I’m bombarded by so much email that often I don’t respond, but this fan was especially persistent, and since his or her questions were high quality and since he agreed to participate in my influential people survey, I decided to reply here. The questions are in bold, with my answers below each one.
Q1. My current understanding is that there is a genetic potential which determines your IQ. Is it possible that that genetic potential may never be reached? I am 22 and during my childhood I received very poor nutrition and very little brain stimulation.(due to poverty i My concern is that my IQ potential may have permanently been stunted. Can I do something about it?
From what I’ve read, education and learning new skills will cause you to score higher on IQ tests, but that begs the question: are you actually smarter or just more test-wise? For example, in the famous Milwaukee project, infants born to low IQ mothers in poor locations were given six years of intensive intellectual stimulation which raised their IQs 32 points above those of the control group, and about a third of that gain lasted eight years after the treatment stopped. The problem is, those added IQ points made them virtually no better at scholastic achievement tests than the control group, suggesting the experiment merely made them more IQ test savvy, and not any faster at learning new material.
Q2. What are some of the accessible ways to increase IQ? Till what age is it possible?
It’s always possible to acquire new skills and cognitive habits, and if these happen to be sampled by the IQ test you’re taking, your nominal IQ will improve. But IQ is supposed to measure your capacity to learn new things or cognitively adapt to relatively novel problems. Education and training doesn’t seem to transfer much to unfamiliar tasks, but since the content of even culture reduced IQ tests is not entirely unfamiliar, many forms of training will spuriously improve your score but it may not much improve your ability to learn new things.
Of course critics will argue that virtually all individual differences in non-pathological cognition reflect differences in training and experience and that “novel problem solving” is a misnomer.
As for smart drugs and brain training software, I’ve known some true believers but I remain very skeptical.
Q3. Can we expect in the near future for it to be possible to increase IQ through technology? And I mean in people who have already been born.
In a way we already have. One no longer needs as much spatial ability because they can use a GPS. One no longer needs as much ability to learn and remember facts because they can google them on their mobile devise. How far technology is from improving the physical brain, I don’t know.
Q4. What do you think of Mensa’s testing standards? And how is 98 percentile intelligent. That is like 1 in 50 people. It seems to me that in a developed country like the US, anyone who is anybody(techie, artist, wall street, industrialist, philosophers, professors) easily comes in the 98 percentile. Because otherwise where are the smart people.
98th percentile is actually extremely intelligent. To put it in perspective, when it comes to height and fat-free body weight, the 98th percentile for young U.S. non-Hispanic men is about 6’4″ and 220 lbs respectively which is taller and more muscular than most of the World’s most successful athletes.
The above chart shows the average height and weight of the most elite athletes in various sports, but keep in mind that these are just averages and many supreme athletes will be half a foot shorter and dozens of pounds smaller than average for their sport.
If the 98th percentile on physical traits is not required to succeed in a field as competitive and meritocratic as elite professional sports, why would the 98th percentile on cognitive traits be required to succeed in fields like technology, art, business or academia? Even students at the most selective universities in the entire World do not average more than about the 95th percentile (IQ 125) when given comprehensive cognitive tests that were not used in their selection process, and in many creative and technical occupations, the academic requirements are not high.
Only among the most spectacular achievers (self-made multibillionaires, U.S. Presidents, Nobel Prize winners in science) does the average IQ seem to rise to above 130, and even then, there’s a significant minority with IQs below 115, sometimes way below.
The reason Mensa’s requirement doesn’t sound high to you is because 1) tons of people exaggerate their IQ (I used to claim mine was 156!), and 2) of those who tell the truth, many take poorly normed internet tests, and/or cherry-pick the best score from the many tests they did take, and as a result, far more than 2% of America can qualify for Mensa.
Q5. What is your IQ?
About 135
Q6. How is memory related to IQ. Is memory constrained by genetics too, or is it possible to do something about it?
Specific types of short-term memory are not that strongly related to IQ, but overall memory across many domains as well as working memory (i.e. manipulating what you’re trying to remember) and long-term memory are more strongly related to IQ, but not as strongly as tests of abstract reasoning, verbal comprehension, acquired knowledge, and spatial analysis.
It’s possible to improve your memory through various strategies like word association and rehearsing input, and it might be possible to improve very specific kinds of memory but it’s probably not yet possible to much improve spontaneous recall or overall memory.
Q7. What do I need to do and have to join some some serious research/effort to better understand/do something about the IQ question? I think a lot of good work is happening in China?
You need to graduate with honors from the most prestigious university you can get accepted in, avoid controversy, and try to publish articles in peer reviewed academic journals. And you need to do all this while you’re still young because youth is a huge competitive advantage in virtually every field but especially academia.
Is looking into IQ your full time work?
No, I wasn’t a great student (hard to believe but true) because I spent all night obsessing over controversies on the internet and then slept in so late I missed class.
dandaruiz said:
Please make a gmat to corresponding iq chart. I wanna know where I stand plus TNS accepts a 746 but then mensa accepts 95% tile which is a 720 or a 730. How does an sd in iq only correspond to a 16 pt difference on the gmat?! Please make a post on this, because what kind of distribution is at the high end of the gmat?!
dandaruiz said:
When the gmat has a mean of 550 and a range of approx 200-800???
pumpkinperson said:
Good idea. If i don’t do it this month, ask me again in July
The Philosopher said:
Well you can boost IQ. I’m not going to provide links to the evidence but these are the commonly accepted ways:
1. Nootropics/Diet – fish oil, NAC, and apparently ritalin boosts short term memory. The corollary is stopping anti IQ chemicals like lead.
2. Music – learning an instrument does make a difference.
3. Cardio exercise – brain circulation of oxygen more efficient and provides greater capacity in my experience. The brain is organic after all.
4. Sleep
5. Stop stress.
6. Socialisation.
7. Foreign language
Its quite intuitive mostly.
pumpkinperson said:
Most of your suggestions will improve test performance but does that mean they’re truly improving intelligence? Better posture and better shoes will improve your height reading on a stadiometer, but are you truly any taller?
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
No serious person would measure their height with their shoes on.
pumpkinperson said:
No serious person would measure their height with their shoes on.
That’s because we have the power to take our shoes off, but when it comes to IQ, we can’t really take our metaphoric shoes off (i.e. education, training, cultural experiences), though culture reduced tests do their best to test us “shoeless”.
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
Nothing tells you IQ is something else than what education, training and experience provide. For instance we say nutrition increases IQ, many experts would think nutrition helps acquiring the skills that IQ tests measure instead of directly increasing IQ a sort of pill that would make a well fed unstimulated person smarter.
The Philosopher said:
They do. They’ve looked at the wiring in the brain. Its entropy. And the diet point shouldn’t be controversial. We are organic chemical manifestations of matter. Not electricity sockets.
pumpkinperson said:
And the diet point shouldn’t be controversial.
Prenatal nutrition is definitely very important to IQ; later in life, perhaps not so much
The Philosopher said:
So taking tons of alcohol won’t kill brain cells or certain types of drugs?
In the reverse, adequate hydration will not cause the brain to carve off areas for sustenance. Diet is a lieflong devlopmental process. Our cells split continuously.
The question becomes = Adequate high quality stems cells and proper cell division + efficiency of the connection between cells/neurowiring.
A lot of these vitamins or minerals like iron have other effects like allowing the blood to carry more oxygen. We all know oxygen is fundamentalt to brain functioning, and I would assume necessary to keep a steady state for brian entropy. Otherwise all entropic effects and efforts will go towards merely maintaining a steady state.
That is how I would theoreticlaly see it. I’m sure in 50 years time, one of us will have a definite answer to this. And it will be too late.
All good intellectual challenges in life, don’t have definitive answers from priests in academia/journalism.
pumpkinperson said:
So taking tons of alcohol won’t kill brain cells or certain types of drugs?
Lowering intelligence is easy. Raising it is what’s hard.
The Philosopher Hates Bad Spelling said:
But the factors that lower it are often antagonists to those that raise it is my point.
RaceRealist said:
PP have you ever seen some papers floating around stating that the brain training thing works? There’s a large meta-analysis on it. I believe it was found to be flawed though.
GondwanaMan said:
Typical HBDer = environment matters, but only when I want it to (ie, blacks have genetically inferior intelligence, but whites can improve theirs slightly through nutrition and nootropics)
Real HBDer = IQ is 80% genetic in almost all environments regardless of race, the rest is explained by noise, temporary or modest improvements on IQ tests are not g-loaded, even improving pre-natal nutrition does little to boost IQ
The Philosopher said:
I never said blacks don’t benefit from the above.
I never mentioned how much you can boost IQ by doing these things. I just don’t know. It does boost it though and its proven in academia.
RaceRealist said:
GondwanaMan, any population that has bad nutrition can get a boost by supplementing with the correct nutrients. This holds for all races in low income areas.
“Real HBDer = IQ is 80% genetic in almost all environments regardless of race, the rest is explained by noise, temporary or modest improvements on IQ tests are not g-loaded, even improving pre-natal nutrition does little to boost IQ”
Improving prenatal nutrition does boost IQ. Please provide a source for your contention. If the prenatal environment isn’t as good as it can be, intelligence can and will be affected.
And 80 percent heritable does not mean “80 percent genetic”. Furthermore, that something is largely heritable doesn’t mean that things can’t change.
I’m entertaining the fact that we can never know what IQ alleles are there and that, along with height, most or all genes are height/IQ genes. This guy drives a pretty hard argument and I have written about it on my blog.
There is also no theory of individual intelligence differences. Ian Dreary says there is no “grown-up” theory of individual intelligence, in the same way that physics and chemistry have theories.
Not saying I believe any of the above, just looking at any and all sides of the debate (sans what I said on nutrition).
pumpkinperson said:
Actually RR, research suggests that 16% of the variation in height can be predicted by KNOWN genetic variants. Now, I don’t know how well replicated this research is, especially in different countries where the same gene can have different effects (as Mug of Pee likes to remind us), but assuming it’s valid at least in the places it was studied, it suggests that you can predict a person’s height from their DNA about as accurately as you can predict their height from their weight. This has major implications for police trying to determine what a criminal looked like from a strand of hair or drop of blood he left at the crime scene.
