hominids, including humans evolved in Africa. Eurasian species are the exception and they all seem to have been evolutionary failures.
Huh?
Yes, sir.
Yes of course. Progress is just a general trend, but there are tons of exceptions.
LOL. 🤡🤡🤡
Common ancestry and admixture are two different things. Just because North-East Asians share markers with South-East Asians doesn’t mean they are descended from them.
But you can’t, in my opinion, assume a European clade is descended from the Northeast Asian clade when it could be a Southeast Asian clade they’re descended from, given the Southeast Asian markers in many Northeast Asians in the study. The study would need to include Southeast Asians to sort this out.
They’re only correlated with migrations.
I disagree, but even if it were, migration’s a major source of evolutionary change. Novel environments and new selection pressures stimulate new evolutionary developments like the emergence of new kingdoms, classes, species and races.
First of all, most evolution indeed happened in Africa where genetic diversity is the highest.
Genetic diversity != taxonomic diversity
Secondly you can decide that each tribe is a race and identify distinct markers to draw a phylogenetic tree with and your splits will be very recent. You don’t seem to understand how arbitrary the clusters are.
No I understand that perfectly, and I agree that more objective taxonomy might change the rankings of different populations using my method.
No, the only things that cause the emergence of novel alleles are population growth and the number of generations. The other phenomenons you mentioned change allele frequencies, not the pace to which new alleles emerge.
You’re talking about alleles and I’m talking about taxa. Two different levels of analysis.
The orthogenesis hypothesis began to collapse
Yes I’m aware that many scientists disagree. That’s part of the appeal. If you’re only preaching to the choir, you’re not contributing anything to science.
1-Most erectus fossils were found in Asia although Erectus emerged in Africa
Doesn’t mean they had more races. And it’s possible the most evolved race of Erectus did live in Eurasia but the most evolved race is not necessarily the one that makes the leap to a new species. The phylogenetic tree for race exists within a given species but needn’t influence the species level phylogenetic tree which exists within the genus tree.
2-Most hominids, including humans evolved in Africa.
And this is consistent with my theory that splits correlate with taxonomic development because constant droughts and the sudden emergence and vanishing of water bodies would split populations in half, causing may forks in the tree.
I don’t want to be rude but I’m going to have to end this discussion here because this has been dragging on for days. I’m sure you have lots of great rebuttals but save them for the next time I visit this topic.
“The point is there’s a Eurasian clade that splits into a purely East Asian sub-clade on one branch and into an East Asian/Caucasian sub-clade on the other. One explanation for this is that the purely East Asian branch reflects Southeast Asian ancestry (very common in many Northeast Asians) since this was the pattern found in Cavalli-Sforza’s study.”
You seem to be right, as halpogroup B (which charcterizes the Type 1 cluster in MTDNA) is very common in South East Asians.
“Phil78, Rushton’s splitting off dates (Negroids = 200,000 years ago, Caucasoids = 110,000 years ago, and Mongoloids = 41,000 years ago) were based on the fact that he believed modern humans first appeared in Africa 200,000 years ago, there was an African/non-African split 110,000 years ago, and a Caucasoid/Mongoloid split 41,000 years ago.
The tree below, from the 2014 study, shows an African/non-African split 115,000 years ago and a European/East Asian type 2 split 41,000 years ago:”
Actually the conclusion says a split a 55k, 115k is said where the clade appears in human history. This is know what they said in the conlcusion summarizing what the splits tell them.
If I read the rest of the graph as you did, then the split between Europeans and east asians would be 55k, not 41k as they said in the study. So should I trust you interpretation or the researchers?
“So Rushton’s dates may have been roughly right, but his interpretation of them perhaps wrong.”
As I have explained by quote the conclusion in my previous comment, both would be wrong.
You seem to be right, as halpogroup B (which charcterizes the Type 1 cluster in MTDNA) is very common in South East Asians.
Fantastic news!
Actually the conclusion says a split a 55k, 115k is said where the clade appears in human history. This is know what they said in the conlcusion summarizing what the splits tell them.
Weird. Usually the node on a tree reflects the last common ancestor:
Thus, my interpretation of their tree was:
Africans and Eurasians last shared their most recent common ancestor 115,000 years ago
East Asians type 1, East Asian type 2, and Europeans all share a common ancestor 55,000 years ago
East Asians type 2 and Europeans share their recent common ancestor 41,000 years ago.
But if they contradict this chronology in their conclusion, then perhaps they’re not drawing their tree in a conventional way.
Strange
To PP,
Furthermore, Your CS phylogram you just gave shows what my other study produced, two different splits for HG and West?central Africa “Negroids”.
“Weird. Usually the node on a tree reflects the last common ancestor:”
Yeah, I noticed that too just going off the graph it’s very misleading in what it’s trying to say.
Question. Is there any possibility that you’d stop saying this “more highly evolved” rubbish? I rebutted Dale Russell (I just got his book the other day so I’m able to go more in depth), I rebutted the great chain of being, I rebutted John Bonner, and I rebutted Rushton in REB.
Your rebuttals were very primitive.
Did you debunk the claim that average dinosaur encephalization steadily increased for 140 million years? No
Did you debunk the claim that average mammal encephalization steadily increased for 65 million years? No
Did you debunk the claim that average hominin brain size tripled in the last 4 million years? No
Did you debunk my personal claim that controlling for taxa, the more branching on the evolutionary tree, the more encephalized and impressive the creature, on average? No
So all the evidence is against you, yet you still insist you have rebutted your superiors.
Your only real argument was that life had no choice but to increase in complexity because there’s a limit on how low complexity can go, but that argument itself is a veiled concession that evolution is progressive.
So you admit evolution is progressive, you simply deny selection favours progress.
However even the latter denial is wrong because there’s no limit on how small a brain can get (animals can function without brains), however as you’ve pointed out ad nauseam, there are energy and physical limits to how big a brain can get.
Now if you wish to respond, you must do so in your own words, not by bombarding me with huge swaths of copied and pasted text.
I only talk to people man to man, not man to spam.
“Did you debunk the claim that average dinosaur encephalization steadily increased for 140 million years? No
Did you debunk the claim that average mammal encephalization steadily increased for 65 million years? No
Did you debunk the claim that average hominin brain size tripled in the last 4 million years? No
Did you debunk my personal claim that controlling for taxa, the more branching on the evolutionary tree, the more encephalized and impressive the creature, on average? No”
This all can be rebutted simply: life began at the left wall of complexity and increases towards a right tail of complexity. That’s it. I never said I disagreed with these contentions; but you’re just stating natural facts, that doesn’t mean ‘progress’.
“Did you debunk my personal claim that controlling for taxa, the more branching on the evolutionary tree, the more encephalized and impressive the creature, on average? No”
A straight line does not mean that no change has occurred; evolutionary change on phylogenies does not only occur at the nodes.
