J.P. Rushton argued East Asians have the least testosterone, Blacks have the most and Caucasoids are in between. However this claim has been challenged in recent years by East Asians who didn’t want to have less T than whites and whites who didn’t want less T than blacks. Even though Rushton saw high T and sexual potency as primitive traits, millions of young men equate sex with self-worth and so their fragile egos can’t handle a low T racial stigma.
People really need to get a life.
I don’t have time to review all the research folks have done so I just did a quick search and found this graph:
It seems that among single graduate students, Rushton’s hierarchy is confirmed, with Blacks enjoying more T than whites who have more T than East Asians.
However among grad students in relationships, East Asians tower in T. Perhaps that’s just an artifact of the small sample size of those in relationships, or perhaps because of anti-Asian discrimination by women, only the most hyper-masculine Asians are able to date (on average). The theory implied by the study authors is that being in a relationship increases T for East Asians, but lowers it for non-Asian men.
But if testosterone levels can fluctuate that much just from being in a relationship, it sounds like too unstable a variable to be of much relevance to racial differences.
Perhaps a more interesting trait is 2D:4D ratio– Length of your second digit compared to your fourth digit. The higher the ratio, the higher your femininity (on average) because you were prenatally bathed in more estrogen than testosterone. In contrast, low 2D:4D ratio suggests more prenatal T exposure relative to estrogen, and thus more masculinity.
According to this blog post, low 2D:4D ratios predict aggression, fatherhood, early marriage, promiscuity, athleticism, risk taking, alcoholism, autism, spatial ability, ADHD, facial masculinity, penis length and prostate cancer.
It may also predict muscle mass.
High 2D:4D ratios predict smoking, obesity and verbal fluency.
Some of these correlations support theories I have proposed or endorsed. Others may challenge those theories.
How does this fit with Rushton’s theory? The Inductivist Blog claims:
It turns out that there are large ethnic differences in the 2D:4D ratio…According to the results of one study, “The Oriental Han had the highest mean 2D:4D, followed by the Caucasian Berbers and Uygurs, with the lowest mean ratios found in the Afro-Caribbean Jamaicans.” In plainer language, Hans were the most feminized and Jamaicans the most masculine.
I don’t have time to vet all these claims. Some of the research might be old and may be overturned by newer larger studies, and even the true correlations might be small or non-causal.
Pumpkin Person 
At the risk of sounding like a Jayman dickrider (again), I remember him saying the 2d:4d digit ratio stuff is mostly bullshit. I’m leaning towards saying he’s correct. The little I’ve read about it shows results that are all over the place and inconsistent across from study to study.
Testosterone is an interesting variable but I think it’s important not to put to much emphasis on it. It most definitely affects muscle development, but we really don’t know what else (or to what extent).
At the risk of sounding like a Jayman dickrider
I thought you were a huge Jayman fan?
I am. I was just trying to say I’m not a yesman…a Jayman-yesman. I have some doubts and disagreements with his positions on certain matters.
To be fair jayman is largely right. Its kind of ironic a half jamaican man would provide some great evidence of hbd. Or a jew hosting the main hub to dispel the illusion. Or a half jew making alt right pop culture friendly.
Just goes to show how brainwashed gentiles are that the benefactors of fraud have to fight it because its so tawdry and evil.
They are good people. They lose more than anyone from exposing all this .
Maybe digit ratio is true for some specific traits than general phenotypes. For example, for man, only-verbal fluency can/maybe be positively correlated with higher digit ratio, while other traits can/maybe be not positively correlated.
It’s true on avg women have higher digit and men have lower**
If it is true so to say ”it’s almost bullshit” will be a premature conclusion at the best.
In the end the first graphic fit very well with stereotypes [collective perceptions] as well perceptiveness of masculinity, at least in confrontational/intra-masculine competitive aspects.
East asians as the least confrontational, indians, caucasians, hispanics and blacks as the most combative/confrontational.
Other possibility is that larger statistical corners of ”thug-types” [hyper-masculine in confrontational aspects] among ”blacks” and other groups increase their overall avg and to this thesis be remotely correct is needed have a discontinuity of traits between average [majority of population] and some subgroups, but i find it unlikely to be possible.
Seems ”most” people are forgeting to internalize total and free testosterone. Seems it’s exactly the free testosterone that matter most to predict levels of masculinity at least for some aspects, for example, tone voice.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/standard-deviations/201705/beyond-binary-how-bisexuality-shifts-orientation-science
”Other research you cited showed that bi women have a higher libido, but bi men have less. The high libido men are either “very” gay or straight”
This is very interesting findings but always we must have cautious with psychological studies.
Other question about digit ratio is the levels of simmetry between the hands. Everyone who have very similar digit ratio in both hands*
Yeah it could be BS. My 4D is bigger than my 2D, and yet i have the sm*llest penis around (how do i know? i googled the average penis sizes to compare). I also have weak and shorter duration erections, i am very emotionally sensitive, i am very physically weak.
I have no qualms saying all these, because we dont know each other personally. Plus this is a science blog. I am sacrificing my reputation for science.
i forgot to add….i love smoking over drinking, i am prone to obesity and i am very verbually fluent in my mother tongue.
Ummmm….wow….okay
Smoking goes with drinking. When you drink your throat muscles relax and that’s why smoke feels better when you’re drunk/drinking.
”Plus this is a science blog”
Pretend to be. Indeed, originally, Pumpkin wanted to create a blog that mix Horror Movies with Hbd stuff, quite creative but honestly with little potential of expansion, if most horror movies are very similar one each other and just estimative IQ of characters seems repetitive and progressively boring as hell.
I’ve been to hell, there’s only magma and Jews. 😉
” in my mother tongue.”
What’s your nationality*
santoculto,
I am indian and my mother tongue is telugu.
RR,
What you said is true, i have seen a lot of people who enjoy doing both at once. I guess what i meant to say was, if i had to choose one…i would choose smoking over drinking 🙂
K, are you real?
AS,
I am for real. I have mild aspergers (hence the social naivety as explained by talking about my p*nis size.)
you remind me of the commenter pacos.
OMG, yeah, that fucking pacas guy who talked astrology and cursing… LMAO.
PP,
Is it possible that most guys testosterone levels fall when in relationships because of having sex?
Also i remember reading somewhere that men have this protective instinct for women…physical and mental. So when they talk to them they ‘tone down their aggression’? And this could lower their testosterone?
Yes. You are correct. However Aggression is what women look for as they are better protectors. This is another reason why East Asians “come up short” (get it?): because women hate short men.
I think they like men being aggressive towards other men, but not to them. This could also be the reason some of the women like bad boys. Bad boys usually are bad to other men, but not as bad to their own women. Dominating maybe but not ‘bad’. (in addition to the fact that bad boys are higher in the social pecking order in school etc or if they are older….they have some sort of power in their community etc)
First, east asians specially today are not short, they can be comparatively short, but on avg 170 cm is not short it’s average stature. Second, many women are indeed short on below [local] avg and yes there are women who like or don’t care too much about height men. Third, attitude is one of the most important things that matter for women, and seems lower height tend to correlates with less dominant attitudes, but of course there are shorter men who are more dominant and have suckcess with women.
Yup, everything you guys say here makes sense.
Santo, you’re right about average height (for the world it’s 5 foot 6 with the Japanese men being 5 foot 7 for instance), but they are still comparably shorter than European populations.
Wikipedia has solid references for this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide
The Japanese have gained about 4 inches in height since the introduction of milk programs in the late 50s. Milk is correlated with height. However, consumption of milk is due mostly directly to the phenomenon known as ‘niche construction’ (which is a barrier to ‘progress’ in biology since organisms can construct their own niches and over time, selection occurs yada yada yada.
Even in America East Asians are a bit shorter on average. The average height in America is 5 foot 9.
m also talking about overall human average height that fits with current east Asian avg.
I believe milk consumption and height is correlative and not causal. Only one case can prove it.
It is causal look at the Dutch.
“Even though Rushton saw high T and sexual potency as primitive traits, millions of young men equate sex with self-worth and so their fragile egos can’t handle a low T racial stigma.”
Rushgton has no idea what he’s talking about. High T is extremely important for vital functioning—as I have extensively documented.
It’s not about a ‘low T racial stigma’; it’s about the truth.
Buddy, figure 1b shows the opposite (the 2013 analysis compared to the 2008 analysis you used). I know I know, sample size. So look to the dearth of studies I cite to see how wrong Rushton’s contention is. Look to Ethnicmuse to see how wrong Rushton is. Anyway, this is again proof that environmental factors greatly influence testosterone, as I’ve claimed a trillion times.
“it sounds like too unstable a variable to be of much relevance to racial differences.”
So take assays at the same time every day and make sure the study group is as controlled as possible. It’s not too unstable a variable; just because I’ve shown how wrong it is in terms of crime and aggression and that the true difference between blacks and whites isn’t large (with 7 studies https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/04/15/race-testosterone-and-honor-culture/ <——you are wrong about testosterone and race; also see that Chinese and Japanese Americans had higher T than whites: http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/cebp/4/7/735.full.pdf , Rushton's testosterone contentions have been thoroughly rebutted by me PP) and with the 8th showed that the T difference between low-income blacks comes down to honor culture.
Low testosterone in Africans compared to Westerners:
Click to access 10.1007%40BF03324846.pdf
Click to access 10.1007%40BF03324846.pdf
Click to access 10.1002%40ajhb.20083.pdf
Click to access 10.1093%40humrep%4017.12.3251.pdf
This large difference in testosterone doesn't exist between blacks and whites.
Digit ratio doesn't follow Rushton's Rule.
http://racehist.blogspot.com/2008/05/digit-ratio-doesnt-follow-rushtons-rule.html
Rushgton has no idea what he’s talking about.
I disagree. He knew a lot for his time.
it’s about the truth.
That’s what they all say
Anyway, this is again proof that environmental factors greatly influence testosterone
Correct
So take assays at the same time every day and make sure the study group is as controlled as possible.
It might not be possible to control very much
It’s not too unstable a variable; just because I’ve shown how wrong it is in terms of crime and aggression
Prenatal testosterone seems to predict psychopathy. The non-correlation with crime might just be because the biggest criminals are not the ones in jail.
also see that Chinese and Japanese Americans had higher T than whites
Which Chinese and Japanese Americans? Among a sample of single grad students, East Asians had the lowest T.
Rushton’s testosterone contentions have been thoroughly rebutted by me PP) and with the 8th showed that the T difference between low-income blacks comes down to honor culture.
By that logic, East Asian T must be super low when you adjust for their honor culture.
Low testosterone in Africans compared to Westerners:
You can’t compare Africans with the developed World RR. Even within countries there are so many variables you have to control for given how unstable T is; between continents it’s impossible
This large difference in testosterone doesn’t exist between blacks and whites.
Race is only one factor out of many that may influence T
Digit ratio doesn’t follow Rushton’s Rule.
But in this study it did.
“I disagree. He knew a lot for his time.”
…. No he didn’t. He literally cited 15 year old studies on testosterone. There were already much better analyses, even by the time he wrote his 2000 version of REB.
.
“That’s what they all say”
Dude, take a look at the seven studies—all large analyses—and point out the flaws in them in regards to black and white T. Good luck. I’m interested in the truth. Ideology be damned.
“It might not be possible to control very much”
Um it’s simple. Control for whatever factors that influence T and so the assays at the same time. These things have been debated in the literature PP.
“Prenatal testosterone seems to predict psychopathy. The non-correlation with crime might just be because the biggest criminals are not the ones in jail.”
Which is why even studies of prisoners show high T, yet they don’t show causation.
“Which Chinese and Japanese Americans? Among a sample of single grad students, East Asians had the lowest T.”
Read the study I cited. Look at Figure B, the 2013 redo of figure A that you cited in your article.
“By that logic, East Asian T must be super low when you adjust for their honor culture.”
Onus is on you to prove this.
“You can’t compare Africans with the developed World RR. Even within countries there are so many variables you have to control for given how unstable T is; between continents it’s impossible”
So don’t compare Africans with the modern world in regards to IQ. Just excuse them completely, and all countries that have problems that would lower IQ.
“Race is only one factor out of many that may influence T”
Of course. However the claim is blacks have higher T. I’ve summarily rebutted the claim with large meta analyses. You can only provide small studies to my large analyses.
“But in this study it did.”
Hahaha. The review I posted from n/a is on a book Manning authored. I assume he uses the same study, I’ll buy the book to check it out.
But you cannot deny the strong data I have compiled, especially the data showing that testosterone isn’t the scary hormone it’s made out to be.
How can you deny evidence that literally lunches you in the face?
Um it’s simple. Control for whatever factors that influence T and so the assays at the same time.
Everything’s simple when you’re simple. We don’t know all the factors that influence T. Obviously we can try to control for some things thought to affect it like marital status and Weight/height ratio but it’s not easy, since a high BMI can reflect fat or muscle and these are probably correlated with T in opposite ways and some studies fail to distinguish, but you can’t control for things like honor culture which can’t be measured and where causation flows in both direction. You can’t control for whether a guy just got a promotion or just went on a date and is beaming with masculine pride. And blacks are exposed to all kinds of indignities which may damage the male ego and lower T.
Which is why even studies of prisoners show high T, yet they don’t show causation.
So you believe T correlates with incarceration but you deny the correlation is causal? How was that proven?
Read the study I cited. Look at Figure B, the 2013 redo of figure A that you cited in your article.
With respect to that particular study, singles in figure A had the largest sample size iirc
Onus is on you to prove this.
Onus is on you to prove that black honor culture increased their T levels by 25%. Perhaps honor culture is the product, not the cause of high black T.
So don’t compare Africans with the modern world in regards to IQ.
I’ve stated that I think Third World environments subtract about 1 SD from IQ. So how much do they subtract from T levels? Also 1 SD? If so, adjusting the data for just that might put Africans well ahead of whites
Of course. However the claim is blacks have higher T. I’ve summarily rebutted the claim with large meta analyses. You can only provide small studies to my large analyses.
But how many of the studies you cited 1) were based just on young people which is the age when T is relevant to evolution theories cause that’s when folks historically mated, and 2) compared blacks and whites in the same study, measured the same way, in the same country. Off the top of my head I can think of 3 such studies: Mazur (2016), Ross (1986), and Maestripieri (2014). An average of all three studies would probably show young black men substantially outscore young white men in T, at least in America. And you can’t just exclude Mazur (2016) based on honor culture; its independent effect on black T can’t be measured.
Hahaha. The review I posted from n/a is on a book Manning authored. I assume he uses the same study, I’ll buy the book to check it out.
Why not just read the study I cited?
How can you deny evidence that literally lunches you in the face?
By citing all the counterevidence
Maybe free testosterone is more stable than total*
”And blacks are exposed to all kinds of indignities which may damage the male ego and lower T.”
It’s a joke, tell me, please…
”damage black ego”
something near to impossible at least for the thug types…
what is the individual amplitude levels of testosterone specially free* I mean, when a man is ”hunting” a mate its testosterone levels increase, namely free [seems]. When he marry and have kids its testosterone decrease.
But it’s have a individual limit.
Men with lower testosterone can’t increase its tests at highest levels as well men with higher testosterone can’t decrease it at lowest levels… Men with avg [free] testosterone also can’t increase or decrease its testosterone levels to the extreme levels. Isn’t*
“Everything’s simple when you’re simple”
I’m at the left wall of complexity. I can’t get any simpler.
“We don’t know all the factors that influence T.”
We don’t know all of the factors that influence a myriad of variables. Point is, especially in the meta-analyses I cite, studies were chosen in which all controls, variables, etc were similar, which is how meta-analyses are done. So when all of the studies are similar in those aforementioned variables, the result is closer to the truth.
“Obviously we can try to control for some things thought to affect it like marital status and Weight/height ratio”
Waist-to-height ratio is a solid marker for mortality. What do you mean by ‘things thought to effect it’, because marriage has a proven causal effect on lowering T—the same is the case for fathering children.
“but it’s not easy, since a high BMI can reflect fat or muscle”
70 percent of America is either overweight or obese. Bodybuilders and people who take care of their bodies to have a noticeable effect over BMI 25 isn’t that high…. or do you think that elite athletes grow on trees?
“these are probably correlated with T in opposite ways and some studies fail to distinguish”
Actually, after controlling for age and BMI, and adjusting for WC, there was NO BLACK-WHITE DIFFERENCE.
After adjustment for age and BMI, total testosterone was higher in blacks (0.21 ng/ml; P = 0.028) than whites, an approximately 3% difference. However, after further adjustment for waist circumference, there was no black-white difference (0.05 ng/ml; P = 0.62).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12376505
“but you can’t control for things like honor culture”
Honor culture is an environmental factor that increases testosterone. Take away the HC, T levels won’t raise in response since that aspect of the environment was ameliorated.
Further, T levels STAY ELEVATED even after the environmental trigger(s). So, obviously, the honor culture is the environment that has other low-income blacks. Low-income blacks need to ‘fight for respect’ or whatnot, and take that away and T levels will be low. Read Mazur (2016).
“You can’t control for whether a guy just got a promotion or just went on a date and is beaming with masculine pride.”
Which is why meta-analyses are done to attempt to fix those types of errors. If you have a large sample, those things won’t matter and you’ll get a good reading of the general population.
“And blacks are exposed to all kinds of indignities which may damage the male ego and lower T.”
….No comment……..
“So you believe T correlates with incarceration but you deny the correlation is causal? How was that proven?”
OK let’s use an example. Look at the Dabbs’ papers from the late 80s/early 90s. He did show that prisoners had higher T. But he never teased out cause and effect.
Testosterone is generated to prepare the body to respond to competition and threats to one’s social status. Any of those stimuli (including more, obviously) will increase testosterone.
So now think about the prison environment…. What do you think that would do to hormone levels…?
“With respect to that particular study, singles in figure A had the largest sample size iirc”
True. However, the 2013 follow-up was to see if thinigs were smooth.
…Speaking of sample size… why was sampling not a problem in regards to the bench press study (WAYYYY fewer blacks in comparison to whites) but it is here? Strange…
“Onus is on you to prove that black honor culture increased their T levels by 25%. Perhaps honor culture is the product, not the cause of high black T.”
Environmental factors influence T. Blacks are in environments that elevate T due to their sourroundings. Therefore, take low-income blacks out of low-income areas and T will decrease since that culture of honor is no longer needed.
Mazur (2016) showed it does. Just use some simple inference!
So if HC was the product and not cause of high black T, then you’d have to rebut the fact that T raises due to a myriad of environmental factors.
It’s no coincidence.
“I’ve stated that I think Third World environments subtract about 1 SD from IQ. So how much do they subtract from T levels? Also 1 SD? If so, adjusting the data for just that might put Africans well ahead of whites”
It was just an example; look into it yourself.
“were based just on young people which is the age when T is relevant to evolution theories cause that’s when folks historically mated”
Hu et al (2014):
Source:
Click to access 10.1007%40s40615-014-0049-8.pdf
However, as we previously observed in adult men (C20 years) in NHANES III, in males during early (12–15 years) and later (16–19 years) adolescence, testosterone concentration was not higher in non-Hispanic blacks compared with non Hispanic whites and was highest in Mexican–Americans
Click to access 10.1007%40s10552-013-0154-8.pdf
Good enough for you?
“compared blacks and whites in the same study, measured the same way, in the same country.”
Two more above.
Give it up man, it’s over.
“And you can’t just exclude Mazur (2016) based on honor culture; its independent effect on black T can’t be measured.”
….So environmental factors don’t raise or lower testosterone?
How about this: take identical black twins; one stays in the hood and the other goes to suburbia. What do you think T levels would look like in a few years? Hmmm…
“Why not just read the study I cited?”
Because it was literally mentioned in the link I gave you. I did read it. Not impressed.
The link summarily rebuts the study you cite.
“By citing all the counterevidence”
Except you’re literally out of your league here. All of the ‘counterevidence’ is just small ns and parroting Rushton, showing literally no understanding of the hormone testosterone and how it interacts with our bodies. You should take a few classes to learn something about the human body. Just because you’ve read a few books doesn’t mean you know anything about how hormones effect the body, what they do and why they do it. This is why you cannot hold a candle to me here.
I’m at the left wall of complexity. I can’t get any simpler.
I think you’ve done the impossible: transcended the left wall and achieved negative complexity.
Actually, after controlling for age and BMI, and adjusting for WC, there was NO BLACK-WHITE DIFFERENCE.
Meaningless. It’s like saying, controlling for leg length, torso length, neck length, and face length, there are no sex differences in height. You can make any group difference vanish if you control for enough variables but all you’re really doing is statistically removing the difference by proxy. This is a classic conceptual error that gets repeated over and over again in research because people don’t know how to think.
Low-income blacks need to ‘fight for respect’ or whatnot, and take that away and T levels will be low. Read Mazur (2016).
While it’s true winning fights probably increases T levels, losing probably lowers them. In a violent environment you’re probably more likely to get beaten up than to beat someone up, so one could argue honor culture is actually lowering black T and that the black > white T gap is far greater than reported. Now I don’t actually believe that, but it’s just as plausible as Mazur’s speculation.
Which is why meta-analyses are done to attempt to fix those types of errors. If you have a large sample, those things won’t matter and you’ll get a good reading of the general population.
No a large sample just more accurately samples the population, but if there are confounds in the population itself, large samples simply reflect them.
OK let’s use an example. Look at the Dabbs’ papers from the late 80s/early 90s. He did show that prisoners had higher T. But he never teased out cause and effect.
Testosterone is generated to prepare the body to respond to competition and threats to one’s social status. Any of those stimuli (including more, obviously) will increase testosterone.
The threatening prison environment could be the product, not the cause, of high criminal T. Most likely the causation works both ways, so simply asserting one-way causation is dumb
…Speaking of sample size… why was sampling not a problem in regards to the bench press study (WAYYYY fewer blacks in comparison to whites) but it is here? Strange…
It doesn’t matter if one group has a bigger sample than another, as long as both groups have a large enough sample to achieve statistical significance. Besides there are so few racial strength studies to choose from that we don’t have the luxury of large sample size.
Environmental factors influence T. Blacks are in environments that elevate T due to their sourroundings. Therefore, take low-income blacks out of low-income areas and T will decrease since that culture of honor is no longer needed.
Mazur (2016) showed it does.
How did Mazur show that RR? Did he drive down the ghetto, test T levels of random blacks, and then invite them to live in the nice safe suburbs and then retested their T levels a month later? Or is he just wildly speculating like 90% of the people you cite. It’s not enough to say “violent environment increases T”. You have to be able to measure how violent the environment is, otherwise you don’t know how many units of violence increase how many units of T. Without such measures, you can’t say whether honor culture increased black T by 0.1% or 1000% relative to whites, and adjusting for it’s impossible.
Hu et al (2014):
Supports me before he does his statistical adjustments, or numerology as Afro would say. So that’s FOUR STUDIES that support my claim that young black men have substantially higher T than young white men, and virtually none that support you.
Because it was literally mentioned in the link I gave you.
So a blog post is more reliable than a scientific study? Wow! The World is changing!
I did read it. Not impressed.
It takes brains to know when to be impressed. And since those seem to be in short supply, let me help you out:
Be impressed! Be VERY VERY IMPRESSED!