RaceRealist said:
“Prenatal nutrition is definitely very important to IQ; later in life, perhaps not so much
Huh? Do you mean that even if someone had bad prenatal nutrition that when they reach adulthood that what occured in their prenatal environment was meaningless? Citations?
RaceRealist said:
I can’t check the link out till I get home, but is it the study from February? I covered that in my piece.
Now, I’m only entertaining the idea, but the argument is solid.
Check my citations. Geneticist David Goldstein says its very likely that “all genes are height genes”, so, therefore it logically follows that all genes may be IQ genes.
If I recall correctly, from the study that came out this year, they said that 23 percent of the variation can be accounted for with the novel variants along with the variants already known.
I’ll go on depth later. Am on my phone.
Furthermore, after I’m done reading the anti-IQ book I’m reading, I’m going to challenge Steve Hsu on his blog about engineering super intelligent humans since the author has a full chapter dedicated to Hsu. .
Remember, it’s the mark of an intelligent man to entertain ideas without accepting them.
pumpkinperson said:
Don’t confuse genes with genetic variants. The word gene can be used for either, but humans have millions of SNPs & i doubt Goldstein is claiming all of them are involved in height but i haven’t read him
pumpkinperson said:
RR I’ve always wanted to do some HBD book reviews on my blog but as you know, I don’t read much. Since you read a book a week, it would be great if you could do some HBD book reviews for this blog to help my readers and I keep up with what’s going in on in the field.
pumpkinperson said:
And if you try not to have strong opinions about the books you review, you can avoid making enemies and getting sucked into long time consuming debates.
RaceRealist said:
“Don’t confuse genes with genetic variants. The word gene can be used for either, but humans have millions of SNPs & i doubt Goldstein is claiming all of them are involved in height but i haven’t read him”
Well a recent GWAS showed that there were 294,831 SNPs related to height—about 12 times the number of genes we have. That’s why it’s logical to say that, as Goldstein puts it, most genes may be height genes. Further, out of those thousands of variants, it only accounts for about half of the variation. Meaning you’d need to alter 300,000 gene alterations to an embryo and only still be half way there.
“RR I’ve always wanted to do some HBD book reviews on my blog but as you know, I don’t read much. Since you read a book a week, it would be great if you could do some HBD book reviews for this blog to help my readers and I keep up with what’s going in on in the field.”
Sounds good. I just got done read DNA Is not Destiny by Stephen J. Heine and I thought it was pretty good. I judged it by its cover and scoffed at it but when I was done reading it I was surprised to agree with a good amount and change some of my views in the process (the IQ part was garbage, same old shit). I’d do that, then I’ll review Genes, Brains, and Human Potential: The Science and Ideology Behind Intelligence, pretty good book as well. I’m convinced twin studies are garbage.
“And if you try not to have strong opinions about the books you review, you can avoid making enemies and getting sucked into long time consuming debates.”
Well since it’d be a review I’d only talk about what the author writes. I’ll probably put some of my thoughts at the end of it. Everyone, learn to speed read.
pumpkinperson said:
Well a recent GWAS showed that there were 294,831 SNPs related to height—about 12 times the number of genes we have. That’s why it’s logical to say that, as Goldstein puts it, most genes may be height genes.
But there are roughly 10 million SNPs in the human genome. When HBDers say genes, they mean SNPs, so perhaps Goldstein’s being a little sneaky.
Further, out of those thousands of variants, it only accounts for about half of the variation.
Half the variation is huge RR.
Meaning you’d need to alter 300,000 gene alterations to an embryo and only still be half way there.
No it doesn’t mean that at all, RR. What it means is that a 1 SD increase in height genotype would predict about a 0.7 SD increase in height since 0.7 is the square root of half the variance.
Sounds good. I just got done read DNA Is not Destiny by Stephen J. Heine and I thought it was pretty good. I judged it by its cover and scoffed at it but when I was done reading it I was surprised to agree with a good amount and change some of my views in the process (the IQ part was garbage, same old shit). I’d do that, then I’ll review Genes, Brains, and Human Potential: The Science and Ideology Behind Intelligence, pretty good book as well. I’m convinced twin studies are garbage.
Fantastic! I look forward to them!
RaceRealist said:
“But there are roughly 10 million SNPs in the human genome. When HBDers say genes, they mean SNPs, so perhaps Goldstein’s being a little sneaky.”
Well it’s tough to see how looking at more people would uncover more genetic variants; testing a few thousand people shows the most common genetic variants related to height. When I say ‘genes’ I mean out of the 19-20,000 genes in our genome. Source:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4204768/
So there are about 12 times the amount
Source for 294k SNPs found:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4204768/
When there are that many SNPs found to contribute to height, and if height is extremely polygenic (as is IQ), then it logically follows that all genes could/may be height/IQ genes.
Stephen Heine states that writing: “The researchers found 294,831 [height genes]! This is a depressingly large number of genetic variants—in fact, it’s more than 12 times number of genes that we have, indicating that, as geneticist David Goldstein put it, “most genes are height genes.”
The fact that it takes 300,000 alterations to a genome to ‘engineer height’ and you’d still be half way there shows that the genetic structure of height is huge, controlled by numerous genes of extremely tiny effect.
Genes interact with the environment, your genome doesn’t have it’s height transcribed into it; your genome interacts with its environment over your development, so in a way we overestimate the effects of genes on height because twin/adoption studies assume that gene/environment influences are separate with those interactions being lumped together with environment interactions, exaggerating genetic estimates. Source:
Click to access 10.1177%400963721410370136.pdf
“Half the variation is huge RR.”
Highly polygenic PP.
“No it doesn’t mean that at all, RR. What it means is that a 1 SD increase in height genotype would predict about a 0.7 SD increase in height since 0.7 is the square root of half the variance.”
What is a ‘height genotype’? I’m talking about genetically engineering a babe for height, and to do so you’d need to genetically alter hundreds of thousands of genes and you’d still be half way there. So if this is the case, hundreds of thousands of genetic alterations to make one’s height ‘how you want it’, then you’d still need to 1) account for the rest of the variation and 2) have to perfectly control for environmental factors as genes and environments interact. Look at the Dutch and Japanese for more information on how height interacts with the environment.
pumpkinperson said:
Well it’s tough to see how looking at more people would uncover more genetic variants; testing a few thousand people shows the most common genetic variants related to height
They haven’t actually uncovered hundreds of thousands variants, they’re just able to estimate how many exist. It will take a long time to find them all
When I say ‘genes’ I mean out of the 19-20,000 genes in our genome.
I know, but when HBDers say genes they often mean the 10 million SNPs, so less than 3% are related to height
When there are that many SNPs found to contribute to height, and if height is extremely polygenic (as is IQ), then it logically follows that all genes could/may be height/IQ genes.
That’s fine
The fact that it takes 300,000 alterations to a genome to ‘engineer height’ and you’d still be half way there shows that the genetic structure of height is huge, controlled by numerous genes of extremely tiny effect.
Correct
Genes interact with the environment, your genome doesn’t have it’s height transcribed into it; your genome interacts with its environment over your development, so in a way we overestimate the effects of genes on height because twin/adoption studies assume that gene/environment influences are separate with those interactions being lumped together with environment interactions, exaggerating genetic estimates.
Correct
I’m talking about genetically engineering a babe for height, and to do so you’d need to genetically alter hundreds of thousands of genes and you’d still be half way there.
Depends how much height you want to add. If you altered hundreds of thousands of SNPs you’d simply kill it.
have to perfectly control for environmental factors as genes and environments interact
Not if the SNPs have what mug of pee calls independent genetic effects or if the embryo shares the environment of the study participants from which the SNPs were identified
RaceRealist said:
“They haven’t actually uncovered hundreds of thousands variants, they’re just able to estimate how many exist. It will take a long time to find them all”
Right. An estimate. I’m willing to bet that the number is higher than that.
“I know, but when HBDers say genes they often mean the 10 million SNPs, so less than 3% are related to height”
HBDers should say SNPs. Things have words and definitions. And that’s 45 % of the variance so far.
“Depends how much height you want to add. If you altered hundreds of thousands of SNPs you’d simply kill it.”
Rare variants are found to give a whopping 8/10ths of an inch in the study that was published back in February. But they’re just that: rare variants, not common ones. And even then, the genotype interacts with the environment, so whatever adjustments are made, you’d still need to just wait and see.
If you’re saying that altering hundreds of thousands of SNPs would kill a fetus then you don’t believe that genetic engineering will work. The point is that both height and IQ are controlled by hundreds, thousands of genes. You’d need to alter hundreds of thousands of SNPs to change even a bit of one’s IQ/height since they’re both extremely polygenic.
“Not if the SNPs have what mug of pee calls independent genetic effects or if the embryo shares the environment of the study participants from which the SNPs were identified”
I doubt that. Genes interact with different environments differently; one group of genes may be expressed differently in one environment than another set of genes, whether due to experience or differing interactions.
Hell, people born in hotter climates have more sweat glands regardless of race. That’s how the environment can have an immediate effect on an individual.
pumpkinperson said:
Rare variants are found to give a whopping 8/10ths of an inch in the study that was published back in February. But they’re just that: rare variants, not common ones.
So how much do common variants give? 1/100th of an inch? If so you’d have to alter 600 of them to cause a massive 6 inch increase in height, not hundreds of thousands.
And even then, the genotype interacts with the environment, so whatever adjustments are made, you’d still need to just wait and see.
Not if they’re independent genetic effects. For example men tend to be taller than women in virtually every known environment because the Y chromosome’s height enhancement is not environment dependent. How tall men and women are varies from one environment to another, but the Y chromosome adds height in virtually every time and place on Earth
If you’re saying that altering hundreds of thousands of SNPs would kill a fetus then you don’t believe that genetic engineering will work
I don’t think it would work on the scale of hundreds of thousands of SNPs because I suspect that would make the baby too tall to live.
Hell, people born in hotter climates have more sweat glands regardless of race.
Starting a sentence with “Hell”. You copied that from Phil78 🙂
Phil78 said:
“Starting a sentence with ‘Hell’. You copied that from Phil78 🙂”
I’ll take that as a compliment.