Furthermore, evolutionary trees are only but a small sample (clearly) of the diveristy of what is being studied in the phylogeny. Lastly, the relative diversity of numerous lineages can change, where one species is more diverse now while the other was more diverse in its evolutionary past.
You’re also talking in ‘ancestral’ and ‘derived’ traits, not ‘superiority’. Everyone knows that once two species diverge, each one gains new traits over time while showing both derived and ancestral traits. Also, “whereas character states can be relatively ancestral (plesiomorphic) or derived (apomorphic), these concepts are nonsensical when applied to whole organisms.”
Click to access 10.1016%40j.tree.2004.11.010.pdf
“So you admit evolution is progressive, you simply deny selection favours progress.
However even the latter denial is wrong because there’s no limit on how small a brain can get (animals can function without brains), however as you’ve pointed out ad nauseam, there are energy and physical limits to how big a brain can get.”
Let me quote myself:
“Bacteria is the most abundant life form on the planet. Bacteria, which is at the very left wall of complexity, is the most simple organism that can be. Due to this, there is nowhere to go but right, to the right wall. So any organism that’s caught up in the middle of the left and right walls of complexity can go in either direction. They can become less complex or more complex depending on what the environment calls for.”
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/11/12/complexity-walls-0-400-hitting-and-evolutionary-progress/
You’re confusin ‘progress’ with the capacity for an organism to be complex due to a low limit for complexity. More complex=/=’progressive’. Look at the mode; the bacteria, not the extreme right tail (humans). Who dominates earth? Bacteria.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/1996/11/13/planet-of-the-bacteria/6fb60f1d-e6fe-471e-8a0f-4cfa9373772c/?utm_term=.e25b4b806986
“Now if you wish to respond, you must do so in your own words, not by bombarding me with huge swaths of copied and pasted text.
I only talk to people man to man, not man to spam.”
This is hilarious. I rebutted all your ‘spam’ on dieting in regards to low carb diets; addressed each and every ‘point’ that your sources spewed and you still believe that ‘dieting works’, even when the data shows otherwise. That shows your bias for big food shills.
I talked to your ‘spam’ and you’re still going through the same old garbage on dieting; shilling for Big Food… Such a shame.
I never said I disagreed with these contentions
Actually you did, before you discovered Gould, but that’s okay, because Gould’s wrong too.
This all can be rebutted simply: life began at the left wall of complexity and increases towards a right tail of complexity.
Stop sucking Gould’s cock and think for yourself. The left wall complexity argument can be rebutted by the simple fact that there’s no left wall on how small the brain can get (it can disappear entirely and animals can still live), yet average relative brain size increased for 140 million years of mammal evolution and for 65 million years of dinosaur evolution.
You can’t deny it and your rebuttals are WRONG!
“Actually you did, before you discovered Gould, but that’s okay, because Gould’s wrong too.”
Source? Back your claim.
But let’s say I did say that. You’re talking like people’s views don’t change with new information. Something you should learn…
“Stop sucking Gould’s cock and think for yourself”
Ironic… The same could be said about you and Rushton, Lynn and Jensen.
“The left wall complexity argument can be rebutted by the simple fact that there’s no left wall on how small the brain can get (it can disappear entirely and animals can still live), yet average relative brain size increased for 140 million years of mammal evolution and for 65 million years of dinosaur evolution.”
Are we talking about animals or bacteria? Citing Gould, it looks as if large brains were outside reptilian design. As I’ve said numerous times, the directional changes do not persist forever while trends in the opposite direction also occur. This is because evolution through natural selection is just change over time, not any inherent or intrinsic progress.
“You can’t deny it and your rebuttals are WRONG!”
Yawn. I can deny it and just did. My arguments are sound and conclusions are true. I’m looking at it from a completely different way than toy are. Use that big brain to figure it out.
Are we talking about animals or bacteria?
We’re talking about all life forms, but I’m using encephalization as the measure of progress because it’s clearly defined and we have a lot of data on it going back hundreds of millions of years. So any life form with no brain, whether bacteria or a plants, is zero on this metric. Humans are 7.6.
As I’ve said numerous times, the directional changes do not persist forever
Nothing persists forever RR, but the dinosaur trend lasted at least 140 million years and the mammal trend lasted 65 million years. When something lasts that long in taxa as broadly defined and multi-regional as mammals and dinosaurs, it’s proven it’s a major theme of evolution.
while trends in the opposite direction also occur.
There are opposite trends at the local level, but no such trends across a group of animals as widely defined as mammals, and certainly not one lasting tens of millions of years afaik.
This is because evolution through natural selection is just change over time, not any inherent or intrinsic progress.
What you still don’t get is that once certain complex structures evolve, they tend to be advantageous in MANY environments. That’s what makes them complex. A brain can adapt to many environments which is why its relative size increased for tens of millions of years in animals as diverse as mammals and dinosaurs. Now many animals have lost relative brain size, but not on the level of entire taxonomic classes and certainly not for over 65 million years afaik.
“We’re talking about all life forms, but I’m using encephalization as the measure of progress because it’s clearly defined and we have a lot of data on it going back hundreds of millions of years. So any life form with no brain, whether bacteria or a plants, is zero on this metric. Humans are 7.6.”
“When something lasts that long in taxa as broadly defined and multi-regional as mammals and dinosaurs, it’s proven it’s a major theme of evolution.”
“A brain can adapt to many environments which is why its relative size increased for tens of millions of years in animals as diverse as mammals and dinosaurs. Now many animals have lost relative brain size, but not on the level of entire taxonomic classes and certainly not for over 65 million years afaik.”
Encephalization is not a universal macroevolutionary phenomenon in mammals but is associated with sociality
Here we relate brain size to appearance time for 511 fossil and extant mammalian species to test for temporal changes in relative brain size over time. We show that there is wide variation across groups in encephalization slopes across groups and that encephalization is not universal in mammals
“There are opposite trends at the local level”
The brain size increase is literally a LOCAL LEVEL TREND. See the above citation.
Something you need to understand is that encephalization in mammals is a local level trend. The same local level trend as what occurs with parasites. Now think about parasites. They be selected for ‘complexity’ or a decrease in ‘complexity’ depending on what occurs in their host. Now, looking at it from this perspective, the body is the host’s environment while the earth is ours; so my example for an environmental change would be, as usual, the asteroid impact hitting the earth blocking out the sun and decreasing high-quality food all throughout the earth. Surely I don’t need to tell you what would occur…
Increases in complexity are due to asymmetric drift.
Also, re: dinosaur brains, I just got my book Up From Dragons: The Evolution of Human Intelligence by John Skoyles and Dorian Sagan and there is this neat tidbit on dino brains:
But cold-bloodedness is a dead-end for the great story of this book—the evolution of intelligence. Certainly reptiles could evolve huge sizes, as they did over vast sweeps of Earth as dinosaurs. But they never could have evolved our quick-witted and smart brains. Being tied to the sun restricts their behavior: Instead of being free and active, searching and understanding the world, they spend too much time avoiding getting too hot or too cold. (Skoyles and Sagan, 2002: 12)
Oh and one last thing about dinosaur brains. You continuously cite secondhand sources saying that they were moving towards bigger brains. Well, you’re wrong:
I would argue, as does Feduccia (44), that the mammalian/avian levels of activity claimed by Bakker for dinosaurs should be correlated with a great increase in motor and sensory control and this should be reflected in increased brain size. Such an increase is not indicated by most dinosaur endocasts.