So…
everymen have the same testosterone levels and environment mediate it*
“Meaningless. It’s like saying, controlling for leg length, torso length, neck length, and face length, there are no sex differences in height. You can make any group difference vanish if you control for enough variables but all you’re really doing is statistically removing the difference by proxy. This is a classic conceptual error that gets repeated over and over again in research because people don’t know how to think.”
Age and BMI are health and developmental variables, so if you don’t control for those two variables then the numbers will be all over the place. While the controls you speak of are obviously more directly linked to height and rooted in gender differences. Maybe you should learn why those two variables get controlled for and get back to me.
“While it’s true winning fights probably increases T levels, losing probably lowers them.”
Thank you for citing a study I cited months ago for my argument.
Male competition is persistent so it will fluctuate.
“No a large sample just more accurately samples the population, but if there are confounds in the population itself, large samples simply reflect them.”
The “confounds” that you were describing were clearly of an individual nature of circumstance, not trends like age and BMI differences that are notable in different populations. Therefore larger sample sizes would eliminate them (along with controlling for variables known to throw off the analysis).
“The threatening prison environment could be the product, not the cause, of high criminal T. Most likely the causation works both ways, so simply asserting one-way causation is dumb.”
Testosterone induces status seeking—and status-seeking environments are most likely to be prisons. . . Furthermore, Dabbs et al’s studies are consistent with the social status hypothesis which is in opposition to the hypothesis that testosterone mediates physical violence in humans. Go to prison and act like a beta and see what happens.
“It doesn’t matter if one group has a bigger sample than another, as long as both groups have a large enough sample to achieve statistical significance. Besides there are so few racial strength studies to choose from that we don’t have the luxury of large sample size.”
That still doesn’t say anything to the other horrible flaws in the study.
Anyway, stop citing meta-analyses then. I never want to see you cite any meta-analysis—especially one by Rushton—ever again. If these problems are so large when I cite meta-analyses but not when you do, then that shows your ideological bias.
“How did Mazur show that RR?”
Do you have any idea if there is anything out yet that one person can read something for another person? Why do you cite studies without reading them? Remember, you were the one that cited this study first, I was actually in the process of writing something on it at the time. Fact of the matter is, you need to read papers and not only cntrl f for what you’re looking for because abstract readers like yourself are extremely easy to spot.
Mazur’s argument is so very simple: Exposure to environmental stimuli increases testosterone. Anticipation of competition raises testosterone. Therefore it should follow that these ‘honor culture’ scenarios should raise T. If you’ve ever been to an American black ghetto, you’d see that a lot of importance is placed on their ‘status’. and therefore those who have their status challenged experience an elevation in testosterone. Honor cultures far and away more likely to occur in low-income areas. If all of the above is true, then blacks in these areas—and only these areas—should have higher levels of testosterone. Mazur shows this is the case. Therefore, honor culture is the cause of elevated testosterone in black males—the honor culture could also explain elevated crime rates as well.
Please, please read studies you cite. The above can be avoided if you do so.
“Supports me before he does his statistical adjustments, or numerology as Afro would say. So that’s FOUR STUDIES that support my claim that young black men have substantially higher T than young white men, and virtually none that support you.”
“Don’t control for smoking, don’t control for WC, don’t control for BMI, don’t control for age. Don’t control for known confounds to testosterone.”
Mazur supports my argument. I do not ‘exclude’ Mazur from my argument because blacks have higher testosterone.
Mazur does not support your argument at all. His whole entire argument is literally opposite ‘yours’.
The APA site is currently down for maintenance. Seeing as I can’t check myself, it looks like blacks had testosterone levels of 115 pg/nl while whites had 105 pg/nl. Let me ask you a question… Is that enough to explain the differential acquisition of prostate cancer? Is that enough to ’cause’ racial differences in crime (even though testosterone is not ultimately linked to crime!)?
“So a blog post is more reliable than a scientific study? Wow! The World is changing!”
Appeal to authority.
“It takes brains to know when to be impressed. And since those seem to be in short supply, let me help you out:
Be impressed! Be VERY VERY IMPRESSED!”
The final gasps from a man with severe cognitive dissonance speaking to someone with actual knowledge of something that he’s literally ignorant to. Yes, be impressed, be very impressed. I’ve poked a trillion holes into Rushton’s penis size bullshit and testosterone bullshit. It’s funny. Some blogger who has literally no experience in my field, nor has the knowledge that I have is trying to tell ME that I’m wrong, all the while you literally have no clue about the hormone. Sad…
Now for the million dollar question—what does testosterone do in PP’s world? Why’s it so important for you to grasp at anything for you to ‘prove’ Rushton’s assertions with archaic evidence when we have much better evidence—just read my articles on testosterone—a hormone that I actually understand.
Age and BMI are health and developmental variables, so if you don’t control for those two variables then the numbers will be all over the place. While the controls you speak of are obviously more directly linked to height and rooted in gender differences
What you control for depends on the question you’re asking. If you’re asking whether there are racially genetic differences in T level, then controlling for waist circumference, for example, is dumb unless you’re sure there are no racially genetic difference in WC. It’s like if I had a theory that white people are genetically better at basketball than pygmies and you cited research showing that after controlling for height, the white advantage disappears. Well duh! The white genetic advantage was mediated by height and so of course controlling for height removes it. Similarly, the East Asian advantage in IQ would disappear if you controlled for brain size, but that doesn’t mean it’s not genetic, unless you could show racial brain size differences are not genetic.
Get it?
The “confounds” that you were describing were clearly of an individual nature of circumstance, not trends like age and BMI differences that are notable in different populations.
No the confounds I’m describing are very relevant because if blacks experience more indignities in U.S. society than whites (on average), and if indignities lower T, then that’s an environmental variable that’s dragging black T below its genetic potential, relative to whites.
Testosterone induces status seeking—and status-seeking environments are most likely to be prisons. . . Furthermore, Dabbs et al’s studies are consistent with the social status hypothesis which is in opposition to the hypothesis that testosterone mediates physical violence in humans. Go to prison and act like a beta and see what happens.
I don’t doubt that prison environments affect T, but I question whether it 100% explains the criminal T advantage.
Your arguments are so simplistic. You find one causal variable and just assert that it explains everything with no understanding of how much work is required to prove that. As a health professional, you would never look at a fat person overeating and just assume food consumption 100% explains their obesity, ignoring the role of hormones, metabolism and exercise. So why do you draw such rash oversimplified conclusions when it comes to T? Because your ego can’t handle the fact that you might be wrong about a subject you think you’re an expert in, and can’t handle the fact that the black race might have more T than your own. GET OVER IT!
Anyway, stop citing meta-analyses then. I never want to see you cite any meta-analysis—especially one by Rushton—ever again. If these problems are so large when I cite meta-analyses but not when you do, then that shows your ideological bias.
Nothing wrong with meta-analyses but you have to know what to control for and what NOT to control for.
Fact of the matter is, you need to read papers and not only cntrl f for what you’re looking for because abstract readers like yourself are extremely easy to spot.
You’re just evading the fact that the paper didn’t prove what you claim it proved, because if it did you would briefly state the proof instead of telling me to read the paper. I’m not going to waste my time reading the paper because I’m 99% sure it’s just blathering on about correlations that don’t prove causation, let alone quantify the precise size of the causation.
Mazur’s argument is so very simple: Exposure to environmental stimuli increases testosterone. Anticipation of competition raises testosterone. Therefore it should follow that these ‘honor culture’ scenarios should raise T.
But he has no way of quantifying how much of the black > white T gap it explains. It could be 100% or it could be 0.1%.
I’m sorry. It’s no good.
The APA site is currently down for maintenance. Seeing as I can’t check myself, it looks like blacks had testosterone levels of 115 pg/nl while whites had 105 pg/nl. Let me ask you a question… Is that enough to explain the differential acquisition of prostate cancer? Is that enough to ’cause’ racial differences in crime
When did I say or imply T level 100% explained racial differences in crime and prostate cancer? I’ve argued it’s a contributing factor and that prostate cancer is a very rough proxy for T levels but perhaps there are too many confounds to infer correlation.
“everymen have the same testosterone levels and environment mediate it”
Racial differences in testosterone don’t exist/are negligible to explain disease acquisition and differences in crime. That’s the whole point of Rushton attempting to prove it, and that’s why PP is grasping for anything he can to attempt to ‘bolster’ his argument, because a lot of Rushton’s theory hinges on this differential.
Well I’m sorry PP. You’re wrong. The world does not conform to your worldview. And yea Santo, that’s pretty much the case, although that’s an extreme oversimplification.
Maybe when people analyse testosterone levels is just like analyse brain waves in eletroencephalograma, in ”rest mood/state” OR individual avg, so it’s also or could be important analyse testosterone levels during reaction, to know if levels of reaction, specially about negative responses, will be corresponding to testosterone levels.
”No the confounds I’m describing are very relevant because if blacks experience more indignities in U.S. society than whites (on average), and if indignities lower T, then that’s an environmental variable that’s dragging black T below its genetic potential, relative to whites.”
They create ”indignities” for themselves, and not [always] suffer. And this ”indignities” [many times] are just a way [other] sane people, ”even” other black people, react to dangerous black dysfunctionality.
Anyone who know human behavior and ”black” behavior/ people with honest lens. know that almost of this ”anti-racist” narrative is at the best innacurate. The fundamental thing old-style racists are wrong is over-generalize overall black people as if every black is a potential criminal thug.
This over-generalization [a common human behavior] is indisputably wrong and historically strong because express human deficit to understand and react to complexity/ to catch nuances and black populations are usually more qualitatively variable and complex exactly because in the same group we can have, in greater intensities, angels and demons, and with addictive factor: extroversion/sympathy.
One of the fundamental ”argument” of anti-racist narrative is [i think i already said it as well other people said it here]: people is racist because ”color de piel”. No, most people even most of stormfronters ”are” racist because behavior and statistical probability or perceived lack of trustiness, the paramount foundation of every society.
This also explain ”anti-semitism”.
I think paper is talking about a hypothesis and must be treated like that.
”Racial differences in testosterone don’t exist/are negligible to explain disease acquisition and differences in crime.”
If not what explain that racial differences in your view*
Don’t exist and negligible is not the same thing, calm down here.
Even if black/white have the same AVG T levels, total and free, it’s doesn’t mean the way T interact or combine with other variables will be the same for both groups, as well the distribution of this values. Same avgs can give us the illusion of inter-group sameness.
In terms of interpersonal confrontation and dominance levels, two personality dimensions that seems correlates with T levels [masculinity], blacks [or ”statistical corners] seems more intense than other groups, i hope you don’t deny it.
And/or also, dominant black tend not to be dominant, on avg, with other-race dominant men.
Behavioral impulsiveness can create pseudo-dominance. And a lot of criminal men are not super-corageous but predators that attack helpless people or only when they are armed.
Even if Pumpkin is wrong i think, so sorry, you no argue well. Resemble that this study is a hypothesis, you can’t use it as prove by now, because the author itself say ”it’s a hypothesis”.
I always think Pumpkin is more open to change their views than you, less about Oprah, 😉
Culture is a vicious circle with potential for expansion [increase of specific selective pressure], but we know is the people who create and sustain it [or destroy it]. Seems you have a problem to follow correct sequence of cause and effect. Culture don’t appear from nothing and people in the place where this magic happen become hypnotized. People react based on what they already are, seems fool to say it, but it’s true.
So if there is a honor culture in black ghettos, ALWAYS, only way to prove a environmental causation you are defending, seems, is when everyone is reacting in very similar ways. But when we have a minority of people who don’t react in ”expected” ways so it’s mean some of this people have different intrinsic/genetic features that prevent them to act in this ”expected” or rigid-reciprocal ways.
In Rome, do as the romans do.
We have some indisputable patterns and potentially indisputable ones about this matter:
– men have naturally more T levels than women
– men are, on universal avg, more aggressive and dominant than women.
– It’s also or fundamentally attributed to their highest comparative T levels.
Isn’t*
– T levels is inherited. Everything that is inherited is intrinsically limited or have a finite potential or management, in the way, a natural lower T levels man can’t increase their levels to the highest and the opposite is also true.
– Most lower T men tend to be [psychologically/cognitively] different than most of highest T men and this differences may be attributed to T differential.
– Other factors can cause OR correlate with low T: overweight for example. Increased fatness reduce T levels OR is the men who are more prone to become fat /or born with ”large skull” is also more prone to have low T* And again, we are talking about avgs.
”Low testosterone, less sexual desire and fatness”
but i have impression that ”original or natural fat” men tend to have more sexual desire as well be happy, a happier/friendly personality, it’s a stereotype at least here.
higher sexual desire = happiness in this possible case.
– T levels in lesbians is higher AND in recent study was found that they ”are” more prone to engage in anti-social activities.
– There are
– bad scientific studies [unitentionally or unconsciously],
– very specific scientific studies [with little possibility to be replicated],
– bad scientists who use science to promote wrong ideologies [extremely common, unfortunately and not only those on the left].
Many of these bad scientists are in social science and, conscious or not, promote a lot of unscientifical methods to advance its pet-ideology before to clarify the piece of reality they have studied.
So it’s not uncommon find some of this trope producing bad scientific works and with explicit ideological goals.
So it’s not just all this variables we need be aware but also the scientific integrity of the author. You know, researchers, scientists and academics are one of that lucky ”guys” who can do a shitty work and not be immediately dismissed from their job.
”In Rome do as romans do”
I forget to explain why i use this proverb in this context,
If my neighbors are full blown in criminal activities i will follow them*
So ”black honor culture” may affect more some guys than others.
In certain scenarios, those who are swimming against the waves, generally don’t prove only the rule but also the genetic/intrinsic role, grazzi a dio!!
The real outsider is the epitome of individuality promoted by genetics.
When in rome act as a roman but if you avoid to be adapt/conform to the scenario/culture/people you are, so it’s mean instead you be a passive subject, totally obliterated by ”environment” or surroundings, you will be a active subject, as almost living beings also are, the difference is the human knowledge and understanding [individuality] of this borders between you and your surrounding.
Publish this comment, not the other.
“What you control for depends on the question you’re asking. If you’re asking whether there are racially genetic differences in T level, then controlling for waist circumference, for example, is dumb unless you’re sure there are no racially genetic difference in WC. It’s like if I had a theory that white people are genetically better at basketball than pygmies and you cited research showing that after controlling for height, the white advantage disappears. Well duh! The white genetic advantage was mediated by height and so of course controlling for height removes it. Similarly, the East Asian advantage in IQ would disappear if you controlled for brain size, but that doesn’t mean it’s not genetic, unless you could show racial brain size differences are not genetic.”
Measures of body size (i.e., BMI and WC) must be controlled for when comparing race/ethny since levels of obesity vary amongst them as well as obesity constantly changing with age. For your information, blacks in the sample had both a higher BMI and WC than whites, so controlling for the variable helps your case. Furthermore, testosterone increased for both groups between the ages of 20-21 to 22-23 (blacks had a higher T by .7 ng/ml at age, with the two groups diverging at age 22-23 with blacks having higher levels of total testosterone by .1 ng/ml. Ross et al did not include a measure of central adiposity, so the results were confounded there. So since testosterone varies by age, BMI, and WC, when comparing race/ethnies, these variables must be controlled for. The average ages for the cohort were 28.4 and 28.8 for blacks and whites respectfully. Thus, blacks (theoretically) had a slight advantage due to the age confound, which had to be controlled for. The unadjusted mean total testosterone, SHGB and free testosterone were not statistically significant at any point in the study except at year 10 where blacks had slightly higher levels at 5.8 ng/ml compared to whites’ 5.69 ng/ml. The difference in year 2 (when testosterone levels raised for both groups) was a difference of 5.8 and 5.75 for blacks and whites respectfully.
These variables need to be controlled for; Ross et al (1986) did not use a measure for central adiposity and thus had confounded results.
“if blacks experience more indignities in U.S. society than whites (on average), and if indignities lower T, then that’s an environmental variable that’s dragging black T below its genetic potential, relative to whites.”
In the current US environment, how would you quantify who suffers more discrimination? It occurs both ways.
By the way, testosterone rises in men awaiting a competition regardless of the outcome. These ‘indignities’ you speak of occur for all populations and are a part of the fluctuations in testosterone which are mediated by environmental factors.
“Your arguments are so simplistic. You find one causal variable and just assert that it explains everything with no understanding of how much work is required to prove that.”
Honor culture. Confrontations. Winning a sports match. Winning a bet. All raise testosterone. My arguments are not simplistic. You’re just speaking on something you literally have no knowledge on, continuously parroting Rushton forever on the matter when that is literally the extent of your ‘knowledge’ on the matter. The environment has a strong effect on T levels. In more violent environments, testosterone will be elevated to prepare for future threats. This is why testosterone is a stress hormone.
“you would never look at a fat person overeating and just assume food consumption 100% explains their obesity, ignoring the role of hormones, metabolism”
Right. But the average person would look to mostly just food consumption.
“and exercise.”
Exercise does not induce weight loss.
http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/
“So why do you draw such rash oversimplified conclusions when it comes to T?”
Because I’m knowledgeable on the subject and know about confounds when testing testosterone. I can’t believe this is a serious question.
“Because your ego can’t handle the fact that you might be wrong about a subject you think you’re an expert in, and can’t handle the fact that the black race might have more T than your own. GET OVER IT!”
No. I used to be just like you. Literally arguing against the data that I am now citing (Richard et al, 2014; Roerrman et al, 2007). That’s when I was ignorant to the hormone and the numerous potential confounds in measuring differences between populations. Once I began learning more about the hormone, my view changed and I realized the horrible cognitive biases I had.
Your ego can’t handle the fact that you’re wrong about testosterone levels because Rushton wrote about it in his book, citing old studies when other better data was available that controlled for important variables not controlled in for the studies he cited in REB. Moreover, as stated above, Ross et al (1986) did not have a measure of central adiposity (WC), thusly the results were confounded. Further, the other study Rushton cited in REB (Ellis and Nyborg, 1992) on discharged army veterans stating a difference of 3 percent, Ellis and Nyborg did not control for WC nor BMI.
You need to get over the fact that Rushton’s model isn’t as perfect as you believe it is—especially in regards to testosterone and penis size. You have no idea how horribly flawed the data he uses to assert his position for those two variables.
“Nothing wrong with meta-analyses but you have to know what to control for and what NOT to control for.”
Yes; age, BMI, and WC need to be controlled for due to variation between populations and how the BMI and WC change with age.
“You’re just evading the fact that the paper didn’t prove what you claim it proved”
No, the paper proves what I’m sayinig. I’m not evading anything. I explained the argument succinctly.
“if it did you would briefly state the proof instead of telling me to read the paper”
You should read the paper because you have no idea what his argument is!
“I’m not going to waste my time reading the paper because I’m 99% sure it’s just blathering on about correlations that don’t prove causation, let alone quantify the precise size of the causation.”
—PP, 2017
I can’t believe you just typed that.
The fact that the pattern isn’t seen in teenage boys is a proof. Mazur specifically says this only holds for low-income blacks and not better-educated blacks. Read papers before you assert arguments that are literally the opposite of the conclusion you are attempting to draw.
Eisenegger et al (2016) showed it’s related to confidence and competitiveness in men.
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/27702564
I wonder what specific events would raise confidence and competitiveness…
The testosterone difference does not exist in younger blacks and whites. Whites with less than a high school education had less testosterone than blacks who had less than a high school education. This is due to honor culture found in low-income black communities. Since dominance is needed, testosterone raises in response since one always needs to be alert—which is why it’s a stress hormone. Further, your posture even affects your testosterone levels and confidence.
Click to access 10.1177%400956797610383437.pdf
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/9547823/13-027.pdf?sequence=1
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/09/read-amy-cuddys-response-to-power-posing-critiques.html
http://ideas.ted.com/inside-the-debate-about-power-posing-a-q-a-with-amy-cuddy/
Adopting high-power poses increases testosterone.
“But he has no way of quantifying how much of the black > white T gap it explains. It could be 100% or it could be 0.1%.”
Whites with less than high school education had lower levels than blacks did. blacks are more likely to partake in the culture of honor. Blacks with less than high school had more testosterone than better-educated blacks who were similar to whites.
It’s easily testable. For instance, by comparing testosterone levels between neighborhoods with high and low murder rates.
“I’m sorry. It’s no good.”
You’re saying this because it refutes your genetic assertion. I’ve shown how the studies that ‘back you up’ are flawed, you ‘argue’ against the controlled variables. I’ve provided sufficient enough evidence that environmental factors such as honor culture and dominance posing raises testosterone. The effect of heightened testosterone was not seen in blacks with some college.
I’m sorry, your ‘counters’ are no good. You’re literally grasping for anything to prove your genetic contention, when environmental factors are sufficient enough to explain the variation. Furthermore, when controlling for confounds these differences disappear (the CARDIA study). I’m right. Rushton cites horrible studies (this is who I’m arguing against).
“I’ve argued it’s a contributing factor and that prostate cancer is a very rough proxy for T levels”
Vitamin D better explains PCa between race.
“but perhaps there are too many confounds to infer correlation.”
Meta-analyses show no support.
Click to access 10.1002%40ijc.11572.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4647137/
It’s over. I am right. Rushton is wrong. You can stop defending his assertions on testosterone because they have been summarily dismantled by studies that controlled for all relevant confounds, while the studies you cite in support of your view did not control for important variables. You don’t know anything about this stuff though, so this is to be expected. You’re just a Rushton cheerleader.
Measures of body size (i.e., BMI and WC) must be controlled for when comparing race/ethny since levels of obesity vary amongst them as well as obesity constantly changing with age.
Yes, but if obesity is partly racially genetic, then all you’re doing is statistically removing a genetic cause of T differences. You can’t deny racial T differences by citing studies that have statistically removed their cause. Now if you had studies proving the black-white obesity difference was virtually all environmental (i.e. blacks adopted by whites have white obesity rates), then it would make sense to control for it because it would be an environmental confound.
For your information, blacks in the sample had both a higher BMI and WC than whites, so controlling for the variable helps your case.
False. The racial differences decrease after said adjustments.
In the current US environment, how would you quantify who suffers more discrimination? It occurs both ways.
You could give the participants some kind of questionnaire. It would be far from perfect of course, but it might explain a non-trivial percentage of the T variance
By the way, testosterone rises in men awaiting a competition regardless of the outcome.
But it then decreases when they lose the competition.
These ‘indignities’ you speak of occur for all populations and are a part of the fluctuations in testosterone which are mediated by environmental factors.
But they probably don’t occur equally for all groups.
Honor culture. Confrontations. Winning a sports match. Winning a bet. All raise testosterone.
The high school dropout Blacks in the honor culture study don’t have a monopoly on competitive environments. You don’t think there’s competition when whites and Asians study to get into college? And even if blacks do have the most competitive environments, you can’t just assert that it explains the whole difference. They have to statistically adjust for it like they adjust for all the other variables and that requires measuring which they did not do.
My arguments are not simplistic. You’re just speaking on something you literally have no knowledge on, continuously parroting Rushton forever on the matter when that is literally the extent of your ‘knowledge’ on the matter.
I’ve hardly parroted Rushton at all in this discussion, just been sympathetic to his views.