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
SNPs need to be in or close to genes to affect them, I don’t know how many of them are at relevant locations but it’s certainly not 10 million. So assuming all genes are height genes makes more sense than professor shoes’s estimation of the number of genes involved in intelligence, something that isn’t reliably quantifiable.
pumpkinperson said:
So assuming all genes are height genes makes more sense than professor shoes’s estimation of the number of genes involved in intelligence, something that isn’t reliably quantifiable
He claimed the best estimate is about 10,000 but to be precise he was talking about alleles, not genes, but some people say “genes” for shorthand. And that estimate’s not especially reliable as you say, since it has a large error band.
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
So how much do common variants give? 1/100th of an inch? If so you’d have to alter 600 of them to cause a massive 6 inch increase in height, not hundreds of thousands.
You don’t know the interplay. SNPs do not necessarily follow the Mendelian model of additive effect of alleles.
pumpkinperson said:
You don’t know the interplay. SNPs do not necessarily follow the Mendelian model of additive effect of alleles.
I’ve heard it argued that additive variation is more likely. The reason is if 2 people both have the same advantageous trait, but in one person it’s caused by additive variants and in the other it’s caused by complex interactions, the former will be favoured by selection because in the latter case, the complex interaction may not survive the genetic recombination of sexual reproduction. By contrast additive height variants will add height no matter what other alleles they’re combined with.
The other point is that the linear models used to estimate the number of variants involved in a given trait generally only include additive variance, precisely because said models are linear. In that sense, RR is likely right that they underestimate the total number of SNPs involved but perhaps not by that much because of the first point.
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
I don’t know enough to say you’re wrong, but I never read a study that said things were that simple.
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
Typical HBDer = environment matters, but only when I want it to (ie, blacks have genetically inferior intelligence, but whites can improve theirs slightly through nutrition and nootropics)
Real HBDer = IQ is 80% genetic in almost all environments regardless of race, the rest is explained by noise, temporary or modest improvements on IQ tests are not g-loaded, even improving pre-natal nutrition does little to boost IQ
Scientist = it’s currently impossible to tell how much genes contribute to intelligence.
RaceRealist said:
“So how much do common variants give? 1/100th of an inch? If so you’d have to alter 600 of them to cause a massive 6 inch increase in height, not hundreds of thousands.”
I have no idea. I think that what you’re proposing is an extremely simple way of looking at gene editing, but I’m clueless there so I will get back to you on that.
“Not if they’re independent genetic effects. For example men tend to be taller than women in virtually every known environment because the Y chromosome’s height enhancement is not environment dependent. How tall men and women are varies from one environment to another, but the Y chromosome adds height in virtually every time and place on Earth”
Thanks for the explanation; really good one. Just because the Y chromosome allows men to be taller in all environments on earth means that genome’s A, B, and C would follow a rank order in a specific trait in all environments in the world?
“I don’t think it would work on the scale of hundreds of thousands of SNPs because I suspect that would make the baby too tall to live.”
The point, height is directed by thousands of genes of numerous small effects. I’m clueless on gene editing right now (that’s my next thing to read in to) but I think you’re oversimplifying the gene editing, correct me if I am wrong.
“Starting a sentence with “Hell”. You copied that from Phil78 🙂”
I wasn’t aware that Phil did that.
pumpkinperson said:
I have no idea. I think that what you’re proposing is an extremely simple way of looking at gene editing, but I’m clueless there so I will get back to you on that.
I have no idea either, but the experts I’ve heard talk about it gave the impression that it’s somewhat simple. But what’s definitely not simple is knowing WHERE to edit because so few SNPs of any non-trivial effect have been identified, and while changing them may boost height or IQ, it may harm something else.
Thanks for the explanation; really good one. Just because the Y chromosome allows men to be taller in all environments on earth means that genome’s A, B, and C would follow a rank order in a specific trait in all environments in the world?
Well consider blacks, Arabs, whites, and Albinos. When it comes to skin darkness, blacks > Arabs > whites > Albinos in virtually every environment. People with Down Syndrome have lower IQ, shorter height, and smaller brains in every environment. More to the point, apparently there’s a study that found some of the SNPs found to affect height in Western countries, did so in an environment as different as Korea, but I haven’t read the study so I could be mistaken.
Phil78 said:
To RR,
“I wasn’t aware that Phil did that.” Out of curiosity I counted how many times I had in a few major threads.
So far I have counted three times that I’ve done so singularly, each under different articles (Darwin’s prediction, CWT, Which Race is the most beautiful?) but one occasion where I did it twice under “The problem with Taxonomy”.
RaceRealist said:
“I have no idea either, but the experts I’ve heard talk about it gave the impression that it’s somewhat simple. But what’s definitely not simple is knowing WHERE to edit because so few SNPs of any non-trivial effect have been identified, and while changing them may boost height or IQ, it may harm something else.”
Right, because a lot of genes have pleiotropic effects. So let’s just say for argument’s sake that 2000 SNPs are identified that explain, say, 30 percent of the variation between individuals is due to those SNPs. However, 500 of those SNPs are also pleiotropic with other phenotypes so changing some Ts to As or Gs to Cs (I think I got the pairing correct, I will verify ASAP) to boost IQ, say, 5 points (don’t critique the numbers; just an example) would change other traits that you wouldn’t want to change, due to the simple fact that they will decrease fitness or bring traits that you don’t want.
My next books I’m buying are on ‘evolving ourselves’, I have my eye on two books at BnN, so I will return to this in the future.
“Well consider blacks, Arabs, whites, and Albinos. When it comes to skin darkness, blacks > Arabs > whites > Albinos in virtually every environment. People with Down Syndrome have lower IQ, shorter height, and smaller brains in every environment. More to the point, apparently there’s a study that found some of the SNPs found to affect height in Western countries, did so in an environment as different as Korea, but I haven’t read the study so I could be mistaken.”
The main reason I hate abstracts is that they are so vague. I also can’t find this paper online so at the moment I will take your word for it until I do further research.
Jimmy said:
” ritalin boosts short term memory. ”
ritalin/adderall/vyvanse wont make anyone something they’re not
none of them give you extra iq . They just let you get to the IQ points that your genes code for
Ive tried both methylphenidate and amphetamine products and both work.
I have taken 104mg of Ritalin over a sustained period and about 150mg of Amphetamine products.
nothing comes close to amphetamine products(Adderall, vayvanse, Dexedrine)
Ritalin made me extremely anxious . I would freak out every time someone knocked on my door.
Adderall made me too hyper but it worked
Dexedrine was too powerful but worked
Vyvanse was by far the best once i perfected how to use it. Before that i took it once and stayed up for 36 hours strait . My mistake was drinking lemon water which alkalized my urine and potentiated the amphetamine .
After doing a little research i started taking Vitamin C and some protein 2 hours before bed and that knocked me out like a kipper .
GondwanaMan said:
I wouldn’t be surprised if Adderall temporarily improves short-memory and processing speed. It probably reduces “silly mistakes” on written tests. I just don’t believe it impacts overall intelligence.
Adderall also improves mood, motivation and wakefulness, in my experience.
Jimmy said:
i’ve read reports of adderall turning people gay.
Its very common for the feds to introduce experimental drugs into the college population by way of study drugs like addy and ritalin.
they can do that because most people do not get the pills with a prescription. they get a few pills at a time.
LSD was made by the CIA and used as part of MK Ultra
another strange thing about amphetamines is that everyone goes on and on about the euphoria but i have never ever felt that in my life.
i was taking amphetamines for over a decade and never felt a damn thing
whenever i read comments by stoners about how great 150mg of vyvanse is i always think they are mentally weak little babies.
yasser arafat deserved THREE nobel peace prizes. AT LEAST! said:
where the f is my comment about hymie’s dosing peepee?
150mg?
wtf?
isn’t that way beyond the lethal dose?
if true it shows hymie has “cheated” to get his millions.
retire at 45?
how ’bout retire now?
read all 700 pages of Der Zauberberg.
this is what is so weird about rich people who haven’t gotten rich by founding a business (oprah founded a business in a way).
wife + 2 kids private school tuition $5m is enough. even in manhattan. that is, it’s enough to never work.
lagom ar bast.
and everyone knows super rich kids are stupid.
or just make the time to understand Der Zauberer von Messkrich.
he’s the only nazi that jews LOVE. dryfus isn’t the only one. derrida loved him. avital ronell wants to go down on him. hannah arendt did!
LOVE! https://archive.org/details/Philosophy_185_Fall_2007_UC_Berkeley
[rest of comment redacted by PP, June 10, 2017]
yasser arafat deserved THREE nobel peace prizes. AT LEAST! said:
if afro denies it, it just shows that he’s LIED about his education.
[User name redacted by PP, June 10, 2017] said:
why is peepee not posting the truth about these drugs?
i conned my doctor into prescribing me vyvanse and ritalin too.
ritalin was horrible. only negative effect and weird effect.
vyvanse. same thing. it was horrible.
but mixed, racemate amphetamine was great…i’d take it like a vitamin…except even at very low dose it ruined my sleep.
what’s the difference?
amphetamine is the simplest of the molecules. it’s very closely related to adrenaline and noradrenaline which are neurotransmitters not just fight or flight/jack you up molecules.
Jimmy said:
” 150mg? ”
lysine makes up 70% of the weight
150mg of Vyvanse = 45 mg of Addy
vyvanse is one of the most ingenious ways of making a long acting drug
GondwanaMan said:
One last thing about Adderall– the XR is so much better than the IR. The 30mg of IR felt like getting hit by a mack truck running at 100 mph. And the crash felt like I was dying, accompanied by a overwhelming sense of doom.
So I took the XR, which feels more like being a baby picked up and sat down by his mommy. Only the good effects, and no more hours of dysphoria.
The Philosopher said:
Pumpkin made a point that R is not about survival but propogation….but this is about reproductive survival in tough environments. Thats the staregy one would use in an environment where someone could beat your head in with a rock while you slept, and there was no surplus production to allow anyone to specialise in disease prevention or home construction.