Click to access 546d04250cf2193b94c57cd9.pdf
Please stop saying that.
There is no inherent drive towards ‘progress’ or ‘complexity’, your example of brain size is literally LOCAL CHANGE.
Encephalization is not a universal macroevolutionary phenomenon in mammals
Duh! I explicitly said it wasn’t universal and that there are many exceptions, but the fact remains that averaging across all mammals, EQ tripled in the last 65 million years.
The brain size increase is literally a LOCAL LEVEL TREND. See the above citation.
No, a local trend is one that’s confined to specific mammals but doesn’t affect the AVERAGE of ALL MAMMALS. The average EQ of ALL mammals has tripled.
Something you need to understand is that encephalization in mammals is a local level trend. The same local level trend as what occurs with parasites. Now think about parasites. They be selected for ‘complexity’ or a decrease in ‘complexity’ depending on what occurs in their host. Now, looking at it from this perspective, the body is the host’s environment while the earth is ours; so my example for an environmental change would be, as usual, the asteroid impact hitting the earth blocking out the sun and decreasing high-quality food all throughout the earth. Surely I don’t need to tell you what would occur…
Of course there are selection pressures that can decrease relative brain size RR, but obviously they’re the exception not the rule, otherwise THE AVERAGE EQ OF ALL MAMMALS WOULD NOT HAVE TRIPLED. Why is it so hard for you to believe that some traits are useful in more environments than others and that EQ is one of those traits? I think you need to step out of your box and look at things from a different perspective. I used to be like you in denying evolutionary progress because I didn’t see an obvious mechanism, but there obviously is one since it’s happened.
But cold-bloodedness is a dead-end for the great story of this book—the evolution of intelligence. Certainly reptiles could evolve huge sizes, as they did over vast sweeps of Earth as dinosaurs. But they never could have evolved our quick-witted and smart brains. Being tied to the sun restricts their behavior: Instead of being free and active, searching and understanding the world, they spend too much time avoiding getting too hot or too cold.
So you only cite scientists who agree with you? Dale Russell said otherwise. Notice how you haven’t once cited his book despite buying it. And we know from the incredible intelligence of crows that at least some of the dinosaur descendants would have become quite smart, even if they were no longer phenotypically reptiles.
I would argue, as does Feduccia (44), that the mammalian/avian levels of activity claimed by Bakker for dinosaurs should be correlated with a great increase in motor and sensory control and this should be reflected in increased brain size. Such an increase is not indicated by most dinosaur endocasts.
Except Russell proved that there has been a steady increase in dinosaur EQ over 140 million years, a point even his critics conceded.
RR, I didn’t post your rebuttal because it was 1,189 word long. I’ve told you countless times that you need to tighten up your writing, so please substantially edit it down. I don’t have time to read, let alone respond to something that long, and there’s no excuse to write that much when my comment was only 484 words. You really need to learn get to the point when you write.
I didn’t delete your comment so simply copy, paste, edit roughly half of it out, and then post it again.
“Did you debunk the claim that average dinosaur encephalization steadily increased for 140 million years?”
Speaking of do either of you have the source for that actual analysis? I’ve been gone for a while so I haven’t been keeping up with the convo too much.
“However even the latter denial is wrong because there’s no limit on how small a brain can get (animals can function without brains),”
That’s precisely why Evolution does not favor progress. Smaller brains can and are still selected for if there is a more immediate need beyond general adaption
“And we know from the incredible intelligence of crows that at least some of the dinosaur descendants would have become quite smart, even if they were no longer phenotypically reptiles.”
That’s also why saying dinosaurs would have become anthropomorphic is kind of stupid, The K-t extinction did not actually wipe out all life(obviously), meaning the Avian dinosours and their relatives would have simply gone through a bottleneck just like any other species and just like the troodon would have had to as well. Speculating their brains would increase is nothing really profound, nor would it be surprising if that is what would actually have happened but claiming bipedalism(like humans) and hands might be a little too “imaginative”. i speculate that any hyper intelligent species would need a form for object manipulation and language, but to assume that it would completly mimic us is just strange. Also there is quite a bit of evidence that dinosaurs were already evolving avian like features, for example:
“In a 2001 study of a Carcharodontosaurus saharicus endocast, Hans C. E. Larsson found that both C. saharicus and Allosaurus had a ratio of cerebrum to brain volume that lay within the 95% confidence limits of non-avian reptiles. By contrast, Tyrannosaurus lies just outside it in the direction of a more avian proportion. Since tyrannosaurs are relatively basal coelurosaurs, this is evidence that the advent of the Coelurosauria marks the beginning of trend in theropod brain enlargement”
http://eol.org/pages/4433601/details
I think RR is the one who showed me that corvids had higher levels of neuronal density than primates, which could have been brought on by a lack of food and a severe need for increased mental capacity to compensate which would have selected for more tightly pack nuerons(all that energy blah blah RR talks about), but that’s just a conjecture. My main point is that the finished form of troodons would probably be more avian than terrestrial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelurosauria
That’s precisely why Evolution does not favor progress. Smaller brains can and are still selected for if there is a more immediate need beyond general adaption
The exceptions that prove the rule.
That’s also why saying dinosaurs would have become anthropomorphic is kind of stupid,
I agree they would have probably not looked human, but I do believe they would have reached at least homo erectus intelligence by now.
Something I forgot to add is that human evolution may not be exactly progressive but some species have a much easier time generating mutations that allow increased intellectual capacity.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2012.02491.x/full
“I didn’t delete your comment so simply copy, paste, edit roughly half of it out, and then post it again”
You got it. I’m still going to provide the quote from Russell’s book.
East Asians are also more likely to go on a shooting spree so it’s realistic there too:
https://www.amren.com/news/2014/06/are-most-mass-murderers-really-white/
Of the last 31 year’s 20 mass killers, Asians have been 15 percent of the killers despite being 6 percent of the population, 13 percent of the last 30 and 9 percent of the last 66.
The white mass shooter is a myth.
I’m willing to bet most spree killers are white, though.
Meu DEUS quanta bobagem!1
”I remember thinking that if the professor were aware of Rushton’s theory that East Asians are more highly evolved than the rest of us because of their recent divergence from the evolutionary tree”
MORE EVOLVED… to be tamed/conformist, pragmatic and less creative, piriod.
Tip: this movie seems portray ”east asianS” as candid and naive beings and ”caucasians” as evil….
Remember: this character is a single one hypothetical individual. He probably don’t represent the avg.