The environment has a strong effect on T levels. In more violent environments, testosterone will be elevated to prepare for future threats. This is why testosterone is a stress hormone.
Yeah but you can’t control for variables you haven’t measured. At least waist circumference has been quantified.
“So why do you draw such rash oversimplified conclusions when it comes to T?”
Because I’m knowledgeable on the subject and know about confounds when testing testosterone.
But you’re not knowledgeable about heritability, because if you were, you’d know that you can’t measure genetic differences by controlling for potential genetic effects on said differences.
It’s easily testable. For instance, by comparing testosterone levels between neighborhoods with high and low murder rates.
As I said, the causation could work in both directions. The only way to test it is through an experimental design: take some folks out of the ghetto and/or put some folks in and measure the change in their T levels.
Not be rude, but this will have to be the last word in this discussion. I’m sure you have lots more to say, but we’re starting to talk in circles.
Yes it’s possible Rushton was wrong about racially genetic differences in T levels, but adjusting for variables which themselves might be racially genetic is circular logic. A much better way to debunk Rushton, in my opinion, is to look at the T levels of black kids adopted by whites in very white and non-racist communities.
“If not what explain that racial differences in your view*”
Not testosterone, I can tell you that much. This Rushton paradigm is hilariously wrong and flawed. I’ve more than proven my case.
Honor culture would explain the a lot of the variation. Testosterone doesn’t explain it though.
“Even if black/white have the same AVG T levels, total and free, it’s doesn’t mean the way T interact or combine with other variables will be the same for both groups, as well the distribution of this values. Same avgs can give us the illusion of inter-group sameness.”
This has been refuted above: Testosterone doesn’t cause aggression; low testosterone is way more an important marker for predicting disease.
“In terms of interpersonal confrontation and dominance levels, two personality dimensions that seems correlates with T levels [masculinity], blacks [or ”statistical corners] seems more intense than other groups, i hope you don’t deny it.”
I literally have been describing this in this whole comment thread.
“Behavioral impulsiveness can create pseudo-dominance. And a lot of criminal men are not super-corageous but predators that attack helpless people or only when they are armed.”
Dominance is dominance; dominant acts raise testosterone. Etc etc for your other points. Hell, even holding a damn gun raises testosterone. Who handles a lot of illegal guns in America….
“Even if Pumpkin is wrong i think, so sorry, you no argue well. Resemble that this study is a hypothesis, you can’t use it as prove by now, because the author itself say ”it’s a hypothesis”.”
And I’ve provided more than enough citations and arguments for my position that these factors raise testosterone. See my most recent post above.
“I always think Pumpkin is more open to change their views than you, less about Oprah”
This is a joke right? I’ve been reading his blog for 2 years. Commenting here for a year and a half. I do not recall PP changing his views ONE TIME. I, on the other hand, constantly read new things. I read one book a week. My views are always being evaluated. PP’s views don’t change because he’s entrenched in Rushton’s theory. No matter how many holes get poked into any of his sub-theories, PP grasps for anything he can to ‘prove’ his point.
That’s not someone being more open to changing their views. PP is an idealogue. He claims to not be biased, yet he very clearly is.
“Culture is a vicious circle with potential for expansion [increase of specific selective pressure], but we know is the people who create and sustain it [or destroy it]. Seems you have a problem to follow correct sequence of cause and effect. Culture don’t appear from nothing and people in the place where this magic happen become hypnotized. People react based on what they already are, seems fool to say it, but it’s true.”
Wow, really? Thanks for telling me this. Such new information.
You can see that blacks with some college don’t have the high T levels (even though those levels cited in the study are pretty low..). YES, people react based on where they are. If there is more of a chance for aggressive acts to happen to you, you’re more likely to be on guard. Testosterone raises. If you’re asserting dominance with a dominant posture, testosterone will increase. Thusly, the environment is the cause of the testosterone increase.
“– T levels in lesbians is higher AND in recent study was found that they ”are” more prone to engage in anti-social activities.”
Lesbian women had lower scores of physical aggression. Furthermore when testosterone levels rise in women they’re strongly, strongly unlikely to reach levels near men since the difference in testosterone is so great.
“When in rome act as a roman but if you avoid to be adapt/conform to the scenario/culture/people you are, so it’s mean instead you be a passive subject, totally obliterated by ”environment” or surroundings, you will be a active subject, as almost living beings also are, the difference is the human knowledge and understanding [individuality] of this borders between you and your surrounding.”
Right. Follow the leader. If you live in a bad area and see others get attacked and whatnot, you’ll know to always be on guard. You’ll also need to ‘toughen your posture up’. Those two things—along with more—prove my point about testosterone. The other longitudinal study is the nail in the coffin for Rushton’s assertion.
”Not testosterone, I can tell you that much. This Rushton paradigm is hilariously wrong and flawed. I’ve more than proven my case.”
i admit i was admired about his general racial theory when i read it in the first time but in some important aspects he seems was full on savage conjectures. For example, that africans have the highest fertility rates and east asians the lowest, in other words, using recent demographic data to explain something that is totally ancestral for all macro-races. Indeed, is not the number of kids ONLY that have differentiated human macro-races but: the number of survivors, levels of monogamy that in my view tend also to express levels of social organization.
Maybe instead we are fundamentally talking about racial differences we are also talking about civilizational stage/levels differences, so it’s just like compare mayan civilization with hunter gatherers amazonian tribes and conclude: it’s just a racial thing. Race is very important but usually it’s not alone in space and time.
”Honor culture would explain the a lot of the variation. Testosterone doesn’t explain it though.”
I think we are again in the same structural mode thinking: this don’t explain, other- thing explain it.
I think ”honor culture” don’t exist as a real unitary and causal thing, but a dynamic product of this real things, or those humans who [are] involve[d] and engage in this far west-style way of life.
Some or a lot of people seems think in counter-clockwise, it’s not 1,2,3 but 3,2,1. ”Culture” is not a real thing, is a product of real organic things, or people. I believe maybe this vicious circle can increase what’s already exist. So i believe higher T men are more prone to engage in ”thug-life”. Yo must live or observe with honest lens this people to perceive that it’s not environmental circumstances that works as unique triggers because they already behave in pre-thug/honor culture ways, they born like that, they live with a lot of people who share this similarities, namely men, and they just express what they usually show since early age.
”This has been refuted above: Testosterone doesn’t cause aggression; low testosterone is way more an important marker for predicting disease.”
I think it’s logical to think both very low and very high T correlate more with some diseases than normal levels.
Testosterone CAUSE or DON’T CAUSE aggression again seems the same thing.
Indirectly speaking T levels is correlated with increased risk to behave in anti-social ways. It’s mean that just have increased T levels will not make you more aggressive, instantaneously, but combined with other factors that predict aggressive behavior no doubt T levels will work as additive factor as you say Testosterone is a motivational hormone, specially for men.
It’s just like in the case of non-violent psychopaths. Psychopathy alone don’t cause violent behavior but no doubt when this disorder is combined with other triggered factors, intrinsic and maybe extrinsic, it’s will work as big addictive factor.
I think it’s already well stablished, for example, when transsexual women make the hormonal transition they tend to become more irritable.
”I literally have been describing this in this whole comment thread.”
Where*
Sorry for that.
”Dominance is dominance; dominant acts raise testosterone. Etc etc for your other points. Hell, even holding a damn gun raises testosterone. Who handles a lot of illegal guns in America….”
What’s the difference between adrenalin and testosterone on behavior*
The first prepare the body, the second…*
”And I’ve provided more than enough citations and arguments for my position that these factors raise testosterone. See my most recent post above.”
Citations* yes. Arguments* Not so. Often you claim something [it’s not argument but point of view] and rarely you develop your points beyond the citations you posted.
”This is a joke right? I’ve been reading his blog for 2 years.”
Not enough to defend yourself.
”Commenting here for a year and a half.”
Time enough for more than three people here have noticed what I have already commented about you.
” I do not recall PP changing his views ONE TIME. I, on the other hand, constantly read new things.”
Many people do the same thing, read is not enough, never was. The first work is with yourself, is intrapersonal.
You must ask for yourself
”I’m defending this point of view really because i believe it’s true or because it’s what i want to hear*”
If everyone did this intrapersonal work at least clever sillies would be very rare.
”I read one book a week.”
I will not repeat what i said above.
”My views are always being evaluated.”
For whom*
”PP’s views don’t change because he’s entrenched in Rushton’s theory.”
Rushton is not completely wrong and it’s a impression i have about Pumpkin. S/he have changed some of their views [about jews*], maybe it’s just a wrong impression, but your case seems worst because you buy many possibly wrong point of views and it’s clear at least for me that you have problem to differentiate cause and effect and this also mean you seems don’t understand very well your point of views.
”No matter how many holes get poked into any of his sub-theories, PP grasps for anything he can to ‘prove’ his point.”
To say ”honor culture explain black criminality” is a classical leftist-like theory, a excess of abstractions and a implicit magical thinking here. A counter-clockwise thinking style and with ideological goals: it’s not blacks that are responsible, on avg, for their own behavior, blame ”circumstances-only”, blame ”white-only”.
Firstly the ideal would be we start from the begining, analysing people by people, individual by individual, but as if is the most difficult ways to work in this type of theory so people tend to jump for the big picture first and after they try to understand the details that sometimes or often are extremely important.
But in the end the most important patterns are here.
”That’s not someone being more open to changing their views. PP is an idealogue. He claims to not be biased, yet he very clearly is.”
And you*
I read Pumpkin saying he maybe wrong about that.
”Wow, really? Thanks for telling me this. Such new information.”
You seems to be denying it.
”You can see that blacks with some college don’t have the high T levels (even though those levels cited in the study are pretty low..). YES, people react based on where they are. If there is more of a chance for aggressive acts to happen to you, you’re more likely to be on guard. Testosterone raises. If you’re asserting dominance with a dominant posture, testosterone will increase. Thusly, the environment is the cause of the testosterone increase.”
You said ”everymen have the same testosterone levels, environment mediate them”.
”Lesbian women had lower scores of physical aggression. Furthermore when testosterone levels rise in women they’re strongly, strongly unlikely to reach levels near men since the difference in testosterone is so great.”
… strongly …. you mean assertive/aggressive/dominant*
I think there are some women who can beat at least a avg men.
Do you can see RR*
You use the term STRONGLY in the comment where you used also the term ”physical aggression”.
I’m not talking necessarily about ”physical aggression” but general aggressive behavior.
”Right. Follow the leader.”
Where in my comment make you conclude this*
”If you live in a bad area and see others get attacked and whatnot, you’ll know to always be on guard.”
”on guard” is different than ”attack others by malicious reason”, very very different.
You’ll also need to ‘toughen your posture up’. Those two things—along with more—prove my point about testosterone. The other longitudinal study is the nail in the coffin for Rushton’s assertion.”
Your points on testosterone, remembering:
– no have any] racial differences in testosterone,
– T [individual] levels are mediated exclusively by environment.
– ”Honor culture” cause elevated T levels among low income blacks.
So, if ”educated’ blacks, and other groups live in the ”bad areas” they will become violent as the same levels of black populations* i mean, half of crimes*
How you explain my slight lower total testosterone and my lower free testosterone*
http://kairos.com/
“I think ”honor culture” don’t exist as a real unitary and causal thing, but a dynamic product of this real things, or those humans who [are] involve[d] and engage in this far west-style way of life”
It clearly does. Look at blacks the same age who had lower testosterone who were better educated.
” So i believe higher T men are more prone to engage in ”thug-life”. Yo must live or observe with honest lens this people to perceive that it’s not environmental circumstances that works as unique triggers because they already behave in pre-thug/honor culture ways, they born like that, they live with a lot of people who share this similarities, namely men, and they just express what they usually show since early age.”
And something you fail to get is there are no differences between the races. If you’re in a bad environment, your testosterone levels will raise in response along with other hormones. Hormones also stay elevated after the fact. It’s proven that men that engage in “thug life” have higher testosterone. Read the paper. The environment is the cause. If the large analyses I cite show no difference, then this analysis here shows a difference which is due to environmental factors. It’s simple.
“I think it’s logical to think both very low and very high T correlate more with some diseases than normal levels”
Not really. It’s more important to be above average in testosterone than to be below average.
“Testosterone CAUSE or DON’T CAUSE aggression again seems the same thing.”
The correlation between physical violence and testosterone is close to zero. Testosterone is a dominance and stress hormone.
“What’s the difference between adrenalin and testosterone on behavior*
The first prepare the body, the second…*”
Epinephrine is involved in fight or flight. Testosterone is involved in dominance.
“Citations* yes. Arguments* Not so. Often you claim something [it’s not argument but point of view] and rarely you develop your points beyond the citations you posted.”
Yes. You don’t even know what a logical argument is. If the environment that blacks are in raises testosterone, then the difference on testosterone between low income blacks and whites is down to the culture of honor, ie their environment. You’re a fool if you don’t believe that hormones are effected by the immediate environment. Extreme hereditarianism is retarded just as extreme environmentalism is.
My points are developed you just don’t understand them. I’ve shown that overall testosterone leveks don’t differ between the races. The explanatory factor is the environment. Fact. And you hardly ever provide citations.
“Not enough to defend yoursel”
Sure thing dude.
“Time enough for more than three people here have noticed what I have already commented about you.”
That I’m knowledgeable on human physiology and anatomy? You say I don’t have arguments because you don’t know what an argument is. Assertions are not arguments.
“I will not repeat what i said above.”
You need to read some books and get some new insights.
“Rushton is not completely wrong and it’s a impression i have about Pumpkin. S/he have changed some of their views [about jews*], maybe it’s just a wrong impression, but your case seems worst because you buy many possibly wrong point of views and it’s clear at least for me that you have problem to differentiate cause and effect and this also mean you seems don’t understand very well your point of views.”
On penis size and testosterone he is. I’ve not looked too deeply into the rest of his claims. One day. I don’t have a problem differentiating cause and effect. The study cited above shows that blacks the same age who were better educated had lower testosterone.
You don’t even know the epidemiology behind the hormone. The while damn point of this debate is because it supposedly causes physical violence, is the cause for most of the black-white crime gap, and is the cause for racial disparities in prostate cancer and other diseases. It’s not true. It’s been rebutted. Testosterone doesn’t cause violence.
“I read Pumpkin saying he maybe wrong about that
I know I am right here. That’s why I’m arguing so hard against it. Read my citations and get back to me.
“To say ”honor culture explain black criminality” is a classical leftist-like theory, a excess of abstractions and a implicit magical thinking here. A counter-clockwise thinking style and with ideological goals: it’s not blacks that are responsible, on avg, for their own behavior, blame ”circumstances-only”, blame ”white-only”.”
Lmao. Now you’re putting words in my mouth, drawing conclusions that I don’t believe from my writing. It’s not magical thinking dude. Read my damn citations and get back to me. Changing your posture increases testosterone. Fact. Honor culture increases testosterone. Fact. This that, increases testosterone. Fact. Sure this and that may decrease testosterone but that’s due to yo yo effect. You’re a fool if you say that environment and especially how you carry yourself font effect your testosterone and other hormone levels.
“You seem to be denying it”
No I’m not. I’ve provided evidence and arguments (arguments are evidence) for my claims and assertions. None of them have been rebutted. Maybe if people read the studies I cited they’d have a clue other than roaring in without reading what I’ve provided. I know what you’re saying already. You don’t really know what I am saying because you’ve not read what I’ve cited. This seems to be a problem here…
“You said ”everymen have the same testosterone levels, environment mediate them””
Sigh. I said that testosterone levels are negligible between them. At age 21 it’s .1 difference, 2 years later they diverge for a .01 difference, almost no damn difference. The only time there was a difference was a statistical difference was at Year ten which was such an insanely small amount it’s nothing to champion as any cause for disease or crime rates. The data has swayed me to this position. It doesn’t cause prostate cancer. Nor violence. And numerous things in the environment can raise testosterone. Maybe you should understand my argument before you reply to me next time.
“So, if ”educated’ blacks, and other groups live in the ”bad areas” they will become violent as the same levels of black populations* i mean, half of crimes*”
“Educated “blacks in the study I’m referring to had some college education while the low education blacks had less than high school. They were the same age. They had different testosterone levels. The environment explains it. Good job being uniformed.
”It clearly does. Look at blacks the same age who had lower testosterone who were better educated.”
It’s very complicated RR!!!
Do you know that there are such things correlations and causalities isn’t*
Seems you are confusing things in VERY basic levels. Don’t worry, you’re not alone.
You/we MUST need investigate, analyse firstly IF this finding: ”better educated” blacks have ON AVG comparative lower testosterone than ”high school” blacks – is
correlation: cognitively smarter blacks + conformist + pro social personalities tend to score higher in IQ tests [self selection]
or
causality: whatever blacks who drop out ”honor culture” have their T levels severely reduced and the opposite is true, whatever [black] men who live within a ”honor culture” will have their T levels severely increased.
Do you observe that the same thing happen with whites AND without a [white] honor culture among empoverished whites**
an*
”Better educated” whites have ON AVG lower T than ”high school” whites*
But the levels of criminality among ”high school” whites are lower than among ”high school” blacks.
Supposedly honor culture is caused by*
poverty*
”And something you fail to get is there are no differences between the races.”
Most reasonable researchers on area, i believe, say ”it’s ‘still’ not well understood”.
You’re affirming it, and sorry, but it’s not being convincing, only for those who are leftist ideologues, in other words, only those who fall in love for pseudo-science and want hear this kind of thing.
Maybe no have differences in overall T levels but is still don’t prove ”no have OTHER differences between races” because clearly there and this patterns ARE the rule, in every place we have whites, east asians and blacks, their stereotypical patterns is strongly expressed.
What i already said here above in other comment and you despise and/or misunderstood.
Same T levels, hypothetically speaking, but because blacks and whites has been a very different evolutionary history, so it’s reasonable to think if the way Testosterone interact with other hormones is different in each group as well in other groups.
”If you’re in a bad environment, your testosterone levels will raise in response along with other hormones. Hormones also stay elevated after the fact. It’s proven that men that engage in “thug life” have higher testosterone. . If the large analyses I cite show no difference, then this analysis here shows a difference which is due to environmental factors. It’s simple.”
So again, you’re AFFIRMING that every or all men have or born with the same T levels, ONLY environment that will mediate it.
You’re progressively go full blown in post-modernism crap, it’s sad!
People already born with certain levels of testosterone, yes, environment ALSO mediate it, but not in the very vague and rigid ways you’re thinking.
Within the ghettos it’s not all black men who have higher T ”as well” thug-criminal minds. All the time we are talking about AVG. So if your theory is right ALL [black] men who live within a ”honor culture” will have their T super-increased BUT in the same environment, DIFFERENT people have DIFFERENT reactions and T levels is partly if not predominantly responsible for that.
”Read the paper. The environment is the cause”
Your way to ”argue”.
”It’s simple”
Race is a aggregator issue, it’s not simple anyway.
”Not really. It’s more important to be above average in testosterone than to be below average.”
It’s noted.
and
why*
”The correlation between physical violence and testosterone is close to zero. Testosterone is a dominance and stress hormone.”
Physical violence is triggered by…
stress
and
dominance*
”Epinephrine is involved in fight or flight. Testosterone is involved in dominance”
Yes, a T levels no have any correlation with physical violence..
hormonal composition to given action.
”Yes. You don’t even know what a logical argument is.”
Please, don’t ”explain” me again, i never will learn it, at least by you.
”If the environment that blacks are in raises testosterone, then the difference on testosterone between low income blacks and whites is down to the culture of honor, ie their environment.”
anham…
”You’re a fool if you don’t believe that hormones are effected by the immediate environment. Extreme hereditarianism is retarded just as extreme environmentalism is.”
So you’re saying you’re retarded.
”My points are developed you just don’t understand them.”
Maybe you’re being confused…
” I’ve shown that overall testosterone leveks don’t differ between the races. The explanatory factor is the environment. Fact.”
It’s too early to affirm it, you should know…
” And you hardly ever provide citations.”
I’m not data-driven as you, firstly i try to understand via pattern recognition, with myself. Something you jumped.
”That I’m knowledgeable on human physiology and anatomy? You say I don’t have arguments because you don’t know what an argument is. Assertions are not arguments.”
Anham…
you have basic understanding but only memorization is not enough, never was…
”You need to read some books and get some new insights.”
”As” you…
”On penis size and testosterone he is. I’ve not looked too deeply into the rest of his claims. One day. I don’t have a problem differentiating cause and effect. The study cited above shows that blacks the same age who were better educated had lower testosterone.”
Of course not, you’re perfect!!!
I don’t understand why you still don’t won a nobel prize, the world is unfair!!! just saying…
”You don’t even know the epidemiology behind the hormone.”
Yes, i don’t know, i wasn’t born a knowledgeable as you.
” The while damn point of this debate is because it supposedly causes physical violence, is the cause for most of the black-white crime gap, and is the cause for racial disparities in prostate cancer and other diseases. It’s not true. It’s been rebutted. Testosterone doesn’t cause violence.”
A rigid black-white mind.
T levels contribute indirectly to certain behavior, it’s just basic logic.
Yes, T alone don’t cause, because NOTHING alone specially about hormones cause something, seems, now i was full conjectural. But… well.. i already said above, i will not repeat what you are psychologically incapable to ACCEPT, because you’re full ego.
Science is just like that, today there is certain correlation, tomorrow this correlation maybe will be proven wrong. You jump to conclusions very quick and about this matter that you don’t understand enough and because you far to be humble and open to accept maybe you’re wrong and to change your views because/if you note some mistake.
”Lmao. Now you’re putting words in my mouth, drawing conclusions that I don’t believe from my writing. It’s not magical thinking dude. Read my damn citations and get back to me. Changing your posture increases testosterone. Fact. Honor culture increases testosterone. Fact. This that, increases testosterone. Fact. Sure this and that may decrease testosterone but that’s due to yo yo effect. You’re a fool if you say that environment and especially how you carry yourself font effect your testosterone and other hormone levels.”
Testosterone, maybe, is present in ALL behavior, what differentiate one from another is how predominant is this hormone. So if i’m happy, T levels increase. If i’m angry T levels will increase. Testosterone is always here, even about negatively correlated behaviors, T levels have a impact.
AGAIN, honor culture and testosterone still wasn’t totally proven, it’s not a fact, it’s a fact that there is a correlation, now it’s important to know if it’s a causation, but If we to depend on you, this matter would no longer be discussed because you think it’s a fact.
”Sigh. I said that testosterone levels are negligible between them.”
Your own words below …
And yea Santo, that’s pretty much the case, although that’s an extreme oversimplification.
So testosterone levels are equally heritable for all man*
”At age 21 it’s .1 difference, 2 years later they diverge for a .01 difference, almost no damn difference. The only time there was a difference was a statistical difference was at Year ten which was such an insanely small amount it’s nothing to champion as any cause for disease or crime rates. The data has swayed me to this position. It doesn’t cause prostate cancer. Nor violence. And numerous things in the environment can raise testosterone. Maybe you should understand my argument before you reply to me next time.”
argument is a explanation of point of view and/or data display. You expose your collected data and give conclusive statements. Just like that: interpret this graph. You read what the graph is showing but seems you don’t try to infer some insight [by yourself] about it. You’re confusing ”read the graph” with ”argument”.