So it is about survival. Of the genes. Think about humans as carriers of genes in a meta sense.
Bruno’s point about domesitication not necessarily being anti-evolutionary is more subtle and I would tend to accept those conclusions. However, its a case by case basis. Namely his examples are easily countered by my example of say, Warren Buffet or walking into MIT’s computer science lecture.
The Philosopher said:
Rushton is right in a mechanistic sense that too many R slects destroy civilisation.
However, Rushton is wrong to say it is inevitable. Well maybe if you argue surplus production attracts barbarian flies to shit.
My point is, that without the jews mind melding K selected whites, or indeed asians….the blacks would not be on tv every waking moment selling insurance in their underwear or being a ‘nuclear scientist’ in a comic book movie.
Why?
Because we would revert to instinct, which is a more correct assesment of reality than semantics and word games.
Never Forget Go…Guy.
The Philosopher said:
A man visiting from the 1960s and sat in front of a tv would wonder why if blacks are only 13% of the population, they appear to be 50% of the population.
The only sole explanation beyond black charisma is of course, the Je..Danes. The Danes.
RaceRealist said:
“Rushton is right in a mechanistic sense that too many R slects destroy civilisation.”
I can only assume that you didn’t read my comment to you last night.
pumpkinperson said:
So it is about survival. Of the genes.
But not of the individual
The Philosopher said:
Half and Half. People that like pumping and dumojng women, so called cads, tend to have higher testosterone and be more masculine…and more survivalist.
Essentially its best to look at Africa. Many people die. But their individual units show psychopathy and enhanced athletic ability.
pumpkinperson said:
So if there was a race war you think blacks would win? I don’t.
The Philosopher said:
No. But evolution doesn’t see it like that. I suggest evolution gives blacks anti-brainwashing abilities and psychopathic abilities in order to prosper in the very long run.
Africas population will explode this century.
Bad news brown fro everyone. Especially if Israel’s sophistry keeps up the stupid charade that they’re all magical and misundastood.
The Philosopher said:
Looks like a new world record in football will be broken again. Maybe it me, but there doesn’t seem to be that many good footballers about. Or maybe the Jews and Arabs are hoarding them all.
The Chinese seem to be buying at extravagant levels. Sign of corruption or property boom.
You can see the corruption in the world’s financial system by looking at footbal clubs as money laundering/trophy vehicles for criminals. E.g. Portsmouth whose jewish owner wanted to asset strip it and use it as a parking garage for his dads arms dealing money.
Gaydamak’s dad is a CIA ‘asset’ – hence the 14 passports and the formal recognition from the government’s of France and some 3rd world place for arms dealing to advance Israel’s interest.
(Go, I mean guy).
The Philosopher said:
Some day I will do a mind map and link all the high profile jews together. Its 100% a coordinated conspiracy. There is no doubt in my mind they speak to each other, and especially about race and politics and advancing their historical racial supremacist cause.
Edenist Whackjob said:
Do you have a blog?
Jason said:
Are you a wn or a black person, philosopher or aixed race mongrel faggot like Gaytoculto who’s desperately craving for attention from rightwing pigs.RR seems like a god when compared with scumfaggots like Jimmy and santoculto. Atleast RR has the decency to respond to skeptics but these homos just pass their random observations and warped views as facts.ofcourse such scum.would chicken out when confronted by real men in life..
pumpkinperson said:
Jason can you please tone down the insults. I don’t mean to single you out for criticism because we’ve all been insulting at times, and it’s nice to have another “liberal” voice to balance the comment section, but so far virtually 100% of your comments have been personal attacks, and we don’t want to piss Santo off, since as a gay South American alt-righter, he provides a unique perspective. Please try to advance your views in a more constructive way.
SantoCulto said:
I’m not ”gay alt righter”
SantoCulto said:
Gayson is ovulating…
SantoCulto said:
Anyone who praise rr for what he’s not good deserve a new glasses of gasses…
RaceRealist said:
“Anyone who praise rr for what he’s not good deserve a new glasses of gasses…”
Says the guy who can’t respond to logical arguments. How many people stay on the topic here? Hardly any. Notice how I don’t comment unless I’m in a discussion? That should tell you something…
SantoCulto said:
”i know environmentalistic theories are retard”
”honor culture cause black violence”
nothing more to say by now.
SantoCulto said:
In the real eugenics those morons who contaminated media, politics and academia will be eliminated, because they are operationally/essentially stupid… it’s not a question to have a lower cognitive skills, it’s more deep, it’s psychological, it’s not the machine that is damaged or ”hypo-developed”, it’s their ”soul”.
When ”preyson” try to argument or to refute my comments and with some decency i will think if ”he” deserve some consideration…
RaceRealist said:
Can’t address logical arguments. Go to attacks. Nice.
Logical arguments sway me. How abkht returning to my arguments. If you can’t rebut them then you must accept them. That’s how this works.
You don’t seem to understand the argument which is why you go to idiotic fallacies. I expect that from you though.
RaceRealist said:
One more thing. Everything isn’t genetic. Believing so is stupid. Does environment NOT matter? You need to rebut the fact that testosterone increases due to environmental factors. If you can’t, along with not being able to rebut my arguments on honor culture, then you must accept the argument.
Its so very very simple. Which premise is wrong? Is the conclusion not logical? Why or why not? If you have no answer you must accept the argument. That’s how these things work buddy. Fallacies are meaningless.
SantoCulto said:
I already tell you i will not waste time and energy with you..
A classical example of something very wrong with human intelligence.
I will try to avoid reply anything of you or cite you, i promisse.
I still want guard with myself some love about humanity.
RaceRealist said:
So you can’t address logical arguments? It’s simple. Say either, yes you’re right or no you are wrong and here is why.
That you can’t answer simple questions says something about your intelligence…
SantoCulto said:
This will be my last reply on U
” ‘One’ more thing. Everything isn’t genetic. Believing so is stupid.”
EVERY THING ISN’T GENETIC
what is this**
you don’t know even how to formulate a understandable sentence AND english supposedly is your mother-tongue.
You’re just claiming ”IF EVERY THING IS NOT GENETIC, SO EVERY THING IS ENVIRONMENTAL* ”
Your MEANINGLESS opinion ”believing so is stupid” specially because it’s exactly what you do all the time here.
Maybe your self-awareness is between a primate and a human, isn’t possible.
”Everything isn’t genetic. Believing so is stupid. Does environment NOT matter?”
err…
”You need to rebut the fact that testosterone increases due to environmental factors.”
HY
PO
THE
SIS
RE
TAR
DED
TER
RO
NI
Who need EXPLAIN something is you not me… jesus mamado!!1
You no have arguments about this…
simple, i don’t need refute nothing because no have nothing to be refuted by you.
”Its so very very simple”
via hypo-perceptiveness.
the rest is meaningless as your brain and your diploma.
RaceRealist said:
“You’re just claiming ”IF EVERY THING IS NOT GENETIC, SO EVERY THING IS ENVIRONMENTAL* ””
Where have I made this claim?
“You no have arguments about this…”
I clearly do. You’ve yet to say anything to them so I can only assume you accept it. It shows how dishonest you are since you cannot answer simple yes or no questions.
“simple, i don’t need refute nothing because no have nothing to be refuted by you.”
You need to address my arguments.
“the rest is meaningless as your brain and your diploma.”
You love fallacies and misrepresenting people’s positions. Try again buddy.
You’re showing how intelligent you are(‘nt). Good job for not being able to answer direct yes or no questions!
SantoCulto said:
Academic charlatan it’s what u air..
RaceRealist said:
By the way, continuously repeating that it’s a hypothesis is meaningless. My arguments are evidence! You also need to rebut the fact that testosterone increases via environmental factors. If not you must accept the argument.
RaceRealist said:
Go to fallacies when you can’t address arguments. That’s what I expect from you.
SantoCulto said:
the day terroni as u disappear from earth surface, ‘we’ will can say
”humanity is perfect”
it’s impossible to ”debate” with stupid as you…
absolutely impossible, and i don’t need say why
you’re a propagandist of your own non-subjective inferiority.
Your little blog is other example of how disturbing/confuse/hopeless your ”mind” is.
pumpkinperson said:
That’s enough. From now on I’m going to start moderating any comments you and RR make to each other.
pumpkinperson said:
And no more comments from Jason to you or from you to Jason.
Santoculto said:
Quora is you???
IQ MY precious!!!!
Santoculto said:
I don’t know what’s worst
Pumpkin Person or Ariana Grande fan.
“I wasn’t a great student (it’s HARD to believe I know)”
Other evidence Pump-kin is black, 😉
The Philosopher Hates Bad Spelling said:
I can’t think of a more repulsive national puppet right now than Macron. If you read his biogrpahy he only got the rothschild gig because he was a link to the French plutocracy for Rorthschild.
The Philosopher said:
Trump has freakish levels of social intelligence. Freakish. If you look at his messaging he has
1. Made the russian withcunt a partisan one
2. Associated the ‘travel ban’ i.e. immigration ban as a sesnible measure with every terror attack.
3. Used the muslim mayor of london as a whiping boy
4. Continually destoryed the credibility of the msm by poiting out its agenda of ‘political correct ess’ i.e. jewish racial supremacy
5. Established his rapport with the base talking about guns.
Just a magician. I am in awe.
They should never let twitter take away his platform. Its eviscerating the jewish information control. This is how it unravels.
I believe in Donald J Trump.
The Philosopher said:
I would be shocked to figure out he has sabotaged treasury by not appoibting any assistant to mnuchin on purpose to deadlock the jews there. Hahaha. Legend.
The Philosopher said:
Wouldnt be
GondwanaMan said:
LOL, stfu i bet Trump gets bent over everynite by his son-in-law Jared Kushner
afro prefers uncircumcised men said:
the person who takes it from kushner is afro.
afro likes it. he finds it “extremely pleasurable”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Reynouard
Jason (a) michael said:
Nope he will just be as bad as bush and Obama. His actions appear like a play boy but I agree some of his actions appear alpha and manosphere MGTOW is gonna love it. But when it comes to policyirs and strategies. I suggest breitbart type raging trumpentards to keep expectations low. After all he is not that very. Intelligent
Santoculto said:
People are wo obsessed with IQ points that they forget there is that little thing called INTELLIGENCE.