”Now free to challenge his professors, Xing makes a brilliant discovery that greatly improves his professor’s model for understanding the universe, but because the professor’s ego can’t handle being upstaged by a university kid, and because he cares more about his status than advancing science, he starts giving Xing a hard time.”
NIU EISHTAIJN, dutch/flemish/resemble english-jew variant…
”The young woman who rejects Xing’s advances, preferring to find a primitive alpha male”
Biologically clever girl, even a cockroach is prefferable than this nightmare.
”Johanna {{{Silver))) played by the brilliant Meryl Streep”
Brilliant bitch interpreting herself again…
”The professor makes clear that Xing is allowed to challenge him, which Xing finds refreshing because in his home country, students are so respectful of teachers that they never challenge authority and as a result, they have fallen behind the West culturally despite being genetically more advanced according to Rushton.”
According Rush…
My eyes hurt#$
”Coming from a more evolved race where such psychopathic and aggressive behavior was weeded out in part by 40,000 years of cold winters, Xing simply can’t understand how people can be so evil and shady, and is absolutely devastated.”
Little fucking god!!!1
How chainee are less psychopathic and aggressive… there are different types or natures of violence.
”was weeded out in part” …
Very clear to me that chainee and other neighbors have emotional deficits that make them more cold blood, a kind of extremely conformist cold blood, ok it’s not that ”hot sociopathy” via excessive levels of extroversion but still cold blood-leaning. The ”chainee culinary” is just a little example of how good this people, on avg [or statistical corners], can be. Their extreme conformism or self-control make them look less psychopathic but… maybe it’s a relative illusion.
”The professor’s hatred for Xing grows as he notices the irony that someone as humble and worshipful as Xing is publicly correcting his theory. Seeing a group of East Asians on campus, the professor makes the bitter observation that their humility is just a façade to hide their deep arrogance. Rubbing salt in the wound, the professor’s receptionist states that the Chinese achieved civilization 2000 years before whites did.”
Curing arrogance with… arrogance, heh!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Iowa_shooting
I’m bec but i don’t know if i want stay here because comment here consume my preciossimo time.
We will see
[comment redacted by PP, May 29, 2017, because I don’t want another war between you and Santo]
^^^Legend^^^^
[rest of comment redacted by PP, May 29, 2017]
Santo, good to have you back.
To help keep the peace, I’m going to moderate any comments where you insult Afro, and any comments where Afro insults you.
the legend returns.
ah…
america used to be so fucking great.
really.
it was the shit.
reminds me of a movie i hated when i was younger but have now have come to love.
even though its director is danish.
the French Connection
“Very clear to me that chainee and other neighbors have emotional deficits that make them more cold blood, a kind of extremely conformist cold blood, ok it’s not that ”hot sociopathy” via excessive levels of extroversion but still cold blood-leaning. The ”chainee culinary” is just a little example of how good this people, on avg [or statistical corners], can be. Their extreme conformism or self-control make them look less psychopathic but… maybe it’s a relative illusion.”
This is very true.
Santo has a very high IQ judging by his writing in native portugeese. It is actually bizarre how wildly different the writing is. Just goes to show verbal intelligence is not necessarily related to language acquisition.
#FreeSanto
It would be highly credible while controversial were (i ve not seen the movie) the tenured professor jewish.
For my part i have never written, and youcab check this, never written anything disparaging about the homosexual community once.
The only members i single out are HYPOCRITES in the jewish media who watch to much jewish porn and people who slander and detest homosexuals despite being a great deal homo or bisexual themselves and who are from haiti.
My war in many ways has always been against hypocrisy even more than fraud. Sailer mentioned today that israel wants to untroduce gebetic testing for marriages.
Its a FUCKING JOKE HOW RACIST ISRAEL IS aLLoWED TO BE.
Will the jewish cnn or reuters report it?
0 fucking percebt chance. 0%.
Stupid post as usual, you guys are cringy commenting like it’s a news story: it is a fucking movie! Hello? Can you hear me?
And lol at Asians being too evolved for psychopathy and violence. They have commited some of history’s worst mass massacres and rape waves, they have some of the worst mafias, worst dictatorships and corrupt administration, their businesses and wealthy men are more often involved in scams and all types of white collar crime… And they have the most testosterone of any race. Asians were deemed undesirable migrants for most of the world’s history. The idea that they are superior to any other population is laughable.
On beta male rage, Lion is full of shit as well. Most thungs are beta too, they’re mere followers. What’s truly ballsy is growing in a gang-ridden area and say “no, I’m not joining a gang” and being still respected in the hood.
And they have the most testosterone of any race.
According to a blogger. Rushton’s research published in peer reviewed academic journals found East Asians have the least testosterone. Of course that doesn’t mean Rushton’s right and the blogger’s wrong, but what it does suggest is that testosterone studies are so wildly unreliable as to be worthless.
A blogger who got his data from a huge meta-analysis of peer reviewed studies.
Studies that measured testosterone in different ways and in different countries. Even within the same individual T levels can fluctuate enormously, so the idea of comparing very different populations in different places is probably going yield bad results, and that’s true of Rushton’s research too.
Glad to hear that.
“Even within the same individual T levels can fluctuate enormously, so the idea of comparing very different populations in different places is probably going yield bad results, and that’s true of Rushton’s research too.”
Which is why T assays are taken at the same time under controlled conditions.
Point me to studies showing that East Asians have less testosterone than Africans and Europeans. No using prostate cancer rates; that’s been rebutted by me.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/04/the-testosterone-problem-a-western-perspective/
And Rushton’s inference of low T due to low PCa rates in East Asians is due simply to diet. I’m going to write an article for your blog on this matter eventually.
Also, on testosterone and race:
After adjustment for age, Quetelet’s index, and physical activity, African-American men showed higher levels of total, bioavailable, and free testosterone than did white men, although the differences were not statistically significant. However, total testosterone levels were also significantly higher in JapaneseAmericans (P < 0.01) and Chinese-Americans (P < 0.05) compared to whites (Table 3). Compared to whites, both African-Americans and Japanese-Americans showed higher levels of SHBG and DHT; the differences in DHT levels were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Although there were no large differences in the absolute value of the DHT:testosterone ratio
between ethnic groups, the DHT:testosterone ratio was highest in African-Americans, intermediate in whites, and lowest in Japanese- and Chinese-Americans, corresponding to the prostate cancer incidence patterns in these groups. The DHT:testosterone ratio in Chinese-Americans was significantly lower than those ratios for whites and African-Americans (P < 0.01), but the ratios in African-Americans and whites were not significantly different.
Click to access 735.full.pdf
DHT has an anti-estrogenic effect. DHT signals to the pituatary gland to decrease the secretion of gonadotropins. DHT is administered exogenously to decrease the size of the prostate, its specific use being for BPH (benign prostate hypertrophy).
Sorry Rushton. Your theories don’t hold up to modern knowledge.
Those testosterone studies are all over the map RR. No consistent findings
Nice handwaving.