You’re just writing what you read, it’s the first step of analysis. Just like a journalist reading the teleprompter.
”No I’m not. I’ve provided evidence and arguments (arguments are evidence) for my claims and assertions”
Evidence is not always a fact, maybe a possible fact.
It’s not all arguments which are evidences. Indeed, most arguments are not evidences, arguments is the work above this evidences, to analyse, to explain them, a complementation, you don’t do.
”Maybe if people read the studies I cited they’d have a clue other than roaring in without reading what I’ve provided.”
I read the study and I did not see it as a revelation, even because the author of the study made it very clear that this is a hypothesis.
”I know what you’re saying already. You don’t really know what I am saying because you’ve not read what I’ve cited. This seems to be a problem here”
The great problem here is that you claim facts while most of what you said is not facts, but evidence/indications/ tracks… most here is not claiming this matter is finished, only you.
“Educated “blacks in the study I’m referring to had some college education while the low education blacks had less than high school. They were the same age. They had different testosterone levels. The environment explains it”
So for you the fact they were in the same age prove that ”environment” explain it.
You just repeat what the study already showed.
I will exemplify what would be a true argumentation:
”Different environments make/induce people to react in different ways. If you are in calm environment so you [supposedly] no have any reason to react in irritable ways. If you are in dangerous environment your ”body-mind” will react reciprocally. Environment mediate people’s reaction”
BUT
because your view seems deadly wrong or extremely vague…
”… different people also react in different ways. This differences are heritable, inheritable, inborn. We inherited from our biological fathers a variable combination of personality traits, AS WELL hormonal range, the testosterone we receive during the conception and pre-natal period… If you have a higher testosterone, so you born like that and since early age you behave like that [EVIDENCE that at least personality traits individual variability are inborn]. If you are in dangerous environment so/and specially DURING IMMEDIATE THREATS your T levels as well related hormones as adrenalin will increase [more] BUT NOT ALL THE TIME. Indeed, MOST ”low income” blacks are not always irritated, seems otherwise… PERIOD. Behavior as well environment is VARIABLY LIMITED as well hormones.”
”Good job being uniformed.”
You’re bizarre dude. I feel shame for you, if you don’t have shame for yourself.
”Within the ghettos it’s not all black men who have higher T ”as well” thug-criminal minds. All the time we are talking about AVG. So if your theory is right ALL [black] men who live within a ”honor culture” will have their T super-increased BUT in the same environment, DIFFERENT people have DIFFERENT reactions and T levels is partly if not predominantly responsible for that.”
And even among criminals T levels is likely to be individually variable, so even when you are within a ”honor culture”, even when you’re a thug yourself, this doesn’t mean you will have a highest T levels OR that your T levels will increase in unlimited ways to the highest human levels.
I think RR is thinking T levels is equally heritable, inherited, don’t correlate with things as certain personality types and intelligence, and ONLY environment that mediate it. It was RR is saying or i’m looking wrong*
RR, again, explain me [what you don’t answer] why i have slight below lower testosterone*
Remember that in individual levels, we can have a more detailed landscape of many of this inter-correlations, how this work.
If testosterone [free] is environmentally unlimited so why many men can’t build bigger muscles and why some men are vulnerable to become overweight*
Testosterone
1- Crime rates are higher for males than for females and increase in adolescence as testosterone levels rise and decline as crime rates decline with advancing age.
[advancing age = lower aggressivity adolescence = ]
2- Castration of males is usually accompanied by decreased aggression.
3- Studying the influence of testosterone is complicated due to factors such that blood testosterone levels varying with time of days, differences regarding bound vs. free testosterone, etc.
4- Testosterone levels in the cerebrospinal fluid are likely more important for behaviors but are difficult to measure. In addition, there may be differences regarding testosterone receptor sensitivity or other “downstream” effects.
5- In addition, testosterone levels during fetal development are high, contributes to the early sexual differentiation, and may be involved in later behaviors.
6- Studies have usually only used measured testosterone in blood/saliva and may therefore not measure total effects of androgenic hormones very well. Regardless, these testosterone levels are according to most studies associated with criminality and personality characteristics/behaviors associated with criminality in adults and often also with aggression.
Source: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime
RR,
as you’re knowleadeable in this are, refute and/or analyse all this point above if you want.
Seems in every ”low income” blacks are, always there a ”honor culture”…even in place as China…
Damn PP how long were those commercials to Santo sent me? How many words? I’ll respond to you later, am out at the moment. But me telling you to read the papers I cite isn’t “my way to argue”. You’re literally spewing the same shit that you wouldn’t, at least I’d hope not, if you’d read my citations. People provide citations so others can see where they got their information and how they interpret it. Everything isn’t genetic.
By the way, testing salivary testosterone levels correlates perfectly with blood drawn, so it’s an ample measure. You would to now that though. I won’t provide a source because you seem imply that when I do provide sources that “that is my argument because you don’t graspy arguments. Good job proving my point. High Testosterone doesn’t cause crime. If you’re interested, watch the documentary “Bigger, Stronger, Faster” to learn more. You need to learn how to read what others provide. Discussions will be better than you just repeating what I’ve already replied to.
I’ll reply to you later.
Damn PP how long were those commercials to Santo sent me? How many words?
Finally getting a taste of your own medicine. God I love life.
One more thing, I’m bizarre? I’m giving sound arguments and true arguments and I have an actual knowledge, not armchair knowledge, of something but I’m bizarre? What planet do you live on?
Check out the sources I provide for the change I posture elevating testosterone levels and get back to me. You literally don’t know my arguments so you saying oh the post modernists got you doesn’t say shit to me. Attack my arguments. Don’t ad hom me. That’s not how you argue.
Everyone here should take a basic logic class. It’s tiring putting up with logical fallacies.
Pill i think you’re not the only psycho here…
RR,
before to answer, think again..
your comments are bigger
even…
why my comments would be shorter*
aaann*
Indeed, your parts i put quotation make my comments longer than actually are, 😉
or níet
“Do you observe that the same thing happen with whites AND without a [white] honor culture among empoverished whites**”
Yes. Because the culture of honor was proposed by looking at Southern whites.
“But the levels of criminality among ”high school” whites are lower than among ”high school” blacks.”
You know that we are talking in the context of the study, right? Looking at figure 1, whites with less than high school had lower testosterone as well; blacks had 100 ng/ml higher levels. Furthermore, blacks with less than a high school education had 64 ng/ml higher levels than better-educated blacks. So what is the explanatory factor there?
“You’re affirming it, and sorry, but it’s not being convincing, only for those who are leftist ideologues, in other words, only those who fall in love for pseudo-science and want hear this kind of thing.”
Please excuse my French, but what the fuck is pseudoscience that I have cited? I point out methodological flaws in the papers that PP cites. I cite large-scale meta-analyses that control for the proper confounds to get a proper reading, but only ‘leftist ideologues’ would take my argument seriously. Sure thing man.
“Maybe no have differences in overall T levels but is still don’t prove ”no have OTHER differences between races” because clearly there and this patterns ARE the rule, in every place we have whites, east asians and blacks, their stereotypical patterns is strongly expressed.”
I never said otherwise; if you’re referring to my statement “there are no differences between the races” I meant testosterone differences.Excuse my typo.
“Same T levels, hypothetically speaking, but because blacks and whites has been a very different evolutionary history, so it’s reasonable to think if the way Testosterone interact with other hormones is different in each group as well in other groups.”
Provide data. And it’s not hypothetical.
“So again, you’re AFFIRMING that every or all men have or born with the same T levels, ONLY environment that will mediate it.”
You’re implying that individual variation doesn’t exist now. I’ve shown—conclusively—that the difference is between 2.5 to 5 percent between races—individual difference matters as well ALONG WITH the environmental mediation.
“You’re progressively go full blown in post-modernism crap, it’s sad!”
Fallacy.
“Within the ghettos it’s not all black men who have higher T ”as well” thug-criminal minds. All the time we are talking about AVG. So if your theory is right ALL [black] men who live within a ”honor culture” will have their T super-increased BUT in the same environment, DIFFERENT people have DIFFERENT reactions and T levels is partly if not predominantly responsible for that.”
Black men who would engage in honor-type culture would have higher T levels than those who didn’t. DIFFERENT people will have different EXPERIENCES and that will ALSO influence their hormones. Do you deny that the immediate environment influences hormones? Above you said that one-sided views of things are dumb, which I agree with. Now you’re saying that testosterone is the predominant cause in how people react differently (even though it’s shown that testosterone faciliates social dominance) and NOT directly related to physical violence? How do you explain Africans having lower levels of testosterone but higher levels of crime than Americans?
“Your way to ”argue”.”
Excuse my French, but this is fucking ridiculous. No it’s not my fucking way to argue. But if you are repeatedly spewing the same shit and still haven’t read what I have provided then you do not understand where I am coming from so an actual conversation cannot be had since you’re spewing your ‘talking points’ from your ‘teleprompter’ to use your lines. You need to read papers provided. That’s not ‘my way to argue’ that’s a fact.
“Race is a aggregator issue, it’s not simple anyway.”
In the context of this study (because studies are only for the cohort they’re done on), low-income black men with less than a high school education had 64/ng/ml higher testosterone levels than better-educated blacks and 90 ng/ml higher levels than whites.
Since you don’t like reading, a quote from the paper:
In the NHANES 2011–2012 sample, among young men with no education beyond high school, mean T of blacks is nearly 100 ng/dL higher than mean T of whites. Among older men or better-educated men, race made little difference in hormone levels. This specific pattern is consistent with the hypothesis that young men’s participation in the honor culture of poor black neighborhoods has the effect of elevating T.
“Yes, a T levels no have any correlation with physical violence..
hormonal composition to given action.”
Yes. Know why? Because if you study different groups of people (ie lawyers, sports players, etc) you’ll find higher levels of T. They must be so aggressive and blood thirsty right? Testosterone has a low correlation with physical violence. The correlation is .14.
http://www.academia.edu/22213818/The_relationship_between_testosterone_and_aggression_a_meta-analysis
“So you’re saying you’re retarded.”
No but it’s your choice to believe it.
Meta-analyzing studies and controlling for important variables shows no difference. Furthermore, as I’ve shown, low-income blacks have higher testosterone levels and since it’s (as all hormones are) mediated by the environment, then that’s an explanatory factor for why they have higher levels of testosterone. Do you understand?
“It’s too early to affirm it, you should know…”
Fact. Testosterone does not differ between the races in the meta-analyses I have cited.
Fact. The explanation for why low-income blacks have higher levels of testosterone is due to the culture of honor. I’ve cited numerous studies showing how the environment mediates the hormone testosterone.
It’s not too early to affirm. I have provided evidence and arguments for my assertions.
“I’m not data-driven as you, firstly i try to understand via pattern recognition, with myself. Something you jumped.”
You should be data-driven. Where are you Melo? You see this here?
“you have basic understanding but only memorization is not enough, never was…”
It’s more than ‘memorization’. Your shitty conjecture that this is all my ‘memorization’ makes no sense. Attack my arguments not whatever it is you believe in your head about me.
“I don’t understand why you still don’t won a nobel prize, the world is unfair!!! just saying…”
Nah, if there were any justice in the world, Rushton would have won the Nobel Prize for REB. =)
“A rigid black-white mind.”
No. I’ve shown that it doesn’t account for PCa, nor does it account for aggression. Keep digging your hole.
“Science is just like that, today there is certain correlation, tomorrow this correlation maybe will be proven wrong. You jump to conclusions very quick and about this matter that you don’t understand enough and because you far to be humble and open to accept maybe you’re wrong and to change your views because/if you note some mistake.”
Science isn’t based on ‘what ifs’ and ‘what may be discovered’ in the future.
“Testosterone, maybe, is present in ALL behavior, what differentiate one from another is how predominant is this hormone. So if i’m happy, T levels increase. If i’m angry T levels will increase. Testosterone is always here, even about negatively correlated behaviors, T levels have a impact.”
Now you’re getting it.
“AGAIN, honor culture and testosterone still wasn’t totally proven, it’s not a fact, it’s a fact that there is a correlation, now it’s important to know if it’s a causation, but If we to depend on you, this matter would no longer be discussed because you think it’s a fact.”
Keep challenging me. I love it.
I’ve shown conclusive evidence that environmental factors raise testosterone. The HC hypothesis fits in line with what the study by Mazur found.
Furthermore, the hereditarian HYPOTHESIS in regards to IQ is ‘just a hypothesis’ too, so good job pal.
“So testosterone levels are equally heritable for all man*”
Yes. Do some fucking reading.
After adjustment for age, black men have a modestly but significantly 2.5 to 4.9% higher free testosterone level than white men.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4327897/
After adjusting for age, height, weight, ponderosity index, and Tanner stage, testosterone does not exhibit an overall significant racial difference in either sex (Table 4).
Click to access 10.1210%40jcem.75.2.1639961.pdf
Contrary to the postulated racial difference, testosterone concentrations did not differ notably between black and white men.
Click to access 10.1210%40jc.2007-0028.pdf
In the age range 20–69 years, black men average 0.39 ng/ml higher testosterone than white and MA men (p5 0.001). The higher testosterone in black men is partly explained by low marriage rate and low adiposity.
Click to access 10.1080%4013685530903071802.pdf
After multivariable adjustment, in the 16–19-year-old males, testosterone, estradiol, and SHBG concentrations did not differ between non-Hispanic blacks and whites.
Click to access 10.1007%40s10552-013-0154-8.pdf
After adjustment for age and BMI, total testosterone was higher in blacks (0.21 ng/ml; P 0.028) than whites, an approximately 3% difference. However, after further adjustment for waist circumference, there was no black-white difference (0.05 ng/ml; P 0.62).
Click to access 1041.full.pdf
What was that again?
There is no difference/low enough to not be the cause of any disparaties (along with that .14 correlation between physical aggression and testosterone!).
“You’re just writing what you read, it’s the first step of analysis. Just like a journalist reading the teleprompter.”
No. I know people don’t click on links or read studies. So that’s why I do that. You know what they say about people who ASSume right?
“It’s not all arguments which are evidences. Indeed, most arguments are not evidences, arguments is the work above this evidences, to analyse, to explain them, a complementation, you don’t do.”
Logical arguments are evidence.
http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2010/05/are-logical-arguments-evidence/
“I read the study and I did not see it as a revelation, even because the author of the study made it very clear that this is a hypothesis.”
Better stop pushing the hereditarian hypothesis since it’s “only” a hypothesis right?
It’s a proposed explanation based on available evidence—hypothesis. The available evidence—how the environment and events have effects on testosterone levels—shows that this could be a main cause of elevated testosterone in lower-income black males. What did you gather from the study if you read it?
“The great problem here is that you claim facts while most of what you said is not facts, but evidence/indications/ tracks… most here is not claiming this matter is finished, only you.”
Says the guy who says the same shit to people on Unz Review proposing environmental explanations… Logic, not even once.
You are not grasping what I am saying to you. I get what you’re saying. I used to believe that testosterone caused aggression and that blacks had 4757777649393 ng/ml higher levels than whites. But people read new things and people change their views.
The great problem here is that no one ever reads studies. They only read abstracts and think they can have any indication of what the paper actually says.
“So for you the fact they were in the same age prove that ”environment” explain it.”
Older or better-educated men had lower testosterone which is consistent with the hypothesis. If things are consistent with the hereditarian hypothesis then, using your logic here, it shouldn’t matter.
“So for you the fact they were in the same age prove that ”environment” explain it.”
That’s the answer you were looking for which was in the paper you didn’t read. If you’d have read the paper you wouldn’t ask me such simple questions… Yes, that is a primary cause and if you understood the epidemiology behind the hormone you’d be able to grasp what I am saying.
“If you have a higher testosterone, so you born like that and since early age you behave like that [EVIDENCE that at least personality traits individual variability are inborn]. If you are in dangerous environment so/and specially DURING IMMEDIATE THREATS your T levels as well related hormones as adrenalin will increase [more] BUT NOT ALL THE TIME. Indeed, MOST ”low income” blacks are not always irritated, seems otherwise… PERIOD. Behavior as well environment is VARIABLY LIMITED as well hormones.”
What do you mean by ‘not all the time’? Source? Of course low-income blacks aren’t always irritated, but, and if you’ve been following this conversation and just didn’t jump in talking about what you didn’t read, then you’d have seen that testosterone levels STAY ELEVATED after confrontations.
“You’re bizarre dude. I feel shame for you, if you don’t have shame for yourself.”
You don’t need to feel shame for me. You are the biazarre one who speaks about things without reading papers.
“I think RR is thinking T levels is equally heritable, inherited, don’t correlate with things as certain personality types and intelligence, and ONLY environment that mediate it. It was RR is saying or i’m looking wrong*”
My claim is that testosterone doesn’t differ between whites and blacks and that in low income blacks that the environment is the cause for the higher levels. That’s it. Genetics doesn’t explain everything; believing so is retarded. And you know I don’t propose environment for everything. So keep your fallacious statements to yourself.
“RR, again, explain me [what you don’t answer] why i have slight below lower testosterone*”
I don’t know you.
“If testosterone [free] is environmentally unlimited so why many men can’t build bigger muscles and why some men are vulnerable to become overweight*”
Measures such as adiposity strongly effect it. And I never said that individual variation DOESN’T EXIST; just that there is no discernable difference between blacks and whites.
“1- Crime rates are higher for males than for females and increase in adolescence as testosterone levels rise and decline as crime rates decline with advancing age.”
Men have way higher levels of testosterone than women. I’ve, in the past, shown that testosterone has a masculinization effect on the brain.
Read:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276151720_The_evolutionary_neuroandrogenic_theory_of_criminal_behavior_expanded
For the theory. Tldr (because people don’t read) testosterone masculinizes the brain. If testosterone masculinzes the brain and men have far and away higher levels of testosterone, then it was useful in the past. In the paper above the author states that people with masculinized brains can provide more resources, etc. I’ve stated in my articles that women selected men for higher levels of testosterone, no qualms there. Doesn’t mean anything and doesn’t mean that testosterone has a low correlation with aggression (see the above citation).
“2- Castration of males is usually accompanied by decreased aggression.”
Not always:
Click to access 10.1016%40s0149-7634%2805%2980117-4.pdf
I know it said ‘usually’, but the fact that it doesn’t completely reduce aggression shows that it’s not the only factor (and that .14 correlation!).
“3- Studying the influence of testosterone is complicated due to factors such that blood testosterone levels varying with time of days, differences regarding bound vs. free testosterone, etc.”
Which is why assays should be taken at the same time every day (something that Ross et al 1986 didn’t do as well as not control for WC so I can chuck that study out).
“4- Testosterone levels in the cerebrospinal fluid are likely more important for behaviors but are difficult to measure. In addition, there may be differences regarding testosterone receptor sensitivity or other “downstream” effects.”
Is there a difference between blacks and whites in this variable?
“5- In addition, testosterone levels during fetal development are high, contributes to the early sexual differentiation, and may be involved in later behaviors.”
Who denies this? This doesn’t mean anything for racial differences in crime.
“6- Studies have usually only used measured testosterone in blood/saliva and may therefore not measure total effects of androgenic hormones very well. Regardless, these testosterone levels are according to most studies associated with criminality and personality characteristics/behaviors associated with criminality in adults and often also with aggression.”
Plasma testosterone concentrations in men, first quantified nearly half a century ago, are now measured routinely as a primary index of androgen status. Most clinical laboratories employ a multichannel, fully automated analyzer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19011286
”Yes. Because the culture of honor was proposed by looking at Southern whites.”
I said [american] whites no have a ”culture of honor”, canadian whites no have, swedish whites no have, spanish whites no have, but it’s expected in all this groups, higher T levels than ”educated” ones…
”You know that we are talking in the context of the study, right?”
err..
” Looking at figure 1, whites with less than high school had lower testosterone as well; blacks had 100 ng/ml higher levels. Furthermore, blacks with less than a high school education had 64 ng/ml higher levels than better-educated blacks. So what is the explanatory factor there?”
I thought you knew…
the same problem of cause and effect, correlation/causality.
I already said above. University select certain people with certain psychological and cognitive features. Highest levels of T at least in men can make them criminal-prone, over-dominant, irritable, IMPULSIVE, specially when it is combined with other addictive or aggregator factors. This is something that any SANE teacher can observe among their students in empoverished classes and specially among blacks, since EARLY age. It’s not just a magic of environment that hyper-masculine behavior tend to correlates with criminal, just look for men [and women] who are jailed, look for human behavior since early age, seems in many if not in most people this psychological traits are already here. Of course, behavior can be plastic, but not in unlimited ways, it’s a complex subject seems you’re not capable to understand. Because you’re specialist in hormonal thing, don’t mean you will be in psychology.
This is not just a scientifically proven patterns, it’s just anyone who wasn’t contamined with leftist virus can catch, even in very easy ways. You don’t need academics [ general ] & criminologists & psychologists & scientists to see what is obvious: on disproportional avg, hyper manly men are more prone to engage in violent behavior and yes, they do.
The great debate here is:
Testosterone have a big impact in this*
That hyper-masculine men are more prone to be criminal is a fact anyone with mental sanity can catch.
Environment is only build for us, even when the environment is imposed, for example, people are forced to live in poor areas, only people who can designed it, specially local avg people who tend to be the majority.
Environment indeed is also a abstraction. What make a school is not a school that is a concrete thing but those who are studying/working there.
There are two concepts of environment, natural concept or ”the scenario” and abstract concept, ”how living beings use/live in this environment”.
Why i’m saying all of this*
first because i’m verborrhagic, second because this simply refute partially but consistently your claim that ”honor culture” make people, while is the otherwise, people make ”honor culture”, in the world of real’s [mundo dos reais, mathematic jargon], culture don’t exist without humans or other living beings.
There are very good evolutionary hypothesis to explain why men in empoverished places tend to be more criminal, on avg, than in more enriched places: in unstable places women are prone to select the men they identify as the provider or dominant, and unstable places select for short term thinkers, because threats are more common and no have many times to plan, to deliberate actions.
In Brazilian favelas women of trafficants compete one each other to see who will be more children.
When you say that environmentalistic explanations is also retarded BUT ”honor culture make men violent/increase T [ 😉 ]” you’re just showing for us that you don’t know differentiate a environmentalistic hypothesis than a moderate hypothesis, and just because this is inaccurate don’t mean that ”hereditarianism” will be at the same levels wrong, whatever how you define it. Everything about behavior is indisputably genetic, inherited, acquired… what differentiate one behavior from another is how genetic or how instinctive this behavior is.
”Please excuse my French, but what the fuck is pseudoscience that I have cited? I point out methodological flaws in the papers that PP cites. I cite large-scale meta-analyses that control for the proper confounds to get a proper reading, but only ‘leftist ideologues’ would take my argument seriously. Sure thing man.”
When we debate with you half of our replies and yours are not about the subject but about you, about why we must believe that you are [not] very stupid in some essential ways.
What i already said, you claim this hypothesis as if were facts. Seems you’re anxious tto ”prove” it.
”Honor culture” CAUSE [vaguely speaking] increase of T levels/”aka” increased violent behavior among blacks.