We can’t control our past when we were fetus or even when we were children but we may can start to control and firstly to understand start from the moment we reach the adult life.
Whatever how harsh was your primary environment only self knowledge will can truly help you
Bruno from Paris said:
Pumpkin, even if in your 30ies, you know thtat you could leverage you’re experience by writting the “HBD for Dummies” handbook and it would last. Some conservative university may even want to give you a tenured chair, if your learn Afrikaans 🙂
pumpkinperson said:
Some conservative university may even want to give you a tenured chair, if your learn Afrikaans
Good one! 🙂 I’m a bit ashamed that views like mine have been used to oppress folks, so I would never work for such a place even if they would hire me. Besides, Philosopher would talk my ear off in the staffroom 🙂
The Philosopher said:
You just don’t get it. What part of ‘Struggle of the Will’ are you having trouble with. I can be patient. Just describe the bit you can’t understand. If you don’t defend your tribe, the barbarians come after you. Do you fantasise about Rome falling to the Huns? One always must ‘oppress’ the other in this globalised age it may be, even in terms of self defence. The danes certainly have no problem sweeping 200,000 black on white rapes under the carpet. I want you in 3 sentences to describe the part you’re not grasping after a year of me describing this phenomenon. Go on.
SantoCulto said:
Q1: many of this studies showing [magical/non-empirically explained] improvement in intelligence [as well other weakeness, for example, little samples] seems little unreliable. Calm down.
There are some studies showing that gifted people have higher % of complicated pregnancies. I don’t know how reliable this studies b[e]. [me, big foot].
So maybe have a bad pre natal environment don’t necessarily mean ALL this things many people believe.
Q2: seems from 1 to 6 MONTHS
Q3: I hope NO. IQ is FUNDAMENTALLY speaking a paper test. Even in the case of ”intelligence” [toss* cognition] it’s not recommendable. It’s just like plastic surgery, everything that is very superficial cannot be good.
Q4: Good and bad analogy. All correct analogies are good, like angels in the heaven. But your analogy between height and IQ is not totally correct at acceptable levels. Height is a real measurement, IQ is a estimative ones. IQ lacks creativity and rationality, two of the most important facets of [human] intelligence. Height measurement is a complete and precise measurement, this really reflect its goal. IQ not so. Height is static in space and time, even there is a development. INTELLIGENCE not so, static* not. Mensa is for psychologically challenged people who believe their IQ points mean something extremely important, per si, about intelligence.
Q5: I don’t know. maybe 105-115
Q6: memory is basically expanded instinct. For you to do a IQ test and scores at least above average seems obvious you need have a good memory, at least in some aspects. Maybe IQ is strongly related with SEMANTIC memory [memorization of non-autobiographical facts & informations regardless its real factual quality] but not exactly with AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL memory.
Q7: i’m tired, i don’t want more….
robert gabriel mugabe said:
this blog would be a lot better and attract a lot more readers if it was just an interminable comments section of santo, pill, and mugabe.
Mensa is for psychologically challenged people who believe their IQ points mean something extremely important, per si, about intelligence.
this is true of all high-Q societies.
GondwanaMan said:
Wait, who posted that video first???
The Philosopher said:
I’d like to see Jason guest blog.
Jason said:
While. I generally don’t agree. With many of the alt right views but I must say their antipathy towards fags is100 percent. Right. Fags need to be treated that way.they are just repulsive and deserve. Every. Scorn coming their way.
SantoCulto said:
hated…
blacks and jews are angels
fags are sub-humans…
robert gabriel mugabe said:
no. they deserve pity. you should feel sorry for santo and afro that they feel such urges.
their condition should never be normalized, but it should be tolerated.
it seems a lot of homosexuals desperately want acceptance and approval. mere toleration isn’t enough for them.
this because they sense themselves that there’s something wrong with them.
this is position of the roman church. but it’s chock-a-black with homos and pedos.
Truthteller said:
Nope, all 3 are sub-humans.
Santoculto said:
But you can have a loved homosexual brother..
I find the condition of clever silly as Mugabe the worst of all.
Well in the end among homossexuaks is very harsh to be a passive gay than a versatile aa well active gay. But usually homossexuaks who have masculine or heteronormative personality seems tend to feel better with themselves than very feminine. More desviant, more suffering.
Santoculto said:
Many homossexuals are or look creepy exactly because they tend to be more psychotic as you Pill.
Name redacted by PP, June 11, 2017 said:
1. if one has no interest in or is repulsed by the opposite sex this does not entail he is strongly attracted to the same sex.
2. homosexuality is like a tick. it’s like tourette syndrome. it has no purpose. a homosexual is like a junkie who has to do heroin just in order not to feel sick. all desires for things which one does not in fact need should be hateful, with the exception of alcohol of course. homosexuality, like modern art, is bourgeois decadence.
3. homosexuality is silly and not clever.
4. people like santo and afro are called to be celibate.
Name redacted by PP, June 11, 2017 said:
2. homosexuality is like a tic
k…it’s like a tick too. it’s a blood sucker.
afro loves bette midler and liza minnelli said:
5. afro’s pretend version of heterosexuality is also silly and purpose-less, like wearing huge polo pony ads.
afro’s done 100 ladies in 10 years and has no children.
is he shooting blanks?
is he a protestant?
it happens that the anti-homo people defend things like macron marrying his teacher and heterosexual promiscuity. they’re morons.
the cold hard bright truth is that the sexual appetite is passe.
the only reason for straights to fuck is if for some mysterious reason the children which result from such congresses are, on average, superior to those which result from artificial insemination.
but then why have chillens at all?
would it be immoral if after one generation there were no more humans, because all humans had decided not to have chillens?
people may think that they live on in their children, but they’re only a random sample of their parents’ genomes. if people could clone themselves they’d be much more motivated to have chillens…that is, clones. or they should be.
as woody allen said…sometimes the danes are brilliant…
I don’t want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. I don’t want to live on in the hearts of my countrymen; I want to live on in my apartment.
so hitler was right in another way…
so far as politics matters, it matters only to those with children (or would-be parents), and having children mattered to those with children only so far as they believed…at some level in…
BLUT UND BODEN!
that is, only so far as they valued the blood and its homeland per se.
unlike afro i have many children, mostly by black ladies. i also have one china baby.
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
No children, don’t want to have some out of wedlock, don’t want to be linked to a random girl for life, never met a girl who wanted to become a mother before 25. I want children with the love of my life, I found her, we’re just waiting for our wedding ceremony which is now less than one year ahead.
I did fuck random chicks without a condom, contraception is the girl’s responsibility. I don’t think I have unknown children, no girl ever told me I got her pregnant. Fortunately.
afro will be forced to marry his mother. sad! said:
afro is caught in a lie again.
if he were really a member of SSPX he’d never use birth control or fuck a woman who did or fuck outside marriage.
afro will be forced to marry his mother. sad! said:
i really doubt there is any correlation between homosexuality as an identity and habit and SES.
i’ve read there is a correlation between “experimentation” and SES, but i doubt it.
there’s an idea that the british male elite is more likely to be gay, but my guess is this is just because they’ve attended all boys schools and thus, like even JFK and george mallory, “experimented”. an all male boarding school may be a lot like prison. in fact the term “faggot” is from these schools. originally it referred to an underclassmen who did favors for upperclassmen…perhaps some of which were sexual.
also the RP sometimes sounds affected even when it’s not. Jacob Rees-Mogg has an especially gay sounding RP accent.
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
There is no such thing as a member of SSPX, I’m not a saint, just a basic sinner who lives with his time.
The Philosopher said:
100% agree with Jason on homosexuals. I don’t have a problem what men do in their personal lives. But when they are showboating that lifestyle and posting picture after picture of naked men on a respected psychological forum, I am flabbergasted.
SantoCulto said:
I also find this type of exposed narcisism quite inappropriate, within homossexual people namely among men there are certain friction between basicaly the three types: ”passive”/on avg, tend to be more feminine; ”versatile”/bissexual version of homossexuals and ”active”/ on avg, tend to be more masculine. Many ”conservative” [and pseudo-conservative, as me] gay and bi men dislike the flamboyant versions. Seems more deviant to opposite sex a homossexual is, more leftist/post-modern-post-reason he will tend to be.
Jason (a) michael said:
What is more repulsive than places than watching two grown up men engage in PDA unfortunately. That is becoming a norm. I used to live in Orlando where it was quite common. I largely refrained from taking my family out because of this. California is even worse. Robert had an interesting article about this gay culture plaguing our country . Check this. https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/what-would-society-look-like-if-a-majority-of-adults-were-gay/
Jason (a) michael said:
I read somewhere that female homosexualities are pretty common. As it is biologically it can’t be reversed. I don’t mind lesbians when in minimal nos and as long as they keep it in the closet. We’ve heard studies about men enjoying watching lesbian porn but not one staright male or female like gays. faggots are repulsive they must be ostracized from the society and deported to [redacted by PP, June 11, 2017]
Jason said:
Pp. I understand that I may be flaming but what does fags like. Gaytoculto contribute apart from what you see from the likesof alt right. Lunatics like Andrew. Anglin atleast peoplelike. Anglin and Spencer canreason but this guy. Just blusters.Obviously heis a homo and he has admitted it more than once now. Why does hesubscribe to Nazi style eugenics and hatred of blacks and Jews.. RR is ok I admit I’ve been wrong about him he is genuine and backs his claim with suitable evidences. But I have no respect for rabid s mongrels like santo who pass out uglyracism under the pretext of being scientific and philosophical.
SantoCulto said:
”Why does hesubscribe to Nazi style eugenics and hatred of blacks and Jews”
mongrels like santo”
Don’t worry preyson,
Ziklon don’t hurt,
kiss in your ass
SantoCulto said:
I forget
FAGGY
am i
pumpkinperson said:
Well some people have find Santo entertaining and insightful but I agree that some of his views are disturbing. Keep in mind that from Santo’s perspective it’s the white race that’s being oppressed because non-white races are taking over their lands. Now that may be ignorant thinking on his part, but if one believes their race (or the race they self-identify as) is being displaced, then you can understand why he lashes out.