A large analysis “by a blogger” (appeal to authority) isn’t enough. My articles and knowledge on the hormone isn’t enough. The studies I cite rebutting Rushton aren’t enough.
What is enough for you? I literally know more about this than you do. You’re appealing to authority.
Just wondering, am I a beta male?
I don’t think I could ever get butthurt enough to get violent.
I might cry allot but I don’t believe in revenge.
Just because I have problems with women doesn’t make me angry at all. I am just repulsed by so many kinds of women and I stay in my house all day I don’t meet any. but girls do like me because I am so nice to them. I am diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, my social worker helped me understand what it is because my doctor is stupid. Schizophrenics don’t get better but schizoaffective fluctuate between getting better and worse. And it also has to do with emotional problems. My only doctor was going to give me ADD medication for my low processing speed but the insurance would not pay for it and he left, so now I have a stupid doctor. My social worker says a new doctor will come to work at the office so I may be able to see them instead.
Wendy is so hot.
😆
What anime is Wendy from?
I wanna play with her titties.
I guess it’s some fan of the fast food chain who did that. Wendy’s totally need to come to France, I mean the burgers not the anime gal.
Red Robin’s is the best.
Mamma mia… 😍😍😍
For the record Wendy’s is superior to McDonalds and Burger King.
In the UK there’s a slew of more upmarket fast food places like Nandos, Gourmet Burger Kitchen and so on.
But for the money paid to return, defo Wendy’s.
I bought zoo tycoon 2 a few days ago. I haven’t played it in 10 years. What a strangely addictive game. The demo came with my old computer so thats how I got into the zoology community. Not sure how Santo did.
Fighting a rearguard action now against it with these band aid solutions. Video games are essentially a way of distracting myself from thinking. The medication was working for a while. I’ve thrown the kitchen sink at this problem.
I always say life is a video game. It seems designed that way. Its somewhat zero sum. If so, I was playing on european extreme difficulty from the beginning. What a shitty shitty hand. I sometimes feel the intelligence was given merely to give me a fighting chance or indeed, as it now appears, to seal the tomb.
who is that guy pill?
he looks exactly like my dad, but with a cowboy hat.
Pumpkin, i don’t have the patience to see the movie now but i did a quick research on the matter. Here is the Gang Lu statement : https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/lu_statement_1.0.pdf
He killed :
– Dwight R. Nicholson, chairman of the physics and astronomy department;
– Christoph K. Goertz, his professor in the department;
– Robert Alan Smith, an assistant professor,
– Linhua Shan, his competitor
and wounded :
– T. Anne Cleary, the assistant vice president for academic affairs,
– Mira Rodolfo-Sioson, assistant of T. Anne.
1) It’s striking that in the wiki pages of the movie (the english one and even more so in the french one), people abolutely didn’t see the dark matter on the side of the professor. It’s like Gang Lu lost his job only because of his bad research.
2) Gang Lu statement, despite looking very disorganized and apparently illogical, is an intelligent statement :
– First, he poses like he was born to stand up against society for the good cause : first by mocking Lenin, he was punished in kindergarten, then by showing reluctancy to participate in a memorial for Mao (the reason is quite paradoxically telling : he didn’t want that to interfere with the preparation of final exams in 6th grade !
– Second, he stated he had good moments during his 5 years in Iowa, identifying a bar where students go and his memories of beautiful girls he had seen there ….
– Third, he says that good people to get justice and right recognized should ware guns because other ways to litigate (like in Court) are only open to the priviledged.
– Fourth, he explained what happened to him, falling in the cobweb of a sociopath with 3 main points : The professor manoeuvred him so that he wouldn’t have his dissertation approved (by not telling him how the oral examination really worked), gave him bad advice to stop his publication in Physics Review and promoted his competitor
– Fifth, where it stood before the shooting : He introduced a former complaint but without resources and probably little confidence in the output (see point 3)
– Sixth and last (after the shooting, when the statement his read), he correlates his study on the universe, the cosmos and his psyché in a very asian way (harmony) and stating something of him will survive somehow now.
Probably, the kind of Performance intelligence asian have, explains a lot about their behaviour and their society culture. Our society is heir to non-performance Iq (Verbal and Math), thanks to Greek, Latin and the jews lately. I’m very glad to understand more the differences, and their consequences, between the two.
everything out of peepee’s hole is a lie.
this is the consequence of her being tri-racial.
peepee is sufficient to prove that all racila minorities in the US and canada should be deported or gassed.
i’m going to find peepee and rape her.
”peepee is sufficient to prove that all racila minorities in the US and canada should be deported or gassed.
i’m going to find peepee and rape her.”
Ca-calma cara!!!
after peepee has begged me to keep fucking her for the 10th time…
i will flay her and make a leather jacket out of her skin.
i will sell this to the Chuckie fan club on e-bay for $1.
i will feed peepee, still alive but flayed, to my pet tiger.
awesome.
sad!
more canadians died in WW I than americans died in the vietnam war.
who knew?
this is the day americans worship their dead soldiers.
the only relative i know of doesn’t really count.
he was hanged for desertion by the confederacy.
good cynic.
it’s in the blood.
reminds me.
they’s black folk and then they’s niggers.
the single best moment in sports…after secretariat’s belmont…
you know!
the pretty boy who couldn’t punch is floored.
not sad!
not!
these “motherfuckers” are just expressing the problem with the system.
their “jobs” are to be critics.
peepee thinks the system was made by God to prefer the high IQ-ed and large brain-ed.
sad!
again. marx did not predict that the foremost supporters of capitalism, the reign of the bourgeoisie, would be…
the proles.
truly sad!
…
oprah’s entire head fits inside my head.
sad!
but i’m tall and have very broad shoulders so i don’t look like a freak.
wait…
actually even with the height and the broad shoulders i look like…
what the fuck is wrong with that guy. his head is huge!
Good observation. Marx talked about priles achieving class consciousness. I think it can happen again. It needs an inflection point. Presudent sanders or pm corbyn would be it.
except marx also did not foresee that the poor wouldn’t be exploited, they would be…
excluded.
marx as economist and prophet are interesting but…marx was not exactly a techno-futurist…not exactly.
marx as philosopher is right.
history is the history of technology.
marx said this…
but not enough.
yet for the anglo-prole-sphere academy he’s the boogeyman.
sad!
Marx was uncommonly gifted in seeing underlying tendency. He gets to a lot of what i try to say in other fields.
Yea but Marx was (((danish)))
If Oprah is so smart why hasn’t she invited pumpkin on to her show?
Is it because she’s afraid Pumpkin will expose the Native Americans true ancestry?!!!
Thats the biggest secret in HBD – the cryptozoologist background of Native Americans.
”Coming from a more evolved race where such psychopathic and aggressive behavior was weeded out in part by 40,000 years of cold winters, Xing simply can’t understand how people can be so evil and shady, and is absolutely devastated.”
What a racist!