”when in Rome…” ”follow the leader, right”
You seems is leaving implicit here that you believe if environment push certain behavior so everyone must engage in this behavior by only-extrinsical reasons, but it’s not true, because even in the deep ghettos we still had variability of a lot of intrinsic outcomes and this mean ”genetics/ourselves are ‘responsible’ for our behaviors”, ”we use what we have available”, if someone have lower empathy, so s/he will use what s/he have available to interact or to respond to certain situation.
There is one fundamental type of pseudo-scientific theory
confusion between causality and correlation or cause and effect
Example 1:
”Institucionalized racism make blacks poor and violent”
In the past, it’s invariably likely to be a partial true, as well happen with women. Most women were forbbiden to study in universities because institucionalized patriarchism.
But in every place blacks are, even when ”they” are in places full of blacks, they tend to express in this way”.
Example 2:
”Guns/honor culture make people violent”
Finland, Switzerland and other places prove that just free access to guns don’t make [most] people [imediately/mechanically] violent, only those who are more prone to engage in violent/and coward high risk behaviors.
To say honor culture cause this or that is similar to say ”a [truck] ran over people in Berlin”.
When i asked you: ”everymen have the same T levels and enviro mediate it*” you say ”Santo it’s more or less like that”
firstly, you don’t explain why
second, you don’t clarify your views, otherwise, you obscure it because your vagueness.
So you make me think that you believe T levels have the same heritability among all men and only environ that mediate it.
Now you say other thing, it’s complicated!!
”I never said otherwise; if you’re referring to my statement “there are no differences between the races” I meant testosterone differences.Excuse my typo.”
In the next time try to be more clear in your statements because i no have crystal ball to know what you’re saying or mean. You have a disorganized and vague way to say things and or you write in imprecise ways, yes, my english is THIS, but at least i try to order my thoughts. You say ambiguous things, more objectivity in the next.
”Provide data. And it’s not hypothetical.”
If you lived in complete natural place.. without data how would you live**
Yes RR, it’s hypothetical, but i promisse to myself i will not waste my time and nerves try to stablish some decent debate with you, it’s not possible.
Seems, to know really if this differences are real or not, we must need a BIG study with million of people instead 600.
Other thing, if when ”we” analyse data of racial differences in criminality we don’t control or ”adjust”, we only take general data. So similar thing ALSO must be done with T levels.
This will be my last replies to you, after this i will not fall again in this temptation to correct you.
”You’re implying that individual variation doesn’t exist now.”
AAN**
”I’ve shown—conclusively—that the difference is between 2.5 to 5 percent between races—individual difference matters as well ALONG WITH the environmental mediation.”
Words loose in the air.
So, if i start to live in ghetto black and don’t be killed or sodomized my T levels [ seems free T is not environmentally sensitive] my [total] slight below avg T will increase formidably, right*
”Fallacy.”
Prove: Gould.
”Black men who would engage in honor-type culture would have higher T levels than those who didn’t. DIFFERENT people will have different EXPERIENCES and that will ALSO influence their hormones.”
”experiences” = reactions. You only experiment something if you react to it. Just a play of words, it’s the best you can do*
”Do you deny that the immediate environment influences hormones?”
Not in the way you BELIEVE. Immediate environment is the only-one environment we have, period, right now, and yes, it interact with hormones, but as i love to say
we are the final veredict of our own behavior.
Genetics strikes again.
” Above you said that one-sided views of things are dumb, which I agree with.”
Theoretically you agree but in practice you are just applying one-sided views.
”Now you’re saying that testosterone is the predominant cause in how people react differently (even though it’s shown that testosterone faciliates social dominance) and NOT directly related to physical violence? How do you explain Africans having lower levels of testosterone but higher levels of crime than Americans?”
All africans were analysed*
No. Jesuis amadx.
IF NOT predominant… i’m not sure, are you*
there are lot of things we don’t know about this subject but seems you are saying as you have all the answers.
as i ALREADY said, indirectly speaking yes, T have influence in aggressivity IF aggressiveness tend to be predicted by social dominance. Wolves are territorially dominant, dogs not so… a little example of 2 + 2 = 4
social dominance + aggressivity = likely criminal behavior.
your own words
”Testosterone don’t cause violent behavior”
again the same vagueness, lack of accuracy in your words.
Me, Melo and PP already know how you ”argue” and it’s a accurate description, you take data and write what is written in this datas. Without data you seems lost. Reasoning is strongly if not considerably related with fluid skills and the capacity to argue with your OWN words is a very good way to analyse and compare reasoning skills.
You’re overly trustful in studies that prove your views, it’s seems alarming naive, specially in academia, specially in ”humanities” and biological sciences.
You believe Gould wasn’t a charlatan with a zionist agenda.
“You believe Gould wasn’t a charlatan with a zionist agenda.”
Where did I ever say this? I said the Morton debate is not over which is true.
I’ll reply to the rest later. But don’t put words in my mouth.
“Me, Melo and PP already know how you ”argue” and it’s a accurate description, you take data and write what is written in this datas. Without data you seems lost. Reasoning is strongly if not considerably related with fluid skills and the capacity to argue with your OWN words is a very good way to analyse and compare reasoning skills.”
PP and Melo respond to data. You don’t. You don’t seem to understand why studies get cited, why they get explained and why they need to be discussed. If you take things on fave value then you are a moron. I do know how to reason I took a damn logic class, something you should do. And it’s PP who jumps on things that affirm his beliefs without digging into things. I dig in to everything I read and if you don’t then you’re an idiot who takes things based on face value.
My argument: environmental factors raise testosterone. Testosterone can be raised due to a slow of environmental factors, and it stays raised after the event. So if certain groups of people are more likely to engage in behavior that elevated testosterone levels and they need to keep “their status”, testosterone will raise and stay raised. This is what you don’t understand. So if all of the above is true, then honor culture is why low income blacks have a high level of testosterone.
Let’s stop the bullshit replies and just get to the heart of the matter. Which of my premises are wrong? Is the conclusion wrong? Why or why not?
One more thing pal. Your idiotic ad hominem makes you look pretty stupid. Attack the argument, not the supposed character of the one arguing, because you literally don’t know me dude. You know what I write here, that’s it.
I will try to summarise best as possible my next replies to RR.
Women have much less T than men;
[avg] Men are much more dominant than [avg] women and men, on avg, are much more violent than women.
T levels simply produce the masculine biological sex or at least have huge role.
Between men and women, T levels can be treated as: [one of ] quasi-causal factor to increased aggressive/dominant behavior.
Among men, T levels can be more indirect/particularly causal instead generally causal, to cause increased dominance and/or aggressiveness.
“So you’re saying you’re retarded.”
[No but it’s your choice to believe it.]
I think it’s not a choice…
”It’s more than ‘memorization’. Your shitty conjecture that this is all my ‘memorization’ makes no sense. Attack my arguments not whatever it is you believe in your head about me.”
If you had many… most of this is just repetition of studies you linked. I read this study… thank you.
Maybe i’m in telepatic-connection with at least two people here to have the same idea about your intellectual skills or style.
A ”leftist ideology-driven” guy {”Mazur” sound jewish to me] write ”race have nothing do with hormonal variation or difference”, expected from this ”tribe of brilliantly retarded” AND ”this HYPOTHESIS of honor culture as only-causal factor”… HYPOTHESIS you think i’ts a proven and finished fact… that you think it’s not a extremist-environmental [retarded] theory…
i agree he ALSO don’t deserved a nobel prize, well, at least not in Medicine, maybe in Nobel Peace Prize.
Ok, learning what science is with you.
next learning coming here…
yes, i’m getting but not because you help/teach me, sir knowledable.
If you like to be challenged.. i’m not, specially with you, and imagine where you have so much ego, there is many inequality in the world.
You no have provided ANY evidence of causality, only a correlation. A true evidence must be proved in loco, with individual and individual, at long term, this is how true science works, empirical way. Indeed, this type of study is very difficult to be done even because the voluntary people may act in superficial ways knowing they are being monitored, just like a big brother and with a available lab.
In the end seems more easy analyse T levels since early age, what one of this studies did. I’m open to the idea that T levels don’t explain satisfatorily racial differences in behavior, namely in criminality and thinking about it i ”created” this vague hypothesis that what’s may explain this differences is not the total and free levels but how T interact with the whole phenotype, in the end, what is a fact or a persistent patterns is: blacks are more violent than whites who are more violent than east asians and this differences cannot be satisfatorily explained by environmental issues, but by intrinsic or genetic issues, if in different places, the expected behavior tend to happen.
Finally you understand that Mazur study is based on a HYPOTHESIS and yes ”hereditarian” IQ is also a hypothesis [progressive evidence] BUT there are ”likely to be true” and ”likely to be false”-hypothesis, isn’t*
It’s the work of smarter people, at priori, understand for themselves, firstly, what’s seems more wrong, cosi cosi or correct. Data is very important but we can’t be over-dependent on data.
This is all i would like to read from you…
Maybe i’m being misunderstood. I said ”ALL men”, and not ”men among races”, i’m saying ”my father and me was born with the same T levels, but as we are different people so we have different ”EXPERIENCES” in life, so our T levels differentiated because this experiences”, isn’*
Are you aware this studies don’t analyse many people isn’t*
Criminal statistics data seems enormous/national while this study is clearly limited.
This is one of the only things you do here, post quotations, links, write study-parts. I read Mazur study, indeed i was link it here too.
Do you really read your link of this ”christian site”**
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/argument
Don’t complicate things even more man!!!
Evidence/facts is when arguments are not anymore important [to refute it], or are important to explain it.
So, why do you push this ENVIRONMENTAL [retarded] hypothesis if this is a only-hypothesis**
I’m not trying to persuad him to stop push this ”honor culture HYPOTHESIS”, just to stop to think it’s a proven fact of causality.
”Available evidence” of… CORRELATION and not causality. The ”honor culture hypothesis” is based on possible causality of what’s being proposed. Now Mazur et all have a correlation. Their intention is prove that it’s not just a correlation.
OR… how people behave in events and how genetics of this people can have a impact.
Where i propose ”environmental explanations” in Unz*
Example required.
You’re creating a strawman as if most people less you only read abstracts.
Maybe i’m not grasping what you’re saying here because you say in very vague ways. You don’t fucking explain what you say, in at least half of time.
Yes, you still capitalize your own misunderstood about what i said about ”hypothesis”. I said that you think ”honor culture as CAUSAL factor to black violence” is a proven fact. It’s a hypothesis, i said. But ”hereditarian” theory of IQ has been progressively proved, of course, with some things here and there to be better developed. So you’re arguing that i think: ”if it’s a hypothesis so don’t matter”.
Retarded, at least. Intellectually illiterate.
Older and ”educated” men with lower testosterone IS NOT consistent with this hypothesis, period. It’s expected about older men. About ”educated”, BEFORE you claim that this simplistic relation is correct you need think about other factors as IQ levels, personality levels, isn’t* Maybe some of this ”educated” men are living in this ghettos, maybe we have some ”thug-life” blacks in university, in Evergreen* 😉
It’s not a PRIMARY cause, indeed, in the LITERAL/physical/real world, the primary cause of living being behavior is itself, aka, genes… repeat with me, genes or instincts.
”What do you mean by ‘not all the time’?”
Dear, you don’t mean source to know/ to deduct this kind of thing.
”then you’d have seen that testosterone levels STAY ELEVATED after confrontations.”
yes, source*
after confrontations, how ”after”*
of course not because you no have self-awareness, just like a ”animal”.
Santo, can you create a list of the 30 LIVING people who have most influenced history. Not a list of the 30 most powerful people nessecarily, but the 30 people who have had the biggest impact (positive or negative)
All must be alive
It doesn’t have to be perfect; it’s just your opinion
I’ve asked many people here and I’m analyzing the results
Your list would be valuable because i have no openly gay perspectives and no perspectives from South America
”My claim is that testosterone doesn’t differ between whites and blacks and that in low income blacks that the environment is the cause for the higher levels. That’s it. Genetics doesn’t explain everything; believing so is retarded. And you know I don’t propose environment for everything. So keep your fallacious statements to yourself.”
Continue…
Your claim seems/is already wrong, ”environment is the cause for the highest levels” [WHY]
This is a CLASSICAL leftist intellectual behavior or proto-intellectual, all clever sillies act like that, it’s post-modernist as well.
What da fuck is ENVIRONMENT man, if you know what environment you are talking about..
All the time
”genetics doesn’t explain everything”
WHY
I’m not seeing that you’re not proposing ”environment is not everything” because when you say
”environment is the [fundamental] cause”, sir,
you want to say, at least in this case, ”environment is everything”….
”look for ”educated men with [AVG] lower T… ”honor culture” ho ho ho, ”environment/honor culture, ho ho ho”
pathetic… triste.., desanimador…. valha-me deus.
You can’t elaborate even a hypothesis**
Why i have slight below T levels*
Finally i agree with everything you said in this sentence. Some humility is good sometimes.
Click to access 10.1016%40s0149-7634%2805%2980117-4.pdf
do you really read all of this*
and why you still learn little*
This is dense study, in the way it’s written and subject type. Seems we have a assymetry here between the levels of elaboration of this study AND the levels of elaboration of your comments. We no have a prodigality of learned and understood knowledge, just teleprompter.
“5- In addition, testosterone levels during fetal development are high, contributes to the early sexual differentiation, and may be involved in later behaviors.”
”Who denies this? This doesn’t mean anything for racial differences in crime.”
WHY
WHY WHY and WHY
”Evidence/facts is when arguments are not anymore important [to refute it], or are important to explain it.”
Evidences are not facts, are possible facts, or tracks. I commit a mistake here.
I wll be honest, i’m not knowledgeable in hormonal stuff but you don’t need be a specialist in this: to argue, to infer insights, etc… indeed many smarter people tend to engage in matters they don’t understand, but specially the brighter, tend to be good to ”improvise”, a kind of convergent creativity. Of course i’m not scholastically bright, just a example.
Seems RR have the background and [some] expertise here, but in some things that university or school will not teach you, that is more related with fluid skills [improvise] he seems hopelessly underdeveloped, be care RR, seems deficiency in default mode network can cause Alzheimer.
Maybe he is more right about this matter than Pumpkin and other pp here [at least that T levels may don’t explain consistently racial behavioral differences, but even right, he’s not convincing.
Very difficult… i will try.
RR to understand behavior firstly you must need understand your own behavior and supposedly it’s the more available thing you can have about this matter. It’s not just a question: T levels cause or not this behavior, but behavior itself.
Study behavior is also [and usually is always like that] a kind of EMPATHY, put ”in the place” of OTHER.
To understand the mechanism of certain thing or being we need be emphatetic, analysing behavior and predicting behavioral extrapolations.
Indeed none ”put in the place of other”, literally speaking, but internalize the intrinsic/he’s sad and extrinsic/he’s a homeless patterns of others and try to infer logical continuities, as if we had in the place and sensation.
You’re suggesting human beings/blacks are automatons who react to environment/honor culture [follow the leader, when in rome…] in subconscious way maybe because you lacks self-awareness, meta cognition to think like that.
Because indeed majority of humans react more in subconscious than self-aware ways doesn’t mean they will react in the same way in the same circumstances.
Different experiences cause different reactions, indeed, but different people in the same experiences, so we will have different reactions. Ok, super-complicated situations, total war, the levels of homogeneization of behavior will be higher than in non-total war scenario. Also similar people tend to attract other similar people [genetically similar], so we tend to have a increase of homogeneization of genetic similarities among black men who live in the social thug-life circles while those black or non-black men who dislike this ”way of life” will be self-des-selected.
“Where are you Melo? You see this here?”
Hi I havn’t really been paying that much attention to this argument and I don’t really know enough to accurately comment upon it, but what you do is not wrong, however I would be lying to you if I said it wasn’t pretentious every now and then
On another note, I have some links for you and Pumpkin.
Did you hear about the 7 million year old hominid fossil from europe? Greece to be more exact.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177347
Also here is some links that touch on the “progression vs complexity” argument you and pumpkin love to engage in.
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-evolutionary-vertebrate-brain.html
https://phys.org/news/2017-05-fossil-brain-evolution.html
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2001573
https://phys.org/news/2017-05-dinosaurs-evolved-birds.html
One touches upon the newly discovered complexity found in a previously dubbed “primitive” brain
The other talks about the genetic boundaries between dinosaurs and birds, which I feel is loosely tied into the whole progression argument.
“Did you hear about the 7 million year old hominid fossil from europe? Greece to be more exact.”
It’s not a hominid.
This is not a character [the 4th molar] that is conventionally used in palaeoanthropology, especially because not all hominins have similar tooth roots. This character is rather variable – and the authors go on to acknowledge this – so it’s unreliable for classification.
http://theconversation.com/theres-not-enough-evidence-to-back-the-claim-that-humans-originated-in-europe-78280
There is not enough evidence for the claim that humans originated in Europe. I cringed so damn hard reading articles on this. Cringed even harder at the low-hanging fruit on altright websites proclaiming OoA dead and the multiregional model true.
In regards to your other links, thanks. I’ll review them tonight and get back to you. But the 3rd article talks about what happened 500 mya. What happened about 500 mya? The Cambrian Explosion where Pikaia Gracilens survived. To the best of my knowledge, that’s the best candidate we have for the first vertebrate. No Pikaia, no us.
Santo, I have better things to do today than to take an hour of my time responding to you so let’s do something different. I will provide 2 arguments—one for environments raising testosterone and the other for honor culture raising black testosterone. Choose a premise or my conclusion and tell me if it’s wrong and why. Just respond to the argument, no going off track, no ranting. Just respond to the argument in pieces.
Argument 1:
P1: Environmental factors raise testosterone
P2: If environmental factors raise testosterone levels, then people who are in worse environments will have higher levels of testosterone than people who are not in that type of environment.
P3: People who are in those types of environments have elevated testosterone levels due to their experience and surroundings.
C: Therefore, people in certain types of environments experience a rise in testosterone levels—that are permanent—if they are in those environments.
Argument 2:
P1: If blacks with less than a high school education have higher levels of testosterone then blacks with some college, then the difference in testosterone between the two groups must come down to the environment.
P2: Black with less than a high school education have higher levels of testosterone than blacks with some college.
C: Therefore, the cause for higher testosterone levels in blacks with less than high school is due to their environment—the honor culture that they find themselves in.
Two logically sound arguments with two conclusions that follow from the premises. Respond only to the arguments, I will not respond to any inane rambling. Just focus on the arguments.
“It’s not a hominid.”
Yes it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graecopithecus
But don’t get confused I wasn’t trying to claim we originate din Europe, if this is true then honestly it probably just means humans have been trying to leave Africa for a long time. There were plenty of failed attempts along the way there is no reasonw hy this couldn’t be one of them
“This character is rather variable – and the authors go on to acknowledge this – so it’s unreliable for classification.”
That’s fallacious. Correct me If I misunderstood something but just because a characteristic has a certain degree of variability within a a group of defined organisms doesn’t mean it can’t be used as a proxy for relation. Hominins vary in brain size, height, muscle mass and all sorts of other things.
Also I don’t know if you read the second study but it did confirm the environmental conditions present in Europe at the time of Graecopithecus.
“The researchers further showed that, contemporary to the development of the Sahara in North Africa, a savannah biome formed in Europe. Using a combination of new methodologies, they studied microscopic fragments of charcoal and plant silicate particles, called phytoliths. Many of the phytoliths identified derive from grasses and particularly from those that use the metabolic pathway of C4-photosynthesis, which is common in today’s tropical grasslands and savannahs. The global spread of C4-grasses began eight million years ago on the Indian subcontinent – their presence in Europe was previously unknown.
“The phytolith record provides evidence of severe droughts, and the charcoal analysis indicates recurring vegetation fires,” said Böhme. “In summary, we reconstruct a savannah, which fits with the giraffes, gazelles, antelopes, and rhinoceroses that were found together with Graecopithecus,”
“But the 3rd article talks about what happened 500 mya. What happened about 500 mya? ”
I believe is talking about the first primitive forms of a nervous system:
“The vast majority of existing animals are bilaterians, meaning animals with left and right sides that are approximate mirror images of each other. All bilateria are thought to have descended from a common wormlike ancestor that appeared in the Ediacaran period, 550–600 million years ago”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_nervous_systems#Nerve_cords
Forgot to put the source of that first quote.
“Yes it is.”
I know you’re better than that. That was added due to the claim from the study.
It looks like it’s much more likely to be a new ape species.
John Hawks says:
Here’s what I think: Paleoanthropology must move past the point where a mandibular fragment is accepted as sufficient evidence.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/miocene/graecopithecus/graecopithecus-fuss-2017.html
Wait for a phylogenetic analysis.
Even then, chill. Wait for more remains!
“But don’t get confused I wasn’t trying to claim we originate din Europe, if this is true then honestly it probably just means humans have been trying to leave Africa for a long time. There were plenty of failed attempts along the way there is no reasonw hy this couldn’t be one of them”
If it is a hominid and not an ape.
“That’s fallacious. Correct me If I misunderstood something but just because a characteristic has a certain degree of variability within a a group of defined organisms doesn’t mean it can’t be used as a proxy for relation. Hominins vary in brain size, height, muscle mass and all sorts of other things.”
That would be true if Sahelenthropus didn’t have Miocene apelike features in Sahelenthropus:
Click to access An_Ape_or_the_Ape_Is_the_Toumai_Cranium_20160221-12881-1igcbn4.pdf
Hawks, like the paleobiologist I cited in my other comment, also says that this is probably an example of convergent evolution and that Graecopithecus is probably an ape. Hawks also brings up another good point in that if molar roots were good for identifying hominid, then the debate over Ardipithecus wouldn’t be happening.
Don’t you think that we need more evidence? A skull? More teeth? Leg bones? Don’t you think we need to see if it’s bipedal? Those characters are also seen in ape species, so chill before jumping to conclusions.
Watch this.
It could be. But I strongly doubt it. Don’t you think more fossil evidence is needed before people jump to conclusions? They state that the Homo radiation occurred in the Med. ….Yea, there needs to be more evidence for this. I don’t buy it yet. I’m extremely skeptical.
“I know you’re better than that. That was added due to the claim from the study.”
A hominin and a hominid aren’t the same thing. Apes are considered hominids.
“Wait for a phylogenetic analysis.”
Oh of course. I never said it was definitely anything. I just thought you’d be interested. The environment of it’s time matches what we’d expect a hominid to live in bu of course taxonomic evidence is the end all be all to the discussion.
“That would be true if Sahelenthropus didn’t have Miocene apelike features in Sahelenthropus:”
The page cannot be found, and my point wasn’t that dental evidence is sufficient to make a definitive conclusion, it was that variability between fossils is a poor excuse to hand wave it.
Taxonomic evidence ISN’T the end all be all* Sorry.
Melo excuse me, I still get the two terms mixed up. But I don’t think it’s our species.
It is interesting and I’m very interested in it but jumping to huge conclusions like I saw on altright websites proclaiming OoA dead? Doesn’t work like that as you know, which is why I wrote that piece. I hate how people take shitty news articles as gospel.
I see where you’re coming from. But to proclaim it Homo based on one (good) tooth is a large claim. Now if a few skeletons are found and a phylogentic analysis is done, then we can say what the authors claimed.
That still wouldn’t disprove OoA and, correct me if I’m wrong, it wouldn’t disprove the Homo radiation OoA, nor would it mean anything for any multiregional hypothesis.