SantoCulto said:
Example of ”disturbing” views required…
SantoCulto said:
Some people have find… and probably you not. well, i’m fine with it, 😉 at least
”Keep in mind that from Santo’s perspective it’s the white race that’s being oppressed because non-white races are taking over their lands”
You put a magnet in my mind to find some reason to come back here to read this kind of absurdity.
It’s not my perspective. NEVER WAS, i no have alternative perspective from only-one perspective. I will not explain AGAIN what it’s extremely obvious.
It’s not ”non-white races” who are taking ”white lands”, per si, it’s (((JEWISH elite))) and their adherents who open the borders. [redacted by PP, June 9, 2017]
”Now that may be ignorant thinking on his part, but if one believes their race (or the race they self-identify as) is being colonized, then you can understand why he lashes out.”
If really rational & really kind people were ”immigrating” to Brazil, i would be happy, regardless their ethnicity or race.
If/When eugenics is TRULLY applied, in IDEAL WAY, it’s just the question of time that ”liberals”. at least majority of them, will not be selected.
JS said:
Santo was not the one who elaborated on non-whites invading White nations.
Remember, Anglo Joo capitalistic-sociopathic society has the most non-whites of Western Civilization. Of course, lower functioning humans are easy to exploit for a $.
Do you find the Chinese buying up the French Speaking regions of Canada? The answer is no and will always be no for an answer.
JS said:
Several forces are working in tadem in Anglo-Joo Sociopathic Land:
1) WASPs are all about emanating petty power and wealth
2) Joos are in the same skin, but more in the background
3) WASPs need to exploit lower class whites to gain such power and need non-whites to collude them, confuse them and exploit them
4) Joos work in the same method, but welcome more non-whites, because they fear lower class whites’ retailiation
Actually, America is the greatest corporate entity to exist.
SantoCulto said:
Js,
seems Quebec is not super-better than anglo Canada. And in Europe, francophile regions are worst in terms of multiculturalism ”at least” in demographics.
RaceRealist said:
” RR is ok I admit I’ve been wrong about him he is genuine and backs his claim with suitable evidences”
Apology accepted.
SantoCulto said:
I’m expecting my comments…
i will not tolerate AGAIN as in the past, this kind of unfair or selective censorship.
Who’s say what it want, will listen what it don’t want..
pumpkinperson said:
i will not tolerate AGAIN as in the past, this kind of unfair or selective censorship.
Just trying to avoid arguments getting out of hand. It’s good for my blog when you fight because it increases my readership, but it’s a waste of your time. It’s much smarter to avoid strong opinions, and instead just ask polite questions so you can learn from others here & they can learn from you.
SantoCulto said:
No, what i ALREADY tell you in the last time, it’s smarter by you to be FAIR firstly instead be selective by unknown reasons at least by your public.
If your blog increase audience ONLY by fight among commenters, so you no have a intellectually-based blog, period.
It’s not ”opinion”, it’s nonsense offense by professional troll.
The Philosopher said:
I have to side with Santo. Pumpkin essentially censors conservative thinkers because he can’t intellectually grasp what the hell we’re saying and/or objective reality.
Pumpkin lives in a fantasy Oprah WInfrey world where race exists in IQ tests but not personality and predominantly, psychopathy.
pumpkinperson said:
I have to side with Santo. Pumpkin essentially censors conservative thinkers because he can’t intellectually grasp what the hell we’re saying and/or objective reality.
Your social IQ is not great. There’s NO correlation between what I believe and what comments I publish, or if anything the correlation is NEGATIVE. The purpose of the moderation is not stifle ideas I don’t grasp or agree with, it’s to avoid alienating my target audience and to not waste my time with ad hominems.
Santoculto said:
Your censorship has been partially errant but possibly favorable for those you share more things in common.
The Philosopher said:
Pumpkin censors ‘controversial comments’. How defines what is controversial?
((((((0 0)))))))
V
RaceRealist said:
Melo, friendo, what are your thoughts on the honor culture argument?
meLo said:
Wasn’t paying attention, want to run me through it real quick? I think I already get the gist though. Basically you’re saying is that an honor culture(one that promotes high T) will cause permanent almost epigenetic changes to T levels within the population?
RaceRealist said:
The argument is as follows:
Environmental factors can raise or decrease testosterone; this is true for a myriad of events. If low-income blacks have higher testosterone, and they also engage in honor culture which is known to increase testosterone, then, therefore, honor culture is why they have higher testosterone than better-educated blacks of the same age range.
If environmental factors can raise testosterone and keep it elevated after said event, then it logically follows that this is the reason why low-income blacks have higher testosterone levels. The pattern followed the hypothesis set out by Mazur (2016) (yes I know it’s ‘just a hypothesis’), so therefore there is a strong case for that being the cause for elevated testosterone in low-income blacks.
The epigenetic effect is interesting and I’ll look into it once I know more about epigenetics.
meLo said:
“If low-income blacks have higher testosterone, and they also engage in honor culture which is known to increase testosterone, then, therefore, honor culture is why they have higher testosterone than better-educated blacks of the same age range.”
Do “better-educated” and high SES blacks have higher levels of testosterone than their High SES asian and white counterparts?
RaceRealist said:
“Do “better-educated” and high SES blacks have higher levels of testosterone than their High SES asian and white counterparts?”
No idea about Asians but they have slightly higher levels than whites, nothing to ride home about.
https://notpolitcallycorrect.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/fsoc-01-00001-g001.jpg?w=473&h=319
Then this leaves us with the fact that high levels of testosterone 1) don’t cause aggression and in effect crime:
Pretty clear-cut if I don’t say so myself. Even if blacks did have substantially higher levels it wouldn’t be enough to explain crime, nor PCa rates! Diet better explains PCa rates so the testosterone thing should be put to bed.
meLo said:
“but they have slightly higher levels than whites, nothing to ride home about.”
Then this really doesn’t prove or disprove Rushton’s R/k theory either way, SInce it’s is based around the 3 main macro races. Is the “SD” higher than difference?
“Then this leaves us with the fact that high levels of testosterone 1) don’t cause aggression and in effect crime:”
Controlling for age seems like a piss poor excuse to discount these studies, honestly you and I have already gone through the absurdity of this. Back when you tried demonstrating East asians had the most T. Isn’t age a prominent factor regarding T levels? Even if T levels fluctuate based on the time of day, is the amount even significant?
RaceRealist said:
“Then this really doesn’t prove or disprove Rushton’s R/k theory either way, SInce it’s is based around the 3 main macro races. Is the “SD” higher than difference?”
Yes it does. I’ve shown conclusively that environmental factors raise the hormone. The hypothesis is consistent with the data. I’ve also given further argument for the case. Rushton’s r/K bullshit is disproven without this on testosterone anyway, but you’ll see that soon enough.
“Controlling for age seems like a piss poor excuse to discount these studies, honestly you and I have already gone through the absurdity of this. Back when you tried demonstrating East asians had the most T. Isn’t age a prominent factor regarding T levels? Even if T levels fluctuate based on the time of day, is the amount even significant?”
So don’t control for known confounds to testosterone? This retarded. Should BMI and WC not be controlled for either? Testosterone fluctuates with age. Fact. And it fluctuates due to how much fat one carries which also fluctuates due to, again, age, BMI, and WC. That’s why the variables need controlling for.
Anyway, the article showed that the correlation between testosterone and aggression is .14. That’s it. Testosterone doesn’t cause crime. It’s Rushton bullshit.
Yes there is huge variation in the rhythm of testosterone which is why assays must be taken at the same time, early in the morning is best. So studies like Ross et al 1986 (PP’s favorite) they were all over the place with collection times (ranging between 10 am and 3 pm). Therefore it’s a trash study and doesn’t tell us shit about racial Differences in the hormone. Oh yea they didn’t have a measure of central adiposity either. Controlling for those measures isn’t a piss poor excuse. Since it’s known to be affected then it must be controlled for. Why shouldn’t a known confound shown to throw hormone levels off be controlled for, especially in studies designed to test for how a high level of a hormone will have an effect in the body.
Anyway Melo, Rushton’s r K bullshit is dead. Afro and I are going to kill it for good and anyone who’s smart won’t push it anymore after we’re done with it.
meLo said:
“I’ve shown conclusively that environmental factors raise the hormone. The hypothesis is consistent with the data.”
That’s irrelevant, please answer my question. Demonstrating that environmental factors raise hormone levels has little to do with Rushton.
“So don’t control for known confounds to testosterone?”
How is age a confounding variable to testosterone? Testing Hormone levels when an individual is within the prime of their life is logical. Why would you test an Old man and then compare it to a child or a teenager?
“Anyway, the article showed that the correlation between testosterone and aggression is .14.”
And?
“Oh yea they didn’t have a measure of central adiposity either. Controlling for those measures isn’t a piss poor excuse.”
I was specifically talking about age.
“Afro and I are going to kill it for good and anyone who’s smart won’t push it anymore after we’re done with it.”
LOL r/k was dead the moment graves got his hands on it. In fact I’ve demonstrated how autistic such a symmetrical theory is before.
RaceRealist said:
“That’s irrelevant, please answer my question. Demonstrating that environmental factors raise hormone levels has little to do with Rushton.”
I don’t know the answer and it is meaningless. Testosterone doesn’t cause crime. Nor prostate cancer. The two proposals of Rushton (crime, prostate cancer) are bunk! It does, however, raise in regards to the environment which is something he didn’t understand.
And yes it has all to do with Rushton. Rushton asserts that any so-called testosterone differences from the studies he cites (Ross et al 1986, Ellis and Nyborg, 1993) are due to genetic factors. Those two studies are horribly flawed.
The point is, the studies he uses to draw his conclusions on racial differences in testosterone are wrong! And Mazur 2016 shows that it raises due to the environment. How can one draw an evolutionary hypothesis from that? You can’t. Africans have lower levels than Westerners, black and white Americans don’t differ, and the low-income blacks with slightly higher levels (if you look at the graph they have very low levels. For reference I’m 28 and my levels are over 700 ng/ml last I checked. Feels good) had higher levels due to environmental—not genetic—factors, which is why I pointed out that I showed that numerous environmental factors raise testosterone.