What a racist!
RR, people call you racist and now you’re turning around calling others racist. This indicates low g.
I don’t care what indicates low g. Of my IQ were 1 that wouldn’t bother me because I’m successful despite it.
I never said that a whole group of people “have to die” so we can have “progress”. That’s ridiculous!
I made a quick search and it seems Oprah said “old racists have to die”. So that’s technically not racist unless we assume that old racist is a race or that racists only exist in a specific race. Even then, it wouldn’t target a whole race.
I used to think Oprah said “old white racists have to die” but she didn’t. Although it’s never cool to wish people’s death, I see no race scandal here.
Anyway PP, don’t you think this is an incredibly basic statement for a supposedly big brained social genius?
To be honest, even if Oprah said “old white racists have to die” I don’t think it would have been matter for genuine indignation.
Whites have been responsible for virtually all race-based human rights violation and privilege. I’m not saying that it can justify anti-white hate speech but the fact is that anti-white remarks never add insult to injury. Whites can largely afford to let people talk, they know being white is an advantage in their lives, that there is no such thing as driving while white, finding a home while white, looking for a job while white… And so on. They know deep inside that their life could not be be better if they were not white.
Most whites know it and don’t get offended by so called anti-white racism. It’s only the retards of the far right who fake indignation. And what they resent is not anti-white remarks per se, it’s the supposed double standard that’s applied to different ethnic slurs and race-related touchy comments.
It’s like when they complain about not being allowed to say the N. word. I mean, come on… Do they really need to say this word when you know it’s offensive in the mouth of a white person, and they know exactly know why it is not offensive in the mouth of a black person? That’s ridiculous, they’re free to call blacks niggers but they can’t complain about being called racist if they do so.
On Oprah’s real comment, it is not on the level of someone so skilled. Firstly because it has a potential for controversy and no matter how dishonest, controversy is always bad for business. Secondly, the death of old racists won’t end racism anytime soon. Although younger generations are much less racist in theory, they’re still far from thinking and acting color-blindly. So if Oprah really means what she said, her social intelligence must be greatly overrated.
Good Lord Afro, sometimes I think you just fell off the turnip truck.
1) controversy is often great for business in our fragmented media age. Ever heard the term “no such thing as bad publicity”?
2) her terrible statement wasn’t even that controversial. It was largely ignored by the elite media who probably all agreed with it.
3) Oprah already proved she could avoid racial controversy five days a week for 25 years, but if you can’t speak your mind when you’re a billionaire, what the hell’s the point of having all that money? You’re still a slave to white masters.
4) Racism has already greatly diminished because of the deaths of old racists. In 1967 it was illegal to get interracially married. In 2008 the child of an interracial marriage became President.
5) Oprah’s statement was terrible, but was socially observant in that she understood what a waste of time it is to try change people. Most old racists are set in their ways and their racism won’t end until they do.
6) enhanced her street cred in da hood:
1) controversy is often great for business in our fragmented media age. Ever heard the term “no such thing as bad publicity”?
No, it’s rarely good, that’s why companies spend huge amounts of money on public relations. Go tell Volkswagen or that company that brutalized a customer how good for business controversy ease. Bad media karma is what everybody fears now.
2) her terrible statement wasn’t even that controversial. It was largely ignored by the elite media who probably all agreed with it.
I didn’t know this, as I told you I thought it was not racist, just not cool to wish death on people but nothing to provoke national outrage. I thought it scandalized the alt-right though, hence my mention of fake indignation.
but if you can’t speak your mind when you’re a billionaire, what the hell’s the point of having all that money?
LOL, by principle, accumulating money becomes objectively useless past a couple tens of millions dollars. Speaking one’s mind isn’t the primary goal of being rich and being rich doesn’t allow everything, I doubt Oprah would say something really nasty about trump, or talk about unredeemable deplorables, this would be real bad for business.
In 1967 it was illegal to get interracially married. In 2008 the child of an interracial marriage became President.
It’s a lot because of the US’s changing ethnic composition because Obama never won the white vote. Besides, school segregation is heading toward pre-civil rights level, police brutality is a real issue, mass incarceration is a critical problem and the US’s record on human rights watch is disastrous with most concerns revolving around race relations. And old racists aren’t the only ones to blame, the “colorblind” all lives matter crowd is.
Oprah’s statement was terrible, but was socially observant in that she understood what a waste of time it is to try change people.
It’s very easy to say the exact same thing without wishing death on people.
enhanced her street cred in da hood:
Nah please, stop here. This language is not for you.
No, it’s rarely good, that’s why companies spend huge amounts of money on public relations. Go tell Volkswagen or that company that brutalized a customer how good for business controversy ease.
You can’t compare Volkswagen and United Airlines to show business where you’re paid to draw a crowd. Generating controversy is a time tested way for celebs to get media buzz when they have a new TV show, movie, or album to promote. It’s been used by everyone from Beyoncé to Madonna to Bill O’reilly. The trick is to be as controversial as possible without crossing the line of massive public backlash. Now Oprah’s been lucky to be so talented that she didn’t need controversy through most of her career, but as the media landscape gets increasingly fragmented, even Oprah has occasionally had to rely on publicity stunts, though I don’t know if this was one.
LOL, by principle, accumulating money becomes objectively useless past a couple tens of millions dollars.
I don’t know about that. Tens of millions isn’t enough to buy a $100 million mansion, buy a $10 billion cable network that influences millions of people, buy a $300 million yacht like the one Oprah and Obama just vacationed on, or fund a billion dollar presidential run or scientific exploration.
Speaking one’s mind isn’t the primary goal of being rich and being rich doesn’t allow everything, I doubt Oprah would say something really nasty about trump, or talk about unredeemable deplorables, this would be real bad for business.
No but she’s become much more politically vocal the richer she got. Having already become the richest African American of all time, earning another billion or two will not change her place in history so she’s free to fuck around and cause trouble.
It’s a lot because of the US’s changing ethnic composition because Obama never won the white vote.
But he probably won the young white vote.
It’s very easy to say the exact same thing without wishing death on people.
Most people didn’t take her literally. Some on the far right did, but many of them already hated her anyway for endorsing Obama
Nah please, stop here. This language is not for you.
It’s not for you either.
Good discussion, but that’s going to have be the last word.
And the funny thing about RR is that he calls Oprah a racist although he thinks the word racism makes no sense and he opposes hate speech laws. He might say he’s being sarcastic, but I think it’s just one instance of fake/misplaced indignation I mentioned above.
She says “and they just have to die” rather…. how do you say it…… callously?
“I made a quick search and it seems Oprah said “old racists have to die”. So that’s technically not racist unless we assume that old racist is a race or that racists only exist in a specific race. Even then, it wouldn’t target a whole race.”
Maybe I’m jumping to conclusions, but the first thing I think when she says ‘old racists’ is ‘old whites’, since ‘racist’ is codespeak for white nowadays.