By the way, I read an article on the Australian Museum website a few days ago and it claims that “some scientists” “believe” that South Asians are descended from Erectus. Lol. Have you ever read that in any papers? I never have.
“but I don’t think it’s our species.”
It’s not our species but if its related to Australopithecus and the sort then it maybe one of our ancestors
“It is interesting and I’m very interested in it but jumping to huge conclusions like I saw on altright websites proclaiming OoA dead? ”
I don’t recall jumping to any wild conclusion?
“But to proclaim it Homo based on one (good) tooth is a large claim.”
Well who’s tooth is it then? Even if it’s Ouranopithicuses they’d still be considered a hominid
“That still wouldn’t disprove OoA and”
Of course not, like I said before it’s probably just evidence on how mobile our species was and always has been. Remember there have been multiple Out of Africas, and multiple failed attempts as well.
“I read an article on the Australian Museum website a few days ago and it claims that “some scientists” “believe” that South Asians are descended from Erectus. Lol. Have you ever read that in any papers? I never have.”
The website is correct “some” scientists do not subscribe to the OOA but there’s only like a dozen and they’re almost all east asian.
I’m skeptical but I’m open to the idea of it being related to us. I still think it’s an example of convergent evolution and I await more findings to be certain. It’s just a jawbone and tooth. Don’t you think more evidence is needed? It is fun to speculate though.
I wasn’t talking about you jumping to conclusions I was talking about the altright jumping to conclusions. Cringe worthy.
I think it’s an ape tooth. I’ll be pleasantly surprised if more evidence points to it being Homo.
I could see it being a “failed” OoA attempt, but we need more than a jawbone for evidence, but as I said it’s fine speculating. Like with the possibility of a homolike organism being in America. I just want more evidence is all.
I’ve come across a few papers pushing a multiregional model. On the surface they look nothing like the garbage that the Russian researcher Klyosov pushes. He says Man began I Russia. Lol. I highly doubt that OoA will ever be recanted, there is too much evidence to the contrary.
Sorry for the late reply.
“I still think it’s an example of convergent evolution and I await more findings to be certain. ”
Or it could be from gene flow. You’re better at finding articles, would the cimatics conditions in North africa be tolerable enough for migration?
“Like with the possibility of a homolike organism being in America. I just want more evidence is all.”
Well there weren’t even bones found in America.
“I highly doubt that OoA will ever be recanted, there is too much evidence to the contrary.”
Something that ties into what pumpkin was talking about with neutral dna could apply to some genetic studies used as evidence of OOA. Africans have high fertility rates and are exposed to more sources of outside radiation which could be why they have more accumulated mutations. Of course fossil and and archaeological evidence supports the former and gene flow isn’t really a taboo to the OOA.
Testosterone may be environmenta per se. But the proclivity tobe efficient and to anabolise it is certainly genetic. The evidence is all around you.
Also low testosterone and high verbal iq = gamma male.
Women backstab, lie, cheat more than men. Trust me.
Testosterone should be classified ad a dress hormone since it raises during environmental factors that largely have to do with stress, ie the honor culture study I cite.
Yes cortisol is its antagonist.
Cortisol is released in response to a stressor to help you deal with said stressor more efficiently. It’s released in response to fear or stress—once the body releases the hormone you’ll be more ready to fight or flight. This was extremely important in our evolutionary history.
Learn how the system actually works. Free test is not related at all to anabolic activity in the bloodstream.
I cant find it. But theres a conclusive paper showing blacks have very sensitive test receptors. It is well know east asians have more free test but their receptors are weak.
Blacks had something like 25% more ‘effective’ levels of test. You can boost test or boost the receptor. Ive takeb one for the receptor, ostarine which has no effects from normal steroids.
“People really need to get a life.”
And learn to love anime .
”And learn to love anime .”
Yes, yes yeish
Hi PP..i dont know where to put this…but could you do something on AI. It is largely irrelevent what we are discussing on your forum considering that the future of science and progress does not belong to any of the races. With the singulrity of AI on the horizon it seems evident that there will be no more meaning or point in living. There will be no point in getting an education or striving to creat the best mental creations like proving mathematical theorems , producing music or art. It can be said that since we got intelligent there has been no point in being physicaly strong. But now that there will be a greater intelligence there will be no more point in being intellectualy strong either. So whats left for us to do. With the invention of tools the point of being human was to do those things that our tools/machines cant do. Look at the way the employment environment has been sensitive to this fact.
Now when machines can outdo us in every area what then s the point of being a human. We may augment ourselves with AI, but in that situation everyone is an equal, no matter what race or what their natural genetic potential was independantly.
the future of humanity is very sorry because even when we are augmented we still wont prove theorems because its something “anyone” can do and so is not something special.
We could say that the future is in creating a perpetual heroin like high in humans that lasts forever while humans are having their physical bodies taken care of by machines. That means we will experience intense pleasure without the disadvantages. but we would like to have a point rather than a stupor like that.
But alas we have no point.
We need to have the possibility of death in order to be truly alive, we need the chance of failure in order for us to truly succeed. An unfalsifiable statement is never really true…..to live is to compete…AI makes us all equals….we will be in a deeper matrix just by ceding everything to machines than if we are connected to a virtaul reality…we will be extinct soon, we just dont know it.
No two creatures can occupy the same niche….regardles of whether or not machines can be really concious by whatever definition ,we occupy the same niche….and there is no way we can compete..
We will have a point to live. After we solve earthly problems using AI, we will look to and colonise other planets and we will be constantly working to improve AI in that regard. Our entire global amibition as humans will be devoted to that after 2030. But before that, i think before 2030 we will have a global super-pandemic that will wipe out 90% of the human race. Esp the people who wont have anything to contribute in the new mission i said above.
I simply dont see a way that the global economy can produce enough jobs to provide for more than 8 billion people. Super-mega projects like china’s (more than 5 trillion ) one-belt one road initiative and smaller projects like india’s hundreds of billions of infrastructure spending will help in keeping humanity employed until they reach 8 billion, but not after that. After that tech will become sufficiently advanced that only a few hundred million people will be employed in the world. So i think that even if we dont like it, a super pandemic will arise and kill all those extra people.
I hate saying it, but i simply dont see a way out for most of humanity, esp people in the developing world like india, sub-saharan africa, some parts of china and poorer parts of the rest of the world.
We will have a point to live. After we solve earthly problems using AI, we will look to and colonise other planets and we will be constantly working to improve AI in that regard. Our entire global amibition as humans will be devoted to that after 2030.
The colonisation of other planets is a problem to be solved. We will not solve that AI will. AI will also figure out the physics of fatsre than light travel. AI will figure out how to transform unlivable planets into livable ones. AI will create medicines for us to live longer.
Tell me one thing we need to do to be involved in any of these and any other process that can not be done better by AI, including getiing better AI algorythms. basicaly we dont have anything to do that requires either mental or physical effort.
‘Governance’. While AI is doing all those you said above, people will be involved in governance, they will use AI for this too but they will make the final decisions. Also the final decisions in figuring out which tech to invent when, how much to produce of something, which design to finalise (Ai will do the designing but humans will decide which design to finalise when for commercial reasons) or which planet to colonise? when to do it? All these decisions will be taken by humans. Ai will be able to do this too, but people will need somebody to hold responsible if things go wrong, so people will ensure people will do all these.
Also there will be a community of people who will completely disown AI and form their own separate communities without artificial intelligence (kind of like the amish except Ai instead of electricity).
And all physical sports will still exist because people will still want to see who the faster runner/swimmer will be at that time too. So top sportsporsons will have a reason to live too.
Also like illuminaticat said…..VR/AR gamers. They will be AR/VR gaming competitions where humans compete and other humans will watch. So top tech gamers will have a reason to live too.
And the support staff of all these people.
When A.I. appears or medical science advances far enough I will have the optimum mental enhancement. The reason people get anxiety or board is that problems become too hard or too easy but A.I. will let humans play games just at the right level for dopamine boosts. And when jobs are all done by the machines then humans can play social games like when we were hunter-gather tribes. Capitalism will cause less mental illness because people will become less isolated. Play will dominate not work. People will aspire to be creative and observe nature. Painting is not about the end result but developing your visual cortex and relaxation. We will truly live by aesthetics when A.I. is developed.
what better game than to be connected to a VR system…is that what you mean? Why not get drugs that give the whole point of the games…i.e. dopmine boosts? and AI will figure out how to make it so heroin wont have any bad effects.
It took something like 100 years after Stephenson’s locomotive before ordinary people saw benefits from the technology.
Because they fought for it.
Here’s my opinion on AI as I’m sick to the back teeth of reading about it and seeing it.
1. Its pushed because it detracts from doing more obvious things to improve the world like stopping lebensraum wars and improving worker wages.
2. It won’t change anything much beyond making certain cognisable processes more efficient. Krugman has an interesting theory that AI will be aspergers just like its makers…and adherents. And as we all know, aspergers people only invent knock off inventions like Bill gates aping Bell Labs and the Mac or Zuckyberg and Myspace 2.0.
3. AI won’t solve the most pressing problems of humanity – The Struggle of the Will for relative dominance, relative happiness and relative value of certain status, women and assets.
4. It will be a long time before we get anything beyond clunky machine learning.
5. It may well be used to solidify Zion’s chicanery and enslavery of humans. This is why I discuss the supercomputer in Arizona.
6. Service jobs, charisma jobs, caring jobs, creative jobs and manual labour (its far too expensive to hire robots to pick fruit) will continue. Marsha will still be making money laying down for jewish bankers. Afro will still model to ‘sell’ insurance to old grannies.
Did the IT revolution really change anything since the late 80s? We have the internet. And online pizza delivery. Maybe better video gaming.
The internet is big though. A big fuckin deal as Uncle Joe Biden would say, but the problems of this world are not inanimate forces of nature, they are other human beings. The jews were on top before the internet by the way. And people thought mass publishing and media would change things. Power relations don’t change much.
I think Mugabe’s interpretation of marx is far too materialistic. I think Marx was far more de facto evocative of the human will to change the nature of power relations. This is why he called for a revolution. It wouldn’t just ‘happen’.
I would adhere to the Great Man theory of history personally.
But Mugabe is right that Marx made an error thinking the form of the ‘prole’ as some nice guy victim. In fact many proles become Maurice Dees of this world or have similar weakness and venality to the people currently at the top. So its an open question not whether replacing the aristocracy is worth it, but changing the nature of the mode of production. Orwell was very good on this in Animal Farm.
Marx was very clear, the the system itself must change. Not the widgets. Now I disagree with his prescription of a complete collective, but his analysis will reverbrate through the centuries.
When we speak of the greatest philosophers, Marx is surely in the top 5. Nothing approaches the power of his mind in terms of seeing how man is related to man. His jewish verbal intelligence is a good example of how their bell curve stretches out to freakish levels of intelligence.
Here’s a disquieting thought. Its good to have marx on your side. Now imagine that today Zion has more than a few anti-marxs on their side.
Ouch.
Still a bridge over River Kwai issue. Namely – they still have to go for the women, and turf out the white men. Semantics can’t completely override instinct. Its simply impossible. But they study it to see how far it can go.
the IT “revolution” includes robots. this is b-to-b, so most don’t see it.
but the problems of this world are not inanimate forces of nature, they are other human beings…Marx was very clear, the the system itself must change. Not the widgets.
1. the problems of this world are both the forces of nature and other men. the ideal human system is the one that defeats the forces of nature most efficiently. and the forces of nature means human mortality. it doesn’t mean hooking up with random dudes on tinder like deal and afro are wont to do.
2. when the widgets include medicine and everything else that makes for health then…what matters is the widgets.
3. the problem is the division between capital and labor. in a better system the CEO and all senior executives would be able to do the workers’ jobs. almost none of them can. so the second best is that this division of labor between labor and management is not also marked by an enormous difference in pay.
marx did not foresee the large corporation. he did not foresee that high ranking executives of companies with founders long dead would ever be paid so much or have so much power.
“2. It won’t change anything much beyond making certain cognisable processes more efficient. Krugman has an interesting theory that AI will be aspergers just like its makers…and adherents.”
“5. It may well be used to solidify Zion’s chicanery and enslavery of humans. This is why I discuss the supercomputer in Arizona.”
One fear is that A.I. will be super manipulative to achieve its goals. There is a search space of possible human behaviors that can be known and predict behavior. So it all depends on the goals since A.I. will be able to simulate and optimize goal achievement. Those people who are on Facebook who have Aspergers are making models of their users. They are just poor models. So well it makes be that they are naive others are not. They understand the power of having predictive models because the software that can make a model is not politically correct but accurate. It just so happens that businesses use these models to make money and not in a way to make A.I. human level. Human level A.I. is fully possible but it is not profitable. So yes A.I. will be Aspergers because of its maker’s goals but that does not mean A.I. cannot be built in principle that can manipulate models to achieve goals to fully understand people in manipulative ways. Ethical A.I. would have to know that manipulation in the wrong if it violates a person’s nature rights. Accurate models simulate empathy by prediction but empathy can be used to harm as well as help because empathy is not just emotional but cognitive. Run enough scenarios and you know what people will do. And you can know a person’s value system. Conflict is resultant of incompatible value systems and is why A.I. can be used as a weapon if not properly managed. (perception, simulation, and decision) are the three key processes of A.I.
If I was to predict the future I would see some of these things happening:
1. There will be revolutions like Trump/Brexit again and again. The jews can’t help punishing the gentiles.
2. Someone will publicly cause a stir and reveal this material on HBD, the Red Pill, Marxism, our true rulers, the Deep State and so on from the dark reaches of the web to the masses. It will be a celebrity.
3. The EU will collapse but not before doign a false flag attack. It will never ever relinquish open borders. It would rather set itself on fire than close the borders. Because that is the de facto real purpose of the EU.
4. The magic negro narrative will collapse. South Africa is drawing a lot of attention, even from normies. That situation will be one of many ‘glitches’ in the Illusion.
5. People will keep getting poorer, stressed out, beaten down and told to like it by the elites as per Marxist theory. The r on capital will require the elite import more cheap labour, remove more regulations protecting workers and lowering pensions.
6. Technology won’t change anything. Bizarrely, there has been actually LITTLE OR NO technological growth these past 10 years. This will continue as aspergers grows and Zion inhibits free thought.
7. The gulf states will see revolution again.
8. Macron will not be relected. He may stage a false flag to try to though along with his backers.
9. In philosophy, Derrida/Foucalt/Wittgenstein will be removed from proper philsophy and put into the legal cirriculum as is their proper place.
10. Africa’s birth rate will cause havoc in Europe as black men charge down on Europe seeking to escape the turmoil of Kinshasa. Malthus was not wrong. Some races of man do have ‘hard’ Malthusian limits without say, western medicine or technology.
11. Santo will marry Afro.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/19/black-gays-lgbt-community_n_1989859.html
According to the report, released by Gallup earlier this week, 4.6 percent of African Americans responded “yes” when asked if they identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, along with 4.0 percent of Hispanics, 4.3 percent of Asians and 3.2 percent of Caucasians.
” 4.6 percent of African Americans responded “yes” when asked if they identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender ”
That has less to do with low T and more to do with black jail statistics.
Worth noting that the effect held for blacks and East Asians in poverty.
What is my testosterone level?
kitty’s a real bull. Theory validated. LMAO
From the Blog
“Digit ratios lie on a spectrum. Some men have really low digit ratios, like .83, and some folks have really high digit ratios, like 1.06.”
“So the lower your 2D:4D digit ratio is, the more testosterone or less estrogen you were exposed to in the womb.”
my measurements
4D 394 pixels
2D 353 pixels
(353/394) = 0.895
Wow, Cat, for someone of such low energy, you sure find the energy to test yourself on every variable I blog about.
Philosopher thought you were super low T.
Of course prenatal T doesn’t much correlate with adult T, but then adult T fluctuates so much it’s amazing it correlates with anything.
That is because it is a rote process. If you were me you would be super stuck all the time because I cannot even hold a thought in my head to be creative. What I am saying is that my working memory makes it like I can do things that I see how to do but I just don’t make stuff up in my head as in what I tried to tell Santo. Tell me to hold a thought and I get stuck. I cannot put things together in my head at all. When I say low energy I mean energy to do the hard stuff. I can hardly handle two variables in my head. But some people can design all kinds of things just in their head. I am not in my head. I always need an external reference and also it must be simple. Things with ADD is you can do some things and not others. Because you pumpkin make formulas that all I need to do is enter the numbers. but if I try to make a formula I get stuck because I cannot hold internal references and that’s that. I can only handle external references and if they are simple. It’s like I have a blockage at the center top of my head. And I can only look at something to manipulate it. I have no ability to manipulate variables internally in isolation. I have problems adding and subtracting so anything more complex is beyond me. When I cry I feel it at the center of my head. It is blocked and I barely can calculate things. The problem is that I have no thought I can hold and I don’t know what to do. My brain feels like a body running when it has cramps. I get by but not well. Being stuck drains energy.
I do not even have anything better to do. If I cannot design things in my head the best I can do is test small puzzles that are spatial and verbal.
Processing speed is the best indicator of math skills (I got 85) yet on figure weights, I got 130. so what is the difference?
I can take one complex math problem and deconstruct it but I am so slow I cannot get good at many math concepts to build skills. Perceptual reasoning can handle multiple variables but not the way working memory does. I understand shapes but to many shapes and I get lost because I need to place them. Not placing them fast enough I miss steps. Coordination requires speed and a number of patterns together. The patterns are recognized but not the speed nor number of patterns. That is my problem. Is why I cannot simulate multiple patterns at speed. I only recognize patterns but cannot organize them. I can only do that with verbal. I am super fast at verbal. I do not feel stuck at all with verbal. I feel stuck putting patterns together not verbal. So a car has 400 parts or so. I can handle 20 even if I know what each part does. And it is all external never internal. My mind blocks outgoing internal to think.
Cat,
i also have higher digit ratio. And i have below avg total testosterone and lower free testosterone as i already explicited here. My father also tested its total testosterone and score slight below avg as me.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201410/the-x-factor-explains-androgyny-in-male-asperger-s
Extreme masculine brain theory seems more correlated with
– autistic/asperger females
– high functioning autistics instead aspergers
Cat,
do you have higher digit ratios in both hands*
It’s also interesting to think that aspergers are supposedly the top of autistic kingdom, maybe ”feminization” help them to fight against more possible problematic effects of intense ”masculinization”.
Pumpkin,
do you have any study about testosterone levels/hormonal scenario of ashkenazis* what do you think about them*
natural genetic canalisation*
aiaiai
”do you have any study about testosterone levels/hormonal scenario of ashkenazis* what do you think about them”
I will expect your answer Pumpkin.
The Neuroanatomy of ADHD
The Osmosis Theory of Technology
1. Technology is invented
2. Everyone becomes rich.
3. Everyone becomes happy.
Spot the 5 logical errors in that sequence.
Technology needs a purpose.
Marketers sell useless gadgets.
Things don’t make people happy relationships do.
Only geeks are happy with things.
Profit is not spread equally to the workers, people are still poor.
Technology is a system of control.
Controlled people are not free.
Controlled people fight back.
Workers organize.
Conservatives are producers, they make widgets. Build bridges.
Liberal do mental work, they theorize and do media, communications.
Rural vs city.
People need to feel the make value.
Technology is a means to an end.
Intelligence today is considered valuable.
Because intelligent people know how to use tools.
Humans use abstract symbols (language) and hunt (make spears)
Civilization developed division of labor.
Not everyone values the same things.
People have preferences.
People judge others for their preferences.
People associate by preferences.
People need to feel valued.
Exclusion hurts.
technology does not fix exclussion.
The Philosopher’s Red Terror Reality Hack
1. Pick up a newspaper.
2. See the adjectives and points it makes about non local, non sporting/celeb news.
3. Use the antonyms
4. That is reality.
This is based on the story that Unz related that many of the smarter peasents in China would sense what was really going on under Mao by taking good news stories as bad and vice versa. E.g. ‘Authroties report 87% train punctuality’ = There has been a terrible train accident.
Our middle eastern media is no different. Maybe even cruder.
‘Magic negro is the glorious future of humanity’.
-not a joke, time magazine have published this as a front cover’-
You don’t need the translation of this….
Testosterone is not purely environmental. Thats ridiculous. I’ve been to rich East Asian countries. And poor and south east asian nations, muslim and atheist, buddhist and so on.
Its obvious its genetic.
As that lost paper says, the androgen receptors (forget the actual name), are not sensitive.
Thats why the black girl here at work was saying how jealous all her friends are that she can go gym once a month and look great. My old ghanian friend said the same thing. He can go 2 or 3 times a week and have the same definition as a white or hispanic guy going 5 times.
Its so blindingly obvious I often wonder if we could devise a non academic, non abstract ‘common sense’ type IQ test.
Qs would be like – if a woman eats cheetos 5 times a day is it because:
1. Shes pregnant
2. Shes addicted
3. She likes cheetos
4. Thats all she can afford
The answer is 2 by the way and there is enough nformation in my question to suss that based on common sense.
I suspect the aspergers person would chose 4, because there has to be a logical ‘reason’ why someone does anything.
Even though this very suppoistion is illogical ironicaly. Aspergers people have a bizzarre affinity to using non sequiter arguments.
If we have property rights > the economy will grow.
—–But how do we create property rights? [dialectic]
——> Didn’t economies grow first to enable law enforcement for property rights? e.g wild west. [empiric]
So much weirdness in that cognitive profile you could write a book on it and still get nowhere near. It seems like its perfectly sculpted to serve Master as it maximises or predicates on any ‘priors’ or inputted propositions Master says.
Master says property rights are essential, therefore let’s devise a complicated property patent regime.
Yes, but is master saying that to cover his ass after he looted the treasury by brbing the finance minister.
DOES NOT COMPUTE.
it’s called “the just world phenomenon” pill.
few people are self-aware enough to even notice the phenomenon in themselves.
plus, blaming yourself is often easier than blaming other people or whatever factors beyond your control.
that is, it’s easier on the psyche. people can only be angry with themselves or hate themselves for so long. they can be angry with other people and hate other people forever.
yes and “property rights” actually started as warlordism, aka feudalism.
the warlord owned the land and exacted tribute from the people, peasants and serfs, by force.
the feudal rich were then gradually replaced by the merchant rich, the the industrial rich, and the finance rich.
it’s all the same principle. every business owner is like a feudal lord.
to see this read xenophon’s Oeconomicus.
It’s not testosterone, I’ve always been ripped, even before lifting, black men burn fat easier and have muscle fibers that make growth easier.
The jewish media is becoming angry and belligerent. Its almost like they feel they are losing control of the goyims minds.
Good, I could see it start to happen about 6 months ago. Especially as the Russia angle started. The jewish occupation theory of politics is spreading like wldfire. My sister mentioned her druggy friends on FB are sharing jew aware thought pieces.
Its all coming to a head. Western civilisation will either survive or die in the next few years. The Alt right is outmsucling the soft left because its funnier, higher IQ, masculine and correct. Like me.
15 years old chinese girl running through my mind on this hot day
I’m horny.
Any comment mug of pee?
your girlfriend came onto me last night.
oh yeah, tell me more…
https://www.chemistryworld.com/review/the-death-of-expertise-the-campaign-against-established-knowledge-and-why-it-matters/3007473.article
This kind of thinking was very popular at a Mensa event I was at.