“How is age a confounding variable to testosterone? Testing Hormone levels when an individual is within the prime of their life is logical. Why would you test an Old man and then compare it to a child or a teenager?”
Do you think that people are going to be the exact same age, down to the month? That’s what controlling for it means. Sure the difference in some of the studies is like .2 years, and yes it does matter. The point is the one study that loves getting thrown around is garbage and assayed them in a 5-hour range between 10 am and 3 pm. Drawing evolutionary hypotheses from that is retarded, wouldn’t you agree?
“And?”
It doesn’t cause crime so Rushton’s attempt to prove that blacks have X amount higher testosterone (not true since I’ve pointed out the flaws in the studies he cited) that causes Y amount of crime is not true.
“I was specifically talking about age.”
If the whole sample is averaged to, say 23.5 for whites and 24 for blacks, the age would need to be controlled for. How does that not make sense?
“LOL r/k was dead the moment graves got his hands on it. In fact I’ve demonstrated how autistic such a symmetrical theory is before.”
I know and I get it now. PP should stop pushing it because it’s wrong and Rushton doesn’t understand evolution, nor biology, nor ecology. I admit I was wrong at each instance I defended Rushton’s misuse of the theory. He was clueless about evolution.
RaceRealist said:
Also buddy, you said that it doesn’t disprove Rushton’s r k theory. Then you said that his theory was done when Graves got his hands on it.
My point is, the studies he cites on testosterone are hilariously flawed. So flawed that it’s a waste of my time to discuss them in an evolutionary perspective, especially Ross et al 1986.
Anyway, Ross et al 1986 is useless to the discussion on racial differences in testosterone. Yes pp, I know “no studies are perfect”, but the fact that the time of assay was all over the place in that study is enough to disregard its results. Do you agree pp? Melo?
Last point on Mazur. Social factors are shown to raise testosterone. That’s the reason.
Africans have lower testosterone than us westerners. Weird…. Almost as if testosterone doesn’t cause violence so talking about it in terms of violence is retarded.
Rushton’s testosterone and race bullshit is dead. I killed it.
pumpkinperson said:
Anyway, Ross et al 1986 is useless to the discussion on racial differences in testosterone. Yes pp, I know “no studies are perfect”, but the fact that the time of assay was all over the place in that study is enough to disregard its results. Do you agree pp? Melo?
I think you’re being manipulated. Just as the white skinheads in your tough neighbourhood saw that you grew up with a single mom and thus were desperate for alpha male attention and were able to manipulate you into becoming a racist, another alpha-male (Afro) befriended you and manipulated you into becoming anti-HBD, and you were especially vulnerable to this con because it’s the same one you’re receiving from all the academic articles you read by Gould.
RaceRealist said:
…. What does this have to do with what I wrote? Do you agree or disagree with what I wrote about the stud Ross et al 1986? Knowing what you now know about testosterone assays and how they’re all over the place at X time of day, how can you possibly accept that study as showing any racial differences?
And what the hell are you talking about white skin heads for? I’m not a skin head. Manipulate me into becoming a racist? My experience made me ‘racist’, but I’ve since come to realize in the last few years that it’s retarded and a waste of time to hate groups of people.
Anti-HBD? I’m pro-truth and anti-bullshit. Rushton has been debunked on testosterone. Admit it. That study is flawed. Yes or no? Simple question. If yes, you realize that you cannot accept the study results, correct?
So anything Gould has ever written is wrong due to his politics? That’s a bad tree to go up PP. Why is Rushton’s affiliation with the PF not any concern to you? It’s the opposite of Goulds politics.
Ad hominem are retarded. I’ve pretty much blasted all your beliefs away and all you have are literal garbage, baseless attacks on my character and what I believe (which is true as I’ve provided argument and evidence for my case!).
Let’s try this again. Yes or no. Ross et al 1986 is a garbage study and you cannot generalize any racial differences in testosterone due to the assay time being all over the place between 10 am and 3 pm.
Keep your baseless attacks out of this, this is supposed to be a serious discussion, not you battling strawmen of me in your head.
pumpkinperson said:
What does this have to do with what I wrote? Do you agree or disagree with what I wrote about the stud Ross et al 1986? Knowing what you now know about testosterone assays and how they’re all over the place at X time of day, how can you possibly accept that study as showing any racial differences?
Were all the blacks measured at time A and all the whites measured at time B, or was it a random mix of times so both groups were equally likely to be tested at any of the times?
And what the hell are you talking about white skin heads for? I’m not a skin head
But before you came to this blog you were pretty hard-core racist.
Manipulate me into becoming a racist? My experience made me ‘racist’, but I’ve since come to realize in the last few years that it’s retarded and a waste of time to hate groups of people.
Fantastic!
Anti-HBD? I’m pro-truth and anti-bullshit. Rushton has been debunked on testosterone. Admit it. That study is flawed. Yes or no?
Yes, but all the studies are flawed. T levels are so sensitive to environmental influences that you can’t get stable measures. Having said that, the totality of studies seem to point to at least a small black > white T gap, at least among men in their sexual prime which is the age relevant to Rushton’s r/K model. Now you want to deny this gap by adjusting for body type, but the white body type might have been selected for in part because it lowered T as part of Rushton’s r/K selection.
So anything Gould has ever written is wrong due to his politics?
No, but you should be aware of his agenda when reading him.
That’s a bad tree to go up PP. Why is Rushton’s affiliation with the PF not any concern to you?
It is. I think he’s just as biased as Gould, but the difference is Gould has the entire establishment behind his bias, and the way to get tenure at university to celebrate Gould and trash HBD, so you have dozens of anti-Rushton articles, studies, and essays to choose from, and the sheer weight of all that propaganda has manipulated you.
I’ve pretty much blasted all your beliefs away
The fact that you think you’ve blasted anything away shows your complete lack of intelligence:
the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias, wherein persons of low ability suffer from illusory superiority when they mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence
Or to quote Chris Langan:
“the stupid don’t know they’re stupid, and therein lies their stupidity”
RaceRealist said:
One more thing PP. Do you disavow Rushton’s r k theory now? Or do you still push a theory that’s literally the opposite of what Rushton conceded? Re: mixing up r and K selection. Because if you do, you’re no better than Rushton who never replied to Graves’ demolition of Rushton’s “theory”.
pumpkinperson said:
Because if you do, you’re no better than Rushton who never replied to Graves’ demolition of Rushton’s “theory”.
There’s not enough hours in the day for Rushton to respond to all the people attacking him and a lot of journals would not have even published Rushton’s rebuttals. You’re very naïve RR.
RaceRealist said:
Which is why Rushton’s reply to Graves’ demolition was just repeating his data without addressing his criticism!
You know that Africans are K and Eurasians are r, going by Rushton’s model, right? So by his reasoning, Africans have a higher capacity for intelligence.
Sorry, Rushton was wrong as fuck and if you continue to push his bullshit after Afro and I destroy it, you really are a charlatan and an ideologue.
RaceRealist said:
Graves even demolished Rushton in debate as well. It’s on YouTube. Go watch it.
pumpkinperson said:
What specifically did he say that was so devastating RR? Tell me in your own words, not by quoting some long essay. Or save it for your guest post, which seems to be taking forever despite you and Afro both working on it. If the case against Rushton is so strong you should have been able to type that baby in under an hour.
RaceRealist said:
The main part is that Africans would be K and Eurasians would be r. That’s as simple as I can put it.
I put a lot of time and love into my articles, I don’t take an hour to do things and get it out. I like my stuff to be well cited, something you should learn…
pumpkinperson said:
The main part is that Africans would be K and Eurasians would be r.
Why?
RaceRealist said:
r-selection occurs when organisms migrate to a new ecosystem so they’ll need more individuals. K occurs in places like Africa, with endemic diseases, etc. Furthermore Rushton states that Asia was unbearably cold and Africa sweltering hot in the Pleistocince, yet he provides no references.
That he completely mixed up r and K shows his theory is wrong.
Further, studying populations not in their ancestral habitat is retarded. Think about that for a moment.
pumpkinperson said:
r-selection occurs when organisms migrate to a new ecosystem so they’ll need more individuals.
But in your homo erectus guest post you wrote “brain size predicts the success of a species in novel environments (Sol et al, 2008)” So you think large brains are an r trait?
K occurs in places like Africa, with endemic diseases, etc.
Why would endemic diseases cause K selection?
Furthermore Rushton states that Asia was unbearably cold and Africa sweltering hot in the Pleistocince, yet he provides no references.
Do you deny that Africa has been warmer than Northern Eurasia through most of the time since Africans and non-Africans split?
That he completely mixed up r and K shows his theory is wrong.
That’s an assertion not a given
Further, studying populations not in their ancestral habitat is retarded. Think about that for a moment.
So you don’t think people ever preserve part of their phenotype when they leave their ancestral lands? Do blacks who move to Europe acquire white skin in one generation?
RaceRealist said:
One last thing. I’m not Anti-HBD. I’ve only opposed your thoughts alot. Most things I never said what I believed. I’m only opposing you to get a good discussion. Is that a bad thing? Should we all agree here? Just because I oppose you doesn’t mean I hold the belief! Learn argumentation!
GondwanaMan said:
The problem with saying, “honor culture creates high testosterone levels”, is that it brings up a critical question: where does culture come from?
pumpkinperson said:
The problem with saying, “honor culture creates high testosterone levels”, is that it brings up a critical question: where does culture come from?
Excellent question. This why you were a national merit finalist.
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
Excellent question but obvious answers:
Lack of reliable policing => extra-legal order => talion law.
Honor culture is far from being exclusive to black ghettos or an universal feature of black cultures.
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
another alpha-male (Afro) befriended you and manipulated you into becoming anti-HBD
It seems you don’t realize the amount RR reads on a daily basis. And one of us influenced the other, it’s not in the direction you think because RR presented me a lot of sex I wasn’t aware existed. At the beginning, I thought HBD was a set of dangerous theories that was based on misinterpreting hard facts, now it just makes me laugh and RR has contributed a lot to my current position.