“Most whites know it and don’t get offended by so called anti-white racism. It’s only the retards of the far right who fake indignation. And what they resent is not anti-white remarks per se, it’s the supposed double standard that’s applied to different ethnic slurs and race-related touchy comments.”
I don’t get offended, I don’t care what people say. Just calling out the double standard; and she wished death on people—people, no matter if they’re ‘racist’ or not.
“On Oprah’s real comment, it is not on the level of someone so skilled. Firstly because it has a potential for controversy and no matter how dishonest, controversy is always bad for business.”
Controversy creates cash.
“Secondly, the death of old racists won’t end racism anytime soon. Although younger generations are much less racist in theory, they’re still far from thinking and acting color-blindly. So if Oprah really means what she said, her social intelligence must be greatly overrated.”
Because people learn through interacting with others. Her ‘social intelligence’ is greatly exaggerated.
“And the funny thing about RR is that he calls Oprah a racist although he thinks the word racism makes no sense and he opposes hate speech laws. He might say he’s being sarcastic, but I think it’s just one instance of fake/misplaced indignation I mentioned above.”
I was joking.
“Whites have been responsible for virtually all race-based human rights violation and privilege.”
True, pretty much isolating them in this historical trend since the concept of “macro-races” as opposed to “race” as in ethnic groups didn’t really exist elsewhere or to the same extent.
“I’m not saying that it can justify anti-white hate speech but the fact is that anti-white remarks never add insult to injury. Whites can largely afford to let people talk, they know being white is an advantage in their lives, that there is no such thing as driving while white, finding a home while white, looking for a job while white… And so on. They know deep inside that their life could not be be better if they were not white.”
I somewhat agree also, but from my perspective Whites generally see it less as a “privilege” for themselves and more that other people’s labels are a disadvantage.
The difference is really that they would rank their situations as the “standard” and their “advantage” is to remain at the standard, and in contrast they view a “privilege” as having a “above standard” boost.
Then again I’m talking about my general convenience sample of American Whites, not French which would probably express it differently given a different cultural history of the topic all together.
“Most whites know it and don’t get offended by so called anti-white racism. It’s only the retards of the far right who fake indignation. And what they resent is not anti-white remarks per se, it’s the supposed double standard that’s applied to different ethnic slurs and race-related touchy comments.
It’s like when they complain about not being allowed to say the N. word. I mean, come on… Do they really need to say this word when you know it’s offensive in the mouth of a white person, and they know exactly know why it is not offensive in the mouth of a black person? That’s ridiculous, they’re free to call blacks niggers but they can’t complain about being called racist if they do so.”
I usually segregate the far right, the ones that huddle in their own forums and such or specific political matters occasionally address actual “anti-white” remarks, but the ones you describe I often see in basic media/entertainment comment sections that usually have remote ties to race politics and bolster a Alt-Right persona, a very awkward sight.
I see it so often that I can distinguish comments that are actually “malignant” and other that are “desperate”, that latter being so emotionally fragile in their text it’s hardly offensive.
“Whites have been responsible for virtually all race-based human rights violation and privilege.”
True, pretty much isolating them in this historical trend since the concept of “macro-races” as opposed to “race” as in ethnic groups didn’t really exist elsewhere or to the same extent.”
True**
Almost other human races, groups, aglomerations, also have ”violated” ”human rights”. What make ”whites” more guilty than others is the global magnitude of ”their” mistakes… in the end, white people itself has been systematically victims of their ELITES…
Because human social hierarchy [and not only human-one] ELITES are always the brain behind collective attitudes, so if you want blame someone to past-”mistakes” [euphemism] blame ELITES and not regular people who are also, usually, victims itself.
While Grreat Britain was colonizing Africa, WHITE WORKING CLASSES there was being extremely oppressed because extremely horrible laboral conditions, very near to slavery, if not a kind of slavery.
This is a accurate view about part of beautiful human story.
WHITES have been responsible…
This is a malignant and inaccurate narrative only:
– bad-intentioned people
– bad-informed people
and
– stupid people can use
No there such thing
WHITES did/do
as if a entire population were a collective and literal body, it’s just stupid. Yes, this has been a common human way to talk about collective-like attitudes, but sometimes we need evolve, this narrative must go away…
While some europeans was invading and territorially appropriating other lands in New World, europeans in the Old World was being, as usual, oppressed by their ”own” elites, as it’s very clear today.
Today, most conservatives think or believe that only jewish elite is evil, but forget that their ”same-blood” elites in the glorious past wasn’t so different and indeed one of the fundamental reasons white regular people are being slowly eliminated is because ”their” ”same-blood” elites betrayed them, as expected… without this treason ”j0:00s” could not have done nothing, because ”they”” are demographically dependent of stupid goym to advance their stupid goals.
Maybe I’m jumping to conclusions, but the first thing I think when she says ‘old racists’ is ‘old whites’, since ‘racist’ is codespeak for white nowadays.
LOL, no, racist = white is alt-right persecution delirium. When she says they just have to die, Oprah doesn’t seem to target the not so young white man that sits in front of her.
I don’t get offended, I don’t care what people say. Just calling out the double standard; and she wished death on people—people, no matter if they’re ‘racist’ or not.
Yeah, wishing death is unsubtle and provocation is useless when you’re as famous. Now on the double-standard it’s like I told you, it would be legit to denounce it if whites were truly offended and if the far-right were supporting hate speech laws but it’s not the case.
I was joking.
Then it’s not your best joke 🙂
True, pretty much isolating them in this historical trend since the concept of “macro-races” as opposed to “race” as in ethnic groups didn’t really exist elsewhere or to the same extent.
Yeah, race is a very Northern European thing, nowhere else in the world does race have such an essentialist dimension.
I somewhat agree also, but from my perspective Whites generally see it less as a “privilege” for themselves and more that other people’s labels are a disadvantage.
The difference is really that they would rank their situations as the “standard” and their “advantage” is to remain at the standard, and in contrast they view a “privilege” as having a “above standard” boost.
Yes, true, actually you still find whites complaining about bearing all the burden of work and tax contributions, which is ironically the result of their economic privilege. They feel caught in the middle class squeeze: rich enough to pay taxes but not enough to live large, not poor enough for benefits. They don’t even realize how this situation is preferable to underclass life. They don’t care anyway, conservative whites are very self-centered.
I usually segregate the far right, the ones that huddle in their own forums and such or specific political matters occasionally address actual “anti-white” remarks, but the ones you describe I often see in basic media/entertainment comment sections that usually have remote ties to race politics and bolster a Alt-Right persona, a very awkward sight.
I see it so often that I can distinguish comments that are actually “malignant” and other that are “desperate”, that latter being so emotionally fragile in their text it’s hardly offensive.
A lot of people repeat simplistic things that sound good to them without asking if they really make sense.
“They feel caught in the middle class squeeze: rich enough to pay taxes but not enough to live large, not poor enough for benefits. They don’t even realize how this situation is preferable to underclass life.”