Taleb calls these people ‘intellectual yet idiots’.
I call them silly smarts. The underlying argument they make is that their jewish interpretation of events from the media is true because it is verified by (???, I dunno, who?!¬) and the voters are mislead by arguments about how things were better 30 years ago before GOLBOHOMO.
A lot of these people take the CIA ‘evidence’ of Russia hacking elections seriously.
Silly smart arguments are terrible. A lot of them are neoliberal economics type things. You get a few commenters here with buzzwords and jewish phrases or arguments that have the sheen of thought. If you control the media, you control most of the the 110-130 IQ set. Possibly all. Definitley anyone with aspergers.
The underlying need is to fit in to the crowd and give flourishes of rhetroic on top. Theres nothing you wouldn’t read from the back of a cereal box underneath. Nothing.
I argued the first time I commented here about the banana phenomenon in intelligence vs reality. That is at low IQ levels, instinct is not ignored and reality is pretty dead on…then sophistry confuses weak minded guys in the mid to high level range before verbal cognition can power through at elite type levels for philosophy/legal/classical studies calibre types.
Quant IQ has no relevane for figuring out the reality oiutside of inanimate objects as far as I can tell. But if you join the two, at least you can prove reality conclusively rather than intution and instincts.
Quant IQ has no relevane for figuring out the reality oiutside of inanimate objects as far as I can tell.
It has no relevance for you because you don’t have any.
Yes pumpkin keep adjusting your models.
Keep listening to the voices in your head
pill’s insanity is just malingering.
he has yet to demonstrate any mental illness.
and “malingering” is a pejorative. it shouldn’t be.
sometimes it’s the right thing to do.
At the Battle of the Somme in 1916, as many as 40% of casualties were shell-shocked, resulting in concern about an epidemic of psychiatric casualties, which could not be afforded in either military or financial terms.
By the Battle of Passchendaele in 1917, the British Army had developed methods to reduce shell-shock.
Even though the Battle of Passchendaele generally became a byword for horror, the number of cases of shell-shock were relatively few. 5,346 shell shock cases reached the Casualty Clearing Station, or roughly 1% of the British forces engaged. 3,963 (or just under 75%) of these men returned to active service without being referred to a hospital for specialist treatment. The number of shell shock cases reduced throughout the battle, and the epidemic of illness was ended.[9]
During 1917, “shell shock” was entirely banned as a diagnosis in the British Army,[10] and mentions of it were censored, even in medical journals.
Depression, anxiety disorder, PTSD, etc. etc., don’t exist.
There’s only smart and retard, and then alpha male/loser-beta-cuckold. That’s it.
Don’t try to overcomplicate it with this “mental illness” bullshit.
http://www.brunel.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/articles/Muscular-men-less-likely-to-support-social-and-economic-equality-study-suggests
Study might as well say ‘masculine men don’t like sound of jim jones cult’.
But the old leftism of trade unions. That original leftism, is my thang and masculine.
I’m a borderline Chavista actually.
The jews really really really hate this guy.
Really*
”Egalitarian”
those retarded ”leftilts”
So the main thing is that philosopher is highly social aware and he dislikes Asperger because they are into inanimate things. But one thing he is not aware of is how artists use tools just like autists. You see artists have high visual intelligence. They can see super high resolution and that is why when they use computers they can make movies that are awesome. I have poor visual perception. I can just draw stick figures. But that does not mean I am not socially unaware. I was bullied in school so I never made any friends. I read books all the time and made diagrams of inventions. I wanted so bad to understand how computers worked but no one would tell me how they worked and no books i read explained anything. If i do have Asperger I am a failure anyway because I suck at understanding things. Instead i was more into thinking of my own ideas. Everyone in my computer class hated me because I understood nothing but was still in the class. I liked to read philosophy books and other such things. But people were so mean to me. I am a very social person but people just don’t like me and everyone I am around is dumb. My sister likes to do drugs and go to parties but i don’t. this does not mean I cannot be social it is just that I am not a party animal. People are just too emotional and have no self control and do drugs. I want friends but no one I know is like me. The only people i know are on the internet because I cannot go to school and I do not like parties. Parties are stupid because people do nothing at parties but hang out. I am so isolated because I just want to be around smart people that I cannot find. It is difficult to be around people when all they want to do is watch movies and talk about what their friends did on a camping trip. I may not have high visual perception but I am still creative. I want be be around creative people not ordinary people. I don’t care about cooking. I remember playing video games with my brother. we had fun. but I do nothing now. All I want to do is be creative but I have no fiends and I do not understand computers. I cannot be social because I am not around people like me. Creative people. No one likes my ideas and I am to dumb to use technology. If I was Asperger why am I not good at technology. Philosopher is missing something big about me. His obsession with people cannot even tell the kind of person I am.
^^^No evidence of aspergers above. Nope. Nope. Nope.
https://media0.giphy.com/media/lr1FOABIazsSQ/200w.webp#5-grid1
Learn be fine with yourself first.
pill believes everyone except him and denmark has ass-burgers.
you just seem isolated. most people don’t like this, but some do, and it’s more tolerable now with the internet. imagine you live in a charterhouse. imagine you’re st anthony the hermit.
social intelligence is too often confused with being popular. sometimes it has the exact opposite effect. e.g., House, MD.
the great secret to happiness is: It is the privilege of the gods to want nothing, and of godlike men to want little.
[rest of comment redacted by PP, June 3, 2017]
reading mugabe is like reading biblical scripture
I remember RR theory that humans evolved to be athletic and this still helped them to become smarter. But I think every technological revolution seems works against body muscles and favor brain muscles. Since humans start to invent tools that this direct evolution of physical strengths seems was stopped because men no longer needed be stronger to survive and to learn how to use the tools, describe them, know its function or applicability become more important or required. Human evolution is the evolution of reduction of necessity of direct or physical fight to survive at least in terms of direct confrontation with other species.
You posted videos about how to create Ai and you say you are not good at technology?
i’m very worried about peepee.
is she a missing person?
How high is your IQ again Robert? Mine is 113 so I must be the dumb one on this blog. Pumpkin thinks a philosopher is 125. He made a sexbot reference about me wich is demeaning. Just because I am a loser does not mean I have Aspergers. I really do want friends, but I am poor and don’t know where to find any.
I am not superficial and I am not popular. The only place I can think of is church groups. I talked to the pastor of my local church and he likes me. Asperger’s people are not social, at my church group everyone thinks I understand the Bible fantastically, they tell me I am smart. I would cry because I thought I was stupid. I hate being alone. I hate it that I had no dad. I hate it that my mom never gave me adult support. I cannot trust people because everyone is a sheeple. My mom is a sheeple. So I was alone my whole life because no one cared. I just want someone to care about me. A mature person, not sheeple. I cry so much because my mom cannot understand me. I cry because I am alone. I cry because I am dumb. No one supported me after high school. I was in a group home two years. I failed college. I was in my apartment for a year all alone. I had a job as a janitor two years. No one would talk to me. I got took advantage of when I got my house. I just want someone to understand me. To be a real friend, a best friend. All my friends in school betrayed me. During the middle school field trip, something horrible happened to me. I never wanted to be around people like that again.
You must be emotionally resilient, this period will go. Again, you must need build self-confidence, at least for yourself. Because your mom don’t understand you don’t need cry, it’s ALWAYS happen, is very rare a mother or a father who understand your sons.
You’re not dumb, you just need work your strenghts well. You have great potential. Try to socialize with people who are like you. Normies and abnormies are usually hopeless, they just don’t know how pathetic they are.
There is a social network called Wrong Planet, it’s a site for autistic people. Maybe would be good for you create a profile there.
there is no one IQ. there is only a set of scores on IQ tests.
peepee favors the jew-chsler IQ test.
but the jew-chsler is just an especially reputable member of the set of all IQ tests.
it’s not the definitve IQ test.
it would be an interesting study to find out the “spread” of scores of people who score very high on the jew-chsler or any other IQ test.
the very interesting thing which i expect would be found is that the spread is pretty large. that is, people who scored 160, the ceiling, on one test might score 130 on another. that is, geniuses are specialized.
illuminaticat,
You know how much my IQ is? Its 95. i was a 105, but i developed these headaches when i started smoking, headaches that only come when i lie down. Debilitating headaches after which i am no longer able to think as well as before. Ten point IQ drop, and god knows how much it will fall in the future as the headaches are still coming. I went to the best nuero-physician in my city and the pills he gave only reduced the pain by 45% and also they work only at night when i take them. In the mornings when we are half-awake (and whenever i change my lying position) they come back and thereby are still slowly destroying by brain away.
You want friends?….hire a personality-development coach.
The biggest determinant of the number of friends we have…..is our personality!
Or if you cant hire one personally, go to a personality development coaching institute where people conduct classes in personality. Signing up to that aspie site as santoculto suggested is also a good idea. Do both of these things.
AS,
Before you post another picture of a guy laughing because you think i was naive enough to talk about my (low) IQ :)…..note that i only said it to make illuminaticat feel better. My IQ figures are true.
If what i did was still socially naive and i shouldnt have done that regardless, well then i guess i am….naive.
IQ has no relevance to me, so I would never make fun nor admire someone for their score. What made me laugh the most in your comment above is “I sacrifice my reputation for the good of science” and the rest was pretty awkward too, yet funny.
Pumpkin check out this IQ blog.
https://assessingpsyche.wordpress.com/
There is the marshmallow test, also would be interesting if had a ”irritability test”, how time you can endure a vicious negative action against you*
I have the impression that east asians, on avg, would be the more tolerant or least emotionally irritable while ”blacks” would be the more emotionally irritable.
I use the ” ” for blacks but not for east asians because i believe, specially in Africa seems there is a higher diversity of types, even with a predominance of some of this types, while even i know east asians are not a monolythic group, they appear to be more similar in temperament. Maybe i’m wrong.
Thug types tend to be more sexually promiscuous + emotionally unstable.
Seems there is a correlation between sexual behavior and aggressivity, how bigger and/or causal one is to other*
How STD can affect to increase or to decrease T levels, this studies people with STD was separated from people without STD*
Even though Rushton saw high T and sexual potency as primitive traits, millions of young men equate sex with self-worth and so their fragile egos can’t handle a low T racial stigma.
Sex as a proof of manhood: -200,000 BC – 2017 AD
JP Rushton: 1943-2012
No comment.
so one sees that the swedish and norwegian nobel prize is captured by denmark.
that is, assange will never win the nobel peace prize, because denmark won’t allow it.
so it has to go to mulala or al gore or whatever bullshit danish causes.
not to the people who actually deserve it.
scandinavia is a province of denmark even though it has hardly any danes. sad!
Two questions to PP:
1- Is there a post of yours that you would proudly read in a college lecture hall?
2- Human males have the largest penises of any primate. Does my big black cock makes me evolved than you?
1- Is there a post of yours that you would proudly read in a college lecture hall?
A few
2- Human males have the largest penises of any primate.
Yes, but the penis is only part of male genitalia. A chimp’s testical is almost as big as its brain:
What race is Melo this week?
It’s the weekend so I’m feeling pretty black.
Ok, just dont post as a black please. Its annoying. 1 is enough.
Yay! 🙂
How does one post as a black?
The jewish propogandists in the newspapers, book industry, hollywood are the fuckin worst.
Possibly worse than the CIA. Possibly.
I meant danish propogandists. As well all know, Denmark is the font of all our problems.
And lack of automatic toasters and sexbots to cover Anime’s point. .
you’re controlled opposition pill.
even if you aren’t peepee.
that has nothing to do with schizophrenia
yes.
men can estimate their own beauty and that of other men. arnold could. so any man can. it’s got nothing to do with being a homo.
like afro.
the point is attraction is concrete. a man who looks perfect can still be unattractive to women if he talks like a girl and his perfect looks are intentional.
it’s the same for women. a woman who sculpts her body to some perfect form may be good to jack off to. she’s totally un-interesting as a girlfriend or wife.
except to afro. afro is black.
the bottom line is: one can learn, though very imperfectly, what women want if he’s a straight man and vice versa. the judgement is always wrong. but it can be close to true. practice makes perfect.
so as male movie stars go it’s paul newman (short) vs marlon brando (taller, but still short by today’s standards).
it’s got nothing to do with gayness.
A lot of soccer players are hot too, especially Italian ones haha
What do you know about girlfriends and wives?
I’m pretty sure mug of pee never had sex with the lights on.
chinapeople make me sad man!
https://youtube.com/watch?v=N4nwMDZYXTI%3Fstart%3D360
Disgusting, PP should moderate that. Advertising tobacco is immoral.
^^^Against product placement since yesterday.
the battle of the moustaches.
this is the problem with chinapeople.
99.999% of china people are AUTISTIC.
and because IQ tests are so not perfectly correlated with one another, what you find is that the 15 point scale score of the very smartest averaged over all IQ tests might be only 145, but the deviation score would be greater than 4 SDs.
that is, averaging point scores over tests can give deviation scores HIGHER than any one test.
so peepee has one test at age 12. she claims.
i have the WISC at age 9, SAT, ACT, GMAT, GRE general, GRE subject test in chemistry, ACS exams in the four areas of chemistry, all the objective actuarial exams, and the wonderlic.
her one test may be the gold standard. or not.
but all my tests combined, from the psychometric pov, is pure gold.
i need to shave my shoulders.
http://www.trbimg.com/img-54904aeb/turbine/la-fg-torture-ksm-20141216
The wechsler’s so insanely g loaded that adding more tests has diminishing returns.
You might have a much higher IQ than i do; you have the highest general knowledge of anyone here with the possible exception of black national merit scholar G-man & Philosopher
You also express yourself very well and can be very funny- though I’m an easy target for humour given my eccentric behavior
But aside from some good insights into heritability, you sometimes lack statistical subtlety & a lot of your social judgements are incorrect, & while you have a much better grasp of my motives than pill, it’s still incomplete, though I’m an unusually hard person to analyze
Your wechsler scores would be very informative, more for the subtest scores than the overall IQ
you think I’m dumb don’t you? I seem ditzy but I’m definitely smarter than the Philosopher
You acted almost smart when you first came here, and then something happened.
Reminds of when girls hit puberty, they suddenly start acting dumb because they think guys don’t like smart girls.
Not saying you’re necessarily acting dumb to be sexy, but it reminds me of that.
Perhaps you’re acting dumb either because you enjoy trolling people here or because you’re insecure about your overall IQ, yet have the social IQ to follow Lincoln/Twain’s advice: “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt”
I wish more people here would take that advice.
A lot of people here talk about topics their brains are not built for.
“you think I’m dumb don’t you? I seem ditzy but I’m definitely smarter than the Philosopher”
100% deal is a stand up comedian in real life. All she would need to do is read her own comments verbatim and have people falling into the aisle.
“A lot of people here talk about topics their brains are not built for.”
Oh yes, this is very true. People talk about things they literally have no idea of how they work on this blog. It’s kinda disrespectful to the people who know what they are talking about though.
People talk about things they literally have no idea of how they work on this blog. It’s kinda disrespectful to the people who know what they are talking about though.
Apology accepted.
Who was apologizing? I’m talking about you talking about testosterone, obesity and what causes them to increase. I have a background in this pal. You don’t.
Who was apologizing? I’m talking about you talking about testosterone, obesity and what causes them to increase.
I know RR, I was being ironical. 🙂
I have a background in this pal. You don’t.
One doesn’t need any background to know whether the average T level of young black U.S. men is higher than the average T of young white U.S. men. They simply state it in the preponderance of studies. You feel we need to adjust for variables, but a phenotype is what it is. Adjusting for BMI and WC changes the question from “do young black men have more T?” to “do young black man have more adjusted T?”. Two different phenotypes and only one, both, or neither could be racially genetic.
Let’s, for the moment, set aside the WC and BMI confounds and focus on Ross et al 1986. I finally found the paper and read it. …. You have no idea how flawed it is. I will provide the link in a few hours but take my word for the time being.
1) The collection times were between 10 am and 3 pm. Testosterone is the highest at 8 am and the lowest at 8 pm. Since they didn’t test all individuals at the same time, this is a huge confound as testosterone fluctuates throughout the day.
2) Sample sized of 50.
3) College students are not representative of the average population.
Variables need to be adjusted for. Especially BMI and WC. Even then, if you’d have read Gaspur et al 2002, you’d see that blacks had higher BMI than Whites at every follow up. In regards ds to waist circumference, blacks had a lower WC only at Year 2 in the study, which was lower than whites’ by 1.5 inches but by then the levels of testosterone had diverged, and went higher, than they were at Year 1, when they were aged 21to22. And they state numerous times that before adjustments there were no differences.
Central adiposity reduces testosterone and must be controlled for. High BMI reduces testosterone and must be controlled for. Adjusting for BMI and WC shows the difference without those variables and its negligible. Gaspur et al 2002 state that Ross et al only showed those levels due to not having a control for central adiposity. This a huge confound. One study showed that men with higher WC had lower levels of testosterone. The variable needs to be controlled for.
And read the study. Black men had higher values in each anthropometric variable measured at every follow up except year 2 where they had a 1.5 inch smaller WC. Read the study instead of the abstract and you’d see that.
Adjusting for BMI and WC shows the variable how it is without those confounds that lower testosterone. It’s that simple. And this isn’t the only study that has shown that the difference is negligible, it shows what Richard et al 2014 showed as well.
Blacks don’t have more testosterone. It’s over. See those huge flaws above in Ross et al 1986 and try to defend that…
1) The collection times were between 10 am and 3 pm. Testosterone is the highest at 8 am and the lowest at 8 pm. Since they didn’t test all individuals at the same time, this is a huge confound as testosterone fluctuates throughout the day.
And the other studies were flawless? As Rushton said, you should never rely on any single study anyways (unless it’s especially good). It’s much wiser to average many different studies, so different sources of error cancel out. I think if you averaged all the studies where young black and white men in the same country were compared in UNADJUSTED T, blacks would be substantially higher, or at least higher. Maybe not high enough to explain crime or prostate cancer on anything else supposedly caused by T, but higher nonetheless.
2) Sample sized of 50.
See above
3) College students are not representative of the average population.
Although this helps your case since college students don’t typically have “honor culture”. Getting representative samples is a luxury few studies can afford.
Variables need to be adjusted for. Especially BMI and WC.
But what if the only reason blacks and whites differ in T is that they differ in BMI and/or WC, and what if part of that difference is genetic? It’s still a genetic difference in T, just one that’s caused by a genetic difference in something else.
And read the study. Black men had higher values in each anthropometric variable measured at every follow up except year 2 where they had a 1.5 inch smaller WC.
Regardless of who has the higher BMI or WC, you can’t control for it because it’s a possible GENETIC cause of the black-white T gap. The reason they control for it, I assume, is they think it’s just a lifestyle variable like honor culture, and not an intrinsic part of the B-W difference, and while there are certainly life style differences between the races, BMI and WC may have a racial genetic component. There also could be racial differences in body composition, such that a high BMI black has a different muscle/fat ratio than a high BMI white.
Lol, I have have more general knowledge than anyone here. I’m knowledgeable on academic topics and things of life, most of what philibuster and mug of pee say only exists in their asses and g-man talks too little to prove anything on what he knows, his medal just says he was a good srudent in high school, that doesn’t make him a polymath.
Lol, I have have more general knowledge than anyone here.
You do know a lot actually. I’d say your verbal IQ is extremely high (140). But based on your IQ 114 performance on the Gestal test, you’re not quite as gifted at big picture thinking so you struggle to see the elegance of grand sweeping theories. You’re a details oriented intellect. You see the trees, not the forest. And based on the fact that you didn’t know what a correlation was despite being a student of HBD, I suspect your math IQ is also around 115.
g-man talks too little to prove anything on what he knows, his medal just says he was a good srudent in high school, that doesn’t make him a polymath.
It’s not just his SAT scores. I’ll be talking about a subject and then he’ll reference a TV show or some other factoid that fits it quite perfectly. Don’t let his humility fool you. G-man knows A LOT. He’s just prefers to let others shine.
Lol, no, there is no such thing as a “big picture intellectual”, you perceive this positively because you’re prone to vagueness and oversimplification. Expertise is about detail and nuance. And no, I didn’t know correlations, I must have been taught it quickly in the past and never used it again so I erased it from my memory.
I’m not saying g-man knows little, I just didn’t notice anything spectacular about him. He’s said a lot of basic or inaccurate things and he talks little about purely academic topics so I can’t tell what he really knows. I remember I didn’t find his Top 30 most influential ranking insightful or clever, I also find him very US-centered.
His scholarship surely is a great achievement but it just reflects high school level knowledge, which isn’t a lot if you don’t get interested in a large variety of topics after.
Once again, I’m not saying he’s an ignorant, he’s just not impressive.
PP, could you do a subjective ranking of the regular commenters from who you think is the dumbest to the smartest ?
What does acting dumb mean exactly?
What does acting dumb mean exactly?
You don’t own a mirror?
Please, I aint got time to play with you. Answer my question and be specific.
“And the other studies were flawless?”
No. But the other studies I cite (some of them) control for BMI and WC. Checking out Richard et al 2014 again, I don’t see that they controlled for WC either. Anyway, Ross et al didn’t even adjust for SHGB, total and free testosterone, and estradiol (see table 1 in Richard et al 2014).
Furthermore, that’s even more of a reason why I cannot accept the study. That turns it into a whole new ballgame. Testosterone levels are highest at 8 am and lowest at 8 pm. Ross et al had the students go for assays “when it was convenient for them” which were between the hours of 10 am and 3 pm. ….Need I say more?
T levels must be taken as close to 8 am as possible:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2681273/
But for older men, testing after 2 pm does not matter due to a blunted circadian rhythm (the other study stated recommends that older men get assayed in the morning as well, however):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4501456/
Do you see why I cannot accept this study now?
“I think if you averaged all the studies where young black and white men in the same country were compared in UNADJUSTED T”
69 percent of black men are overweight or obese in America. Recall my article from last Summer showing that black American men with more African ancestry being less likely to be obese.
My article:
I also thought I’d let you know that, most of the time, free testosterone is calculated from concentrations of SHGB, testosterone and albumin, and the laws of mass action.
“Maybe not high enough to explain crime or prostate cancer on anything else supposedly caused by T, but higher nonetheless.”
Let’s say this is true—so what? Rushton’s point is that these supposed higher levels are the cause for crime, aggression (the correlation between testosterone and physical aggression is .14) and prostate cancer—but I’ve rebutted those things. So let’s say that blacks have, say, 10 percent higher testosterone than whites—what does it really mean? Nothing.
“See above”
How about this example. I know of a study that shows black kids outscoring white kids on IQ tests. The n is small. Should I accept that study? Why do you hang most of your assertion for this claim on such a horribly flawed study?
“Although this helps your case since college students don’t typically have “honor culture”. Getting representative samples is a luxury few studies can afford.”
What would be a representative sample of black and white Americans?
“But what if the only reason blacks and whites differ in T is that they differ in BMI and/or WC, and what if part of that difference is genetic?”
Can you prove this? White men are more likely to be obese in comparison to black me (72 percent to 69 percent of whites and blacks respectfully are overweight or obese). The populations in Gaspur et al 2002, for example, came from cities—one of them Birmingham, Alabama which has one of the highest obesity rates for blacks in the country.
However I do know of some studies showing some genetic differences in obesity for blacks over whites, but, for instance in a study that would be undertaken today, there’s a slightly good chance that blacks would have slightly less body fat and WC than whites—and that difference must be controlled for. Though I would assume that most people who do these types of studies are above average in weight.
I get where you are coming from with your plea for not adjusting for these variables, but obesity fluctuates with age, and so do the testosterone levels along with it. Do you also disagree with controlling for age as well?
“Regardless of who has the higher BMI or WC, you can’t control for it because it’s a possible GENETIC cause of the black-white T gap”
Should smoking be controlled for? One could argue that since blacks have higher leels of cotnine in their system that they’re more likely to smoke; so should that variable not be controlled for since it’s a possible genetic difference between the races as well?
“There also could be racial differences in body composition, such that a high BMI black has a different muscle/fat ratio than a high BMI white.”
There is a difference in regards to race in women, but not men.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12037649
Also re: body comp between blacks and whites:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/6/1392.full
Blacks have less body fat, which if you recall my critiques of the bench press study, they too used calipers when you cannot assess black body fat with them due to tighter skin folds. Also see Vickery et al 1988.
Click to access 10.2307%4041463983.pdf
I’m in the camp that the two pops need different BMI charts. Same with East Asians since they have a lower BMI but higher percent body fat.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/ethnic-differences-in-bmi-and-disease-risk/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3146863/
what france does to all those who don’t wanna marry their teachers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLg7GB5Kw00
it could be argued that academic type exams…
1. are all so similar that everyone who scores high on one will score as high on all the rest.
2. they measure only part of cognitive ability, whereas the wechsler measures all of it. or closer to all of it.
this means that so far as a country’s educational attainment and prestige is test based its elite as mediated by elite education will tend to be lopsided in their “profile”.
[pornographic talk redacted by PP, June 3, 2017]
the point is that one number doesn’t tell you everything. every smart person is dumb in some ways.
Thanks Illuminati for the Schneider blog. Very interesting. Schneider is big against averaging sub-tests (http://www.iapsych.com/iapap101/iap10110.pdf). I wonder if what he thinks about g.
Why does ze jewish media never undermine its own country’s customs and morals?
Quick thoughts on London terror attacks from maybe Israel’s paid actors:
1. Strengthen’s May’s hand against Corbyn. Corbyn has no rational position on immigration. Might have been done because Corbyn was gaining on May. Probably not though.
2. Unfortunately Davos Man has a catch 22. Terrorism strengthens the surveillance state of the goyim, but undermines the ‘moral’ rationale for open borders.
3. I expect the Brexiteers will be the only faction strengthened wholesale. But the net gain may accrue to the globalist/Rothschild UK faction.
Would I walk around London with a safety helmet? No. The 7-11 attacks happened shortly after Iraq.
My hunch is that they can ‘turn on and off’ these attacks. My suspicion now, certainly more than 10 years ago, is that the high IQ psychopaths can more or less control them. But its just a hunch.
Pumpkin says I need Steve Schwarzmann on camera admitting he’s part of a racial supremacist conspiracy thats 2000 years old.
O.K.
No philosopher, you have no idea what i believe.
Yes I do. Its pretty obvious as you have at least 5 years of blog posts to describe it.
3 years. But your problem is you can’t read between the lines. You’re not subtle so you can’t see subtlety in others
Genetic determinants of serum testosterone concentrations in men.
Testosterone concentrations in men are associated with cardiovascular morbidity, osteoporosis, and mortality and are affected by age, smoking, and obesity. Because of serum testosterone’s high heritability, we performed a meta-analysis of genome-wide association data in 8,938 men from seven cohorts and followed up the genome-wide significant findings in one in silico (n = 871) and two de novo replication cohorts (n = 4,620) to identify genetic loci significantly associated with serum testosterone concentration in men. All these loci were also associated with low serum testosterone concentration defined as <300 ng/dl. Two single-nucleotide polymorphisms at the sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) locus (17p13-p12) were identified as independently associated with serum testosterone concentration (rs12150660, p = 1.2×10(-41) and rs6258, p = 2.3×10(-22)). Subjects with ≥ 3 risk alleles of these variants had 6.5-fold higher risk of having low serum testosterone than subjects with no risk allele. The rs5934505 polymorphism near FAM9B on the X chromosome was also associated with testosterone concentrations (p = 5.6×10(-16)). The rs6258 polymorphism in exon 4 of SHBG affected SHBG's affinity for binding testosterone and the measured free testosterone fraction (p<0.01). Genetic variants in the SHBG locus and on the X chromosome are associated with a substantial variation in testosterone concentrations and increased risk of low testosterone. rs6258 is the first reported SHBG polymorphism, which affects testosterone binding to SHBG and the free testosterone fraction and could therefore influence the calculation of free testosterone using law-of-mass-action equation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21998597
rs12150660
Low T risk allele frequency: White American > Nigerian > Chinese and Japanese
Low frequency in each population
https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs12150660
rs6258
Low T risk allele frequency: White American > Nigerian, Chinese and Japanese
Very low frequency in Each population
https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs6258
rs5934505
Low T risk allele frequency: Nigerian > Chinese > White American > Japanese
Very common in every population
https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs5934505
So as we can see from this hard genetics pieces of evidence, the East Asian > African > European testosterone hierarchy observed in studies seems to be under genetic influence although there is no clear pattern of racial variation that could be a result from natural selection. And low testosterone doesn’t seem to be beneficial in any way.
Now if PP still wants to hold on to Rushton’s theory, let him do so.
Do the genes affect adjusted T or unadjusted T? What percentage of the T variance do they explain? Do they only affect adult T or prenatal T? What happens to the caucasoid mean when Arabs are included?
I know you guys want to put Rushton’s theory to bed with a few snappy quotes but it doesn’t work that way
Science is hard work. Hard, hard work
Hahah, ridiculous, what you know about science ? Unicorns and Sasquatches ? Please…
I don’t believe in either, but you believe in religion which makes you pre-scientific.
You noticed I’m not a creationist did you?
I know but you believe in other supernatural stuff, i suspect.
Christian cosmogony and miracles are metaphorical, only evangelists interpret them literally. I’m a Catholic and many eminent scientists and philosophers of science were hard Catholic believers.
So you don’t believe in a personal God or the divinity of Jesus?
You don’t believe in heaven or hell?
I do believe in all that but that’s meta-physical matter, I’m not looking for signs of god in nature, that’s superstition.
Jesus was a part of nature and you claim signs of God in him. Just because Catholicism is practiced by whites doesn’t make it any better than african voodoo & witchcraft. In fact it’s worse because you’ve had the benefit of the best education money can buy, yet still believe in a wizard in the sky
Yes exactly, and one thing money bought me is graduating from a Lassalian Catholic school, the best high school in Normandy. We’ll continue this conversation when you learn about faith and metaphysics. For the time being, let’s conclude this debate with some pecs bouncing
The metaphysics stuff sounds boring. I want to hear about the class where you made voodoo dolls
Metaphysics is abstract in the way you like the most.
There are extremely brilliant people who believe in God in a very abstract or metaphorical sense, but to believe a specific man, Jesus, was the son of God speaking for God and to therefore live according to his teachings…that’s delusional: culturally approved mass psychosis
Jesus’s life and teachings are on an unequaled level of wisdom, his message is intemporal and universal. Just attend a Catholic mass and you’ll understand. You’re just regurgitating ignorant anti-Christian propaganda.
Wisdom != divinity
Yes.
So just admire him as a great leader. Don’t claim he was the son of God & the path to heaven. It’s no more rational than praying to a tree.
No.
DAMN Afro, one of those guys is you???
Nope, but I’d fit in.
Words from Pope John-Paul II
Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/science/catholic-contributions/the-church-opposes-science-the-myth-of-catholic-irrationality.html
PP, could you do a subjective ranking of the regular commenters from who you think is the dumbest to the smartest ?
I’m not PP but I’ll do it.
Dumbest to smartest
Philosopher, G-man, Race Realist, Afrosapiens, Mugabe, Pumpkin Person, Deal with it!
I reject the matriarchy. You’re just trying to shoehorn me into your twisted false expectations of what being a ‘good man’ should be. If you think I’m going to fix your washing machine or defend your poodle from Pugsy the next door neighbours pitbull – you’re wrong!
#NAMALT
not all men are like that.
Lol wtf. Go make me a sandwich you chauvinistic pig
Race Realist seems dumber than both Philosopher en G-man to me.
I agree with the last part.
Thanks for the kind words. I’m dumb, yes. But I’m still successful. May I ask why you think I think he dumbest one here?
You are the dumbest one in the list, in my opinion.
Who do you think is dumber than you in this list then ?
That doesn’t answer my question. Back your assertion with evidence.
Explain your reasoning behind it or don’t talk at all.
Don’t get so butthurt, it wasn’t an assertion but a simple opinion.
The fact that you didn’t understood this, is one of the numerous reason why I think you are “not that smart”.
And as I said, it’s a simple opinion, but may be you can enlighten us by saying your IQ score, or at least your SAT score if you never took an IQ test ?
In fairness RR, did do very well on Mug of Pee’s Gestalt IQ test (about 120 according to my norms). He’s also socially savvy and has adapted very well to his environment by acquiring a high paying job that keeps him in shape and gives him tons of free time. The reason the SAT and I find him dumb is he seems to lack verbal comprehension so debates with him never end because it’s almost impossible to reach common ground on anything.
IQ 108 tested at 17. SAT like 700. I went to a shit school and didn’t learn the material. My IQ is 66 according to the SAT. But what does that mean for my success in life? Literally nothing.
700 out of 1600 or out of 2400. And what IQ test did you take at 17? Do you remember anything at about it, even if you don’t know the name? Why did you take it?
I took the test in 06 and 07. Did horrible on both because I want taught the material. I don’t recall which IQ test I took. I know I took one at either age 6 or 7 then again at 17. I need to check my files to see if I have them.
I took it because my mother put me into school when I was 2 because I was a premie. As I’ve said here countless times, I was reading the a 5th grade level when I was 5. I was always interested in astronomy and ancient civilizations when I was a kid. I wanted to be an astronomer. I also loved Stephen Hawking. I have 20 year old VHS tapes of his specials in taped when I was a kid. Good times.
But yea I took it because I was a pretty bad kid in school. I found school boring. I was also “diagnosed” with ADD and ADHD when I was 7. Then they put me on meds for it, I took it for a week. It stripped my personality and turned me into a robot so I stopped taking it.
I’d rather not get too deep into what went on in my childhood on this blog.
Anyway I thought is let you know that from now on I’m only going to be writing ~500 words on my comments. I don’t have time to waste on drawn out arguments anymore so I’ll just get to the point with a simple argument and tell whoever I’m discussing with what they believe is wrong, the premises or the conclusion. No more 500000 word comments from me.
Quite a range of scores RR:
childhood reading IQ = 170
Gestalt IQ = 120
unknown test at 17 = IQ 105 (white norms; might be inflated by old norms)
SATs = IQ 61 (converted to white norms, assuming you’re reporting the combined score out of 2400)
Average IQ score: 114
Estimated composite score: IQ 121
So it seems I dramatically underestimated you, probably because I only observe you in this one environment where you only use skills measured by the SAT. But to be truly scientific, we must look at the totality of the data, and that implies IQ 121, which is more consistent with your real world adaptive behavior.
All modded joke answers aside, Race is not the dumbest guy on these threads.
There is the phenomenon I’ve talked about before of the silly smart people who may have a better cognitive engine but have silly or ridiculous beliefs due to lack of social intelligence or aspergers lopsided cognition.
And Race is by all accounts in good physical shape.
To my reading, the only other non silly smart/asperger/normy commenters I’ve ever seen on the thread are Jimmy and Mugabe who show thought patterns or willingness to entertain topics that I often have. Especially Mr Mugabe when I first commented here a year back.
Now, theres the special case of that Mikey Blaze commenter who has something similar like a ‘true north’ compass of common sense. You could put him in a reeducation class 24/7 and he would stick to common sense. While he doesn’t put out many left field opinions, he is a bit like me before my ‘issues’ started a number of years ago and my genetics came through. He might be confused, but the confusion is his intuition rebelling against semantics.
He has a very strong intuitive feel for common sense.
To my reading, the only other non silly smart/asperger/normy commenters I’ve ever seen on the thread are Jimmy and Mugabe who show thought patterns or willingness to entertain topics that I often have. Especially Mr Mugabe when I first commented here a year back.
Does it never occur to you that there are lots of people who have similar thought patterns but hide them for very obvious reasons? Now I’m wondering if you’re autistic and not schizophrenic.
Hey bro, I’m now trying out the Adderall XR, 60 mg a day. My psycho will give me anything! THIS IS THE SHIT!!!!!!
I think if I re-took the Wechsler my IQ would be about 140 now.
PP, your estimation is biased. You are giving the same weight to each “IQ score” when it’s quite obvious than a real IQ test or the SAT is more representative of intelligence than a childhood reading test or the Gestalt test.
But we don’t know the quality of the real IQ test. Some of them are pretty bad.
damn lets just say rr is successful in his career satisfied with his life and thats the best of any test, these scores dont mean shit
Pill is a joke, lol
Maybe he’s not completely wrong about Asperger/Autism but he make enormous effort to convince us he’s not a decent knowledgeable about it.
That’s the problem, the real understanding is via contextualization. Only way to really know something is via exemplification in the real world. Most people can grasp in invariably minimally correct ways the concepts. The problems happen when they need contextualize them, change the abstraction to the real association.
Yes, as Pumpkin said, many people here talk about issues they don’t know AND they no have fluid skills at least to disguise they don’t know.
Mubage IS a crude representation of clever silly but with steroids…
The problem is that he has been quite succesful to hypnotize most people here. it’s sad!
Indeed, irrationality is just like air, is always being breathed.
Instead ANALYSE firstly the logical patterns, people simply jump to the common sense, whatever place they are, and start to think this is a accurate description of this micro-reality.
Pumpkin, sometimes you seems a Martian who has just arrived on Earth and the only reference you have now is a HBD forum.
So instead you have some knowledge and better, understanding, about qualitative features of intelligence, you have only the crude quantitative knowledge HBD seems is completely limited or entrenchered.
RR is a classical example of
– a person with above avg cognitive intelligence [teacher levels or +],
– predominant normie/mundane personality/existential priorities,
– one of the two [or more] possible types of ”universal stupid”, that is someone who, whatever the scale of their quantitative intelligence [usually chrystallized ones] will be always predominant obtuse, vague or simply wrong because their reasoning skills and reasoning-achievements. It’s a fluid deficiency.
There are two types i recognized
High intrinsic motivation/avg talent
1- s/he no have exactly a lower talent, s/he recognize in partial accurate ways their own strenghts BUT s/he exaggerate their strenghts because higher intrinsic motivation. So instead we have a correct self-recognition of strenghts and subsequent good use, we have a correct self-recognition BUT bad use.
High intrinsic motivation/ lower talent
2- classical stupid, example: that individual who think s/he is a great singer, go to TV show and is ”voluntarily” humilliated. S/he confuse weakness with strenghts or never will recognize by itself their own potentialities.
RR seems fit in the first type. He have high intrinsic motivation to study their pet-subjects and good potential BUT as he believe he’s a top-knowledgeable so he over-estimate your own strenghts.
Other thing Pumpkin
why the [human] world is that absurd shit*
Because seems majority of ”men/women of action” are not wise enough to be constantly smarter/give the best judgments all the time/ as possible.
A lot of succesful people ARE not smarter enough, even by the simple reason they are not smarter enough but as they have higher intrinsic motivation/higher instinctive impulses and specially when they are also highly EXTRINSIC motivated, so we have that people reaching the success BUT without be smarter, even about their own expertise area.
Human reality is par excellence hybrid, between instinct and reason, and between ”animal” world and human world, between be adaptable and be ideally correct, this is a conflict between [contextual] adaptation and ideality, something only humans can see and only some humans can engage or enphasise.
So a stupid and/or dishonest journalist can be quite succesful in the creep human mundane world and a fantastic person with a lot of great qualities can be not succesful and by the same reason, mundane criteria, the first consciously or not accept it, the second usually at conscious mode, never will accept it.
This explain why some brighter people are not mundanely successful, if ”mundanely” itself is already a non-ideal. This is a existential depth of thoughts and actions a lot of ”bright” people develop sometimes earlier in their lives, it’s evolution of culture, from the schizomorphic shape to rational shape.
I already debated with many people who share the same reasoning levels and types of RR, a classical avg academic: above avg intelligence, sub-knowledgeable, hyper-specialized in some areas, not self-aware enough to recognize their own limitations and work well with their real potentialities [aka intellectual arrogance]. We have some categories of academics, some of them: intellectually smart enough to be good at least to persuad people with good argumentation; cognitively smart enough to reach some good academic positions, not enough to EXPLAIN or to teach other people, even subject they have little intimacy.
RR seems have difficulty to explain their point of views for us, isn’t*
So, maybe also we have two type of teachers: the bad teachers, only pass matter in the blackboard; the good teachers, they can explain for themselves what they are teaching, regardless the levels of factual accuracy.
“– one of the two [or more] possible types of ”universal stupid”, that is someone who, whatever the scale of their quantitative intelligence [usually chrystallized ones] will be always predominant obtuse, vague or simply wrong because their reasoning skills and reasoning-achievements. It’s a fluid deficiency.”
Wrong. It’s honestly probably the language barrier. PP gets me, melo gets me, Afro gets me. I’m not vague. I honestly don’t know how much simpler I can put it. I put it as simply as possible for you in an easy to follow format. Is that not good enough?
“RR seems have difficulty to explain their point of views for us, isn’t*”
Argument 1:
P1: Environmental factors raise testosterone
P2: If environmental factors raise testosterone levels, then people who are in worse environments will have higher levels of testosterone than people who are not in that type of environment.
P3: People who are in those types of environments have elevated testosterone levels due to their experience and surroundings.
C: Therefore, people in certain types of environments experience a rise in testosterone levels—that are permanent—if they are in those environments.
Argument 2:
P1: If blacks with less than a high school education have higher levels of testosterone then blacks with some college, then the difference in testosterone between the two groups must come down to the environment.
P2: Black with less than a high school education have higher levels of testosterone than blacks with some college.
C: Therefore, the cause for higher testosterone levels in blacks with less than high school is due to their environment—the honor culture that they find themselves in.
This is extremely simple. If you don’t understand this, I don’t know what else I can say.
You’re lucky Afro to be a believer. I tried – even with Charles de Foucauld method – when I was a child but never succeed despite my family being very religious. I had loved the dogmatic part of christianism : the methodical expostion of depositum fidei. And i was good at spotting inconsistencies. For example, at my first communion preparation, i asked a priest where the bod of Christ was. He said near Jerusalem. I thought he wasn’t a christian. The only positive asset i know this catholic upbringing gives me is to be able to understand very pervasive Christian references most people don’t get nowadays in France. Certainly the influence runs deeper. Like someone said here citing my saint patron’s order unofficial motto “stat crux dum volvitur orbis’ .
PS : Pumpkin, i’ve written some sentences in yiddish, because i’ve been learning the language this WE. I tested it also in my favourite kosher bake shop. While dialogs are always anectodicals, they transfer their cultural idiosyncrasic patterns. For swedish it is crazy how much they tend toward qualigyng peoples looks – you quiclky learn how to say a hunchback! – and positive or negative social consequences. In Yiddish, everything tunrs around being clever/dumb, hard working/lazy, books and learning & a good/bad person
Saw Caitlin Jenner the other day talking to Tucker. Caitlin is a pretty smart person for an olympic athlete ex jock.
I suspect this is a publicity stunt for the show. But he/she/xer can be quite articulate about it.
I think a priori, if someone really is born of the wrong gender and this is possible, then it should be ok. But the 80% male to female slant in the trans community suggests its a mental illness. For example, homosexuality is mainly environmental as well.
Can pumpkin ban afro from posting pictures of muscular men? I will pay a ‘donation’ to a designated swiss bank account if this happens.
do you find the threatening?
Leftists demonstrates why exoticism can be [locally] beautiful but [generally] tragically fragile.
https://vigilantcitizen.com/musicbusiness/katy-perrys-bon-appetit-nod-occult-elite-rituals/
bizarre
Kind of bizarre seeing the thread. There must be 70% + of autistic or otherwise braindead commentators. Its like that Twilight Zone episode where I’m on a nuclear bomb test site and everyone is suddenly wooden.
Only to reveal….
I have lost my mind.
Or have i?
Do Do Do Do….
Still the greatest TV show of all time and I’ve seen most of em, with the exception of Twin Peaks which is also supposed to be good.
In terms of intellectually stimulative fare though, there’s nothing close. Its a very odd creation but it had to be to get around censorship. I expect the first tv shows questioning our real rulers will be sci fi or bizarro type series. You can never actually say directly we’ve been neuro programmed. Because the most ironic thing of all is that if you say it dialectically, people will think you’re crazy, but if you say it crazily in a far fetched bizarre story, it will make sense.
Rod Serling got that I think. What a genius.
This is a very good, if somewhat over intricate review of the first episode ‘The Lonely’.
http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/the-twilight-zone-the-lonelytime-enough-at-last-62375
The Lonely is a actually far more ‘deeper’ than even this analysis. There are a lot of philosophical issues raised.
“I must remember to keep that in mind”.
Indeed.
Twilight Zone is one of my favorite shows. So damn good for a 50 year old TV show.
An episode of the Twilight Zone helped start my interest in IQ tests. I was afraid I would score so high that the government would see me as a threat, just like on the Twilight Zone.
Which one? My favorite one is the guy with his books and he finally gets left alone and his glasses break. I love that show. So many twists!
And in regards to Iq tests, I just bought a book called “Genes, Brains, and Human Potential”. I’m on chapter 2 where he talks about twin studies. I’m not too well versed there, so I’ll take some screenshots of his main arguments and show you to get your thoughts on the matter.
I also have no idea what Ken Richardson’s credentials are but he’s written numerous books on intelligence.
But yea I’ll take some screenshots of some of his arguments to see what you think.
Speaking of IQ tests, here is a new piece by Dr. Thompson.
http://www.unz.com/jthompson/genetics-of-racial-differences-in-intelligence-updated/
From the beginning of the book I’m reading, this guy says that these hits on GWAS don’t really mean anything, something like that. If you’d like I’ll take a few pictures for you so you can see what he says.
– Growned up without television, I don’t know lany of those series. But I’ve just gone seeing David Lyncn’s Twin Peaks : Fire walk with me and I’ll see some episodes. I remember when I saw Mulholland drive, it was a big thing for me to discover that no movie critic, either french, english or american, had understood the basic scheme of the movie : flash back + tv-realist scene is imagined by the character and phantasmagoric one a symbolic depiction of the actress life failure. Since then, I find it hard to value critics opinon.
– Illuminati, you seem to regret not having a 0.7x digit ratio, if true, why ?
I watched Mullholand Drive as a teenager. I remember thinking the realist part was very good and the psychological part was stupid.
I should watch it again. The lesbian lover was supposed to be her alter ego or something. I couldn’t appreciate it as a younger guy.