But in your homo erectus guest post you wrote “brain size predicts the success of a species in novel environments (Sol et al, 2008)” So you think large brains are an r trait?
Yes, that’s the logical conclusion. But this is a very particular study in which they introduced animals into new environments during their lifetimes. Nothing like that happened in human migrations when it took hundreds of generations for populations to find themselves in habitats that were significantly different from their ancestors’s environment.
Why would endemic diseases cause K selection?
Because it lowers the carrying capacity of an environment, thus increasing high density-dependent selection.
Do you deny that Africa has been warmer than Northern Eurasia through most of the time since Africans and non-Africans split?
The point is that Rushton makes baseless assertions. Africa is warm, Northern Eurasia is colder and no one disputes this. But how much colder? It matters to the r/K paradigm as drought and extreme cold are forces of r selection.
That’s an assertion not a given
It’s a fact, the theory’s implications are at the opposite of Rushton’s assertions.
So you don’t think people ever preserve part of their phenotype when they leave their ancestral lands? Do blacks who move to Europe acquire white skin in one generation?
Skin color is not a behavioral trait, however what is observed is that light skin increases mortality in the tropics and black skin increases mortality at high latitudes, so there is natural selection ongoing.
On behavioral traits, ecologists study species in their ancestral ecosystem to make a clear link between evolved behaviors and environmental challenges. If you study a species in another ecosystem, you won’t be able to make evolutionary inferences.
at least among men in their sexual prime which is the age relevant to Rushton’s r/K model.
Testosterone would more likely be K or alpha selected as it increases survival in competitive environments.
pumpkinperson said:
RR presented me a lot of sex I wasn’t aware existed.
Way too much information!
Yes, that’s the logical conclusion. But this is a very particular study in which they introduced animals into new environments during their lifetimes. Nothing like that happened in human migrations when it took hundreds of generations for populations to find themselves in habitats that were significantly different from their ancestors’s environment.
citation needed
Because it lowers the carrying capacity of an environment, thus increasing high density-dependent selection.
But it also increases the odds that one of your babies will die for reasons beyond your control, thus increasing the genetic “incentive” to invest more in litter size than parental care.
It matters to the r/K paradigm as drought and extreme cold are forces of r selection.
How cold is extreme?
It’s a fact
You haven’t demonstrated that
Skin color is not a behavioral trait,
And your point is?
however what is observed is that light skin increases mortality in the tropics and black skin increases mortality at high latitudes, so there is natural selection ongoing.
And your point is?
On behavioral traits, ecologists study species in their ancestral ecosystem to make a clear link between evolved behaviors and environmental challenges. If you study a species in another ecosystem, you won’t be able to make evolutionary inferences.
Rushton’s assuming the Phenotype = genotype + environment model for most of his traits. That assumption could turn out to be wrong, but if you’re going to assert that it is, the onus is you to prove it in this context.
Testosterone would more likely be K or alpha selected as it increases survival in competitive environments.
You could argue it was r because high T men presumably have more sex
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
Way too much information!
LMAO, yes, it’s no secret that I’m obsessed with sex but let’s not involve RR’s reputation in my pathology: he showed me nothing sexual. Hope it’s clear to everyone.
citation needed
The study:
Click to access 0c96052cec7d152958000000.pdf
Also, notice the study says species with bigger brains survive better, not that bigger brained individuals within a species survive better.
On human migrations, no need of a particular citation, just acknowledging the fact that it took tens of thousands of years to colonize the planet.
But it also increases the odds that one of your babies will die for reasons beyond your control, thus increasing the genetic “incentive” to invest more in litter size than parental care.
No, because K selection occurs when environment poses high challenges to survival because of living on the malthusan limit, hence the need to invest in fewer offsprings. r-selection occurs when there is no need for quality offsprings because of low density, hence low competition, a r-selecting environment isn’t selecting the fittest, population just explodes until it reaches the malthusan limit, then K selection takes over favoring quality over quantity.
How cold is extreme?
Depends on the species you study. It seems humans have not experienced an environment that’s cold enough for r-selection since the whole species is K selected.
You haven’t demonstrated that
Don’t worry I will.
And your point is?
Ecologists study behavioral adaptations to ecosystems.
And your point is?
You said blacks don’t become white after one generation in the west. I tell you there is ongoing selection for skin color in all mismatched populations. But if we didn’t know history and assumed blacks were natives of Europe or North america, we would have a hard time understanding why some people evolved to have black skin and others white skin in the same environment.
Rushton’s assuming the Phenotype = genotype + environment model for most of his traits.
What’s wrong is the evolutionary logic he proposes.
You could argue it was r because high T men presumably have more sex
Testosterone doesn’t change the number of babies conceived at each intercourse. r/K isn’t about promiscuity.
pumpkinperson said:
Also, notice the study says species with bigger brains survive better, not that bigger brained individuals within a species survive better.
What’s relevant in the context of Rushton’s theory is the average brain size of the population (race or species) not the individual.
On human migrations, no need of a particular citation, just acknowledging the fact that it took tens of thousands of years to colonize the planet.
I know, but it didn’t take thousands of years to travel from a climate they had the skills to handle to a climate requiring new skills, and even if it did, that’s not a lot of time for primitive cultures to figure out how to adapt to the cold when their ancestors lived in warmth for millions of years.
No, because K selection occurs when environment poses high challenges to survival because of living on the malthusan limit, hence the need to invest in fewer offsprings. r-selection occurs when there is no need for quality offsprings because of low density, hence low competition,
When half the population dies because of a tropical disease, there’s less competition, Afro.
Ecologists study behavioral adaptations to ecosystems.
But if those behavioral adaptations are CAUSED by genetic variants as Rushton implies, they will show up almost anywhere the races live under similar conditions. A chimp is more K selected than a snake whether they’re living in the jungle or living in a zoo.
You said blacks don’t become white after one generation in the west. I tell you there is ongoing selection for skin color in all mismatched populations. But if we didn’t know history and assumed blacks were natives of Europe or North america, we would have a hard time understanding why some people evolved to have black skin and others white skin in the same environment.
But Rushton knows where blacks and whites evolved Afro. He’s just observing their phenotypic differences mostly in America but assuming they reflect genotypic differences that evolved in their home lands.
Testosterone doesn’t change the number of babies conceived at each intercourse. r/K isn’t about promiscuity.
But it increases the frequency of intercourse which increases the quantity of offspring. r/k is about quantity vs quality as you agreed.
That’s going to have to be the last word, but you can make whatever points you have left if you and RR finish writing the guest post.
RaceRealist said:
“The problem with saying, “honor culture creates high testosterone levels”, is that it brings up a critical question: where does culture come from?”
Put someone from an upper class community into a lower class one that’s poor. What would happen to testosterone levels? That environmental factors raise testosterone lends strong credence to Mazur’s hypothesis. Everything isn’t genetic. Believing so is retarded.
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
And one of us influenced the other, it’s not in the direction you think because RR presented me a lot of sex I wasn’t aware existed.
LMAO, my mind is so dirty, I should look for tourette diagnosis. Can’t even blame orthography check cause the word was “evidence”. Multitasking aint for me.
Correct sentence:
And if one of us influenced the other, it’s not in the direction you think because RR presented me a lot of evidence I wasn’t aware existed.
Phil78 said:
“The problem with saying, “honor culture creates high testosterone levels”, is that it brings up a critical question: where does culture come from?”
Even of honor culture has a biological root, T levels could still be a phenotypical result rather than a genetic baseline.
For instance aggression is correlated positively with T levels but only on a low level, leaving room for other factors.
Therefore, say their original environment selected for on T related aggressive/competitive traits, then you would have artificial escalated T as a result.
Then you have circumstancial factors, as Afro noted, which could intensify it in the sense of a “new pressure” even going by gene-culture co-evolution.
Phil78 said:
“Non T related”
Phil78 said:
“Honor culture is far from being exclusive to black ghettos or an universal feature of black cultures.”
At least in terms of lacking one that results in higher crime, some precolonial cultures that come to mind are the Kru, Fante, certain Igbo groups, the Tswana (Northern Or Eastern if I recall), and Mandinkas/Mandingoes based on what I’ve read of Ibn Battuta and european texts on speakers in Senegal.
The Bambarra in Mali though were mentioned to be martial, but that’s expected as at that time they were said to still be in competition with other Islamic empires and they formed the ruling class in the culture.
Some opposing candidates were likely the Ashanti, Fon of Dahomey, Oyo/Egba, Bini, Various Congolese States, and South Eastern Bantus such as the Zulu and their competitors.
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
Martial culture and honor culture are two different things. “Martiality” is more about politics and leadership, Japan and Germany have been the extremes of martial culture, now they’re tamed.
Honor culture is about social regulation and it takes place when no legitimate judicial institutions manage inter-personal disputes.
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
Further, I’d tend to think a honor culture couldn’t survive in a martial culture as the latter would not tolerate any form of extra-legal order from which a honor culture emerges.
RaceRealist said:
“Were all the blacks measured at time A and all the whites measured at time B, or was it a random mix of times so both groups were equally likely to be tested at any of the times?”
It was all over the place.
You also know that the study was only for black and white college students in that area, right? Why generalize it to the whole black and white American population?
You’re literally just taking Rushton’s word for this. Why didn’t Rushton, who has a Ph.D. in psychology, know about this huge confound? Strange… This is why you should stop pushing the study’s results. So the claim that ‘blacks average 3 to 19 percent higher testosterone than whites’ is wrong on its face due to that confound! What is so hard to understand about that?
“Yes, but all the studies are flawed.”
Yawn. No they’re not.
“Having said that, the totality of studies seem to point to at least a small black > white T gap”
I have cited multiple large analyses; it’s between 2.5 and 4.9 percent—trivial to explain crime or disease rates!
There is something very simple to understand here. Testosterone does not cause violence, nor does it cause PCa. So if it doesn’t cause those two things, then why the hell are you so hell bent on defending Rushton’s bullshit and inability to read (maybe he knew exactly what he was doing?) Ross et al 1986 since you literally have no knowledge about it? Even if blacks had 10 percent higher testosterone, it wouldn