I agree. Both of parents were formerly underclass in the 1960s, they were among three types of people- being those trying to “get out”, those who can manage where they are, the third who become “products” of their situations to put it gently.
All three had their own way of dealing with their struggles.
” They don’t care anyway, conservative whites are very self-centered.”
Rich ones I’ve heard horror stories of for sure, but the “conservative” types I usually encounter seem “humbler” so to speak in empathizing with others with such lifestyles.
I guess these people are more accurately “traditional” types rather than just simply staunch determinists as other “conservatives” would be.
“A lot of people repeat simplistic things that sound good to them without asking if they really make sense.”
That’s usually associated with lacking the ability to actually “know” what you want out of a identity.
Did you know the Israeli army pay Israeli college students to infiltrate web forums and troll anti Israeli chatrooms or ‘steer’ conversations?
Just google it. its official.
Why would a country need to pay its students to troll other countries internet forums?
Because they’re the evil race of man.
I see it every single day of my life
Some do it for free though
the greatest level of ” steering” is on white nationalist forums or youtube comment sections.
100% of the people telling us that our real enemies are the enemies of israel are all jews .
I’ve also seen them on christian forums .
I just wish there were 1,000 of me so i could spread the word
Every single person that i have shown videos about the real Israel has switched from pro-Israel to anti-Israel within days
I know a guy from high school who was a hardcore Evangelical zionist and yet recently he sent me a link to a david duke video
People just need to see the truth and they turn quickly
Yes. They’re called the JIDF (Jewish Internet Defense Force). They shut down any badspeak about Israel. Wonder why…
”Don’t pay attention to “authorities”, think for yourself.”
Made this statement on Kurzweil forum when someone said the singularity has begun.
“In summary, we need a self-referenced feedback loop for the theory of mind in general intelligence. Anything less you don’t get recursive self-improvement.”
I wish I could make A.I. – I am not smart enough, have low energy slow processing speed. My cooler is broken during the summer, family fights.
But I am board so I write down my ideas. I wish my emotional problems were fixed.
https://illuminaticatblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/29/reconfiguration-and-self-reflection/
To control your emotions you need stop to think you’re a fluid chain between you and environment, in other words, build your own bondaries. Very emotional people are hyper-reactive, probably because they react quick to external stimuli and respond quick as well. I was and i’m still like that but less than in the past because i know who i’m, WHAT I’M DOING, it’s exactly as review your own behavior, during, after or before the action.
It’s just like a car without a driver and a car with driver. A car without a driver is a being who are completely instinctive or have poorer self-awareness. A car with driver can direct/choice their path, because instead a motor walking randomly and also stubbornly we have a motor and a brain, as if the driver is the aware-self of the organism/motor.
We are our worst enemies when we fool yourself, because in the end, everything we do is strictly related with themselves, with our selves.
Being able to react quickly means I have trouble introverting. Which means sitting still and thinking. I need to move to think and to experiment. I feel constrained and stuck all the time and also tried. So that is why I need to move all the time. My new theory is I am ENFP. They have new ideas all the time. But making them work is difficult because it’s hard to slow down. I do not like slowing down. That is why I get anxiety all the time. I need to do something but there is nothing to do. So I search constantly. Make my videos/blog posts. Comment on pumpkins blog, read forums make more comments. My thinking is too fast I am not good at slow thinking. This is a big problem. And I am alone allotted. I want people to teach me things and let me ask questions and say what I think. It is a loop between extraverted intuition and extraverted thinking. Both are very unorganized and need feedback. Introverted people can be by themselves and contemplate but that is difficult for me.
You don’t appear to be extroverted.
You need look for this terms in separated ways,
E N F and P to see if you’re more like this way or another, in terms of intensity and authenticity.
Look for the concepts and applications of all firstly.
https://www.16personalities.com/enfp-personality
Look at it and think if you recognize yourself in this description.
”Being able to react quickly means I have trouble introverting. Which means sitting still and thinking.”
I think introverts, characteristically speaking, over-think, so i don’t think you have trouble introverting. Watching some of your videos, i see you have problem to organize your ideas [concentration and organization] and explain your central ideas without lost in many [possible] auxiliary ideas. For example, your recent video you go jumping from one idea or example to other and seems a typical autistic behavior, you think everyone know what you’re talking about. You don’t start from the begining: ”hi, my names is X. I will talk about this subject. This subject is blablabla… my idea is blablabla”.
Your problem is basically organization your thoughts and or concentration. Maybe write in paper what you want explain before to do this videos will help you how to do it in better way.
Feynman– what a deeply insightful human being.
I’m guessing those quotes are from his books or recordings?
I just watched this movie. First movie I’ve seen in a while. Surprisingly good. Great ending! Loved seeing those guys get theirs.
SPOILERS
PP why did the woman look into her hands and run away at the end? How did she know?
Most race-ist fascist nation in the world
Israel.
Race ‘realist’ should be banned for calling a black woman race-ist. As we know rac-jizzm only applies to zions enemies – the elves, dwarves, men, hobbits and sasquatches.
I DISAVOW rathithm, witchcraft, human sacrifice, cannibalism, bestiality, incest, female genital mutilation and sorcery.
If one doesn’t disavow, as Trump didn’t. Then we can be sure one supports any or even all of the above.
We live in terrible, terrible times friends.
When was the last time Trump disavowed witchcraft? The coven endorsed Trump. Ergo, Trump is a wicked witch.
#Medialogic
The larger logic is of course, the media was smearing him with chimeric – associating the KKK imagery with Trump by joining the 2 concepts together.
Our occupiers are very delightful, nice critters. Very nice people.
Emmanual Marionnette, I would assume had ‘lion’ or some sort of waterfall/naturalistic imagery used in conjunction with his name in the media.
Scott Adams is the number 1 expert in the world at this stuff. This is the stuff they won’ t teach in psychology. I first came onto neuro-linguistic programming through Louis Theroux’s documnetary on Ross Jeffries, who was using chimeric to pick up women (successfuly – it was shocking at the time to watch Louis be successful as well).
Evil.
The original practitioner is Freud’s nephew – Edward Bernays. Watch ‘The Century of Self’. Possibly in my top 3 documentaries.
Oliver Stone’s ‘Secret history of the United States’ series is good as well as it ties in with Scott Talbot’s ‘The Devil’s Chessboard’ view on a plutocratic political system we have had.
No I don’t brainwash women to go with me. I’m considered moviestar good looking anyway.
It’s a horror movie*
There are different classes of evolution: convergent, divergent, transcendent and regressive. It’s just like change the software into a hardware and the ”required software” tend to be previously signalized ”by” environment. The next step to the transcendent [human] evolution, what have happened with humans, is ”hardwirelize” complete literacy [learn faster how to write and word understanding] and instinctively learnable numeracy. We, or most of humans already have the language-acquisition as fixed, instinctive, intuitively/easily learnable, as well of course self awareness, surprinsingly bad-developed among most of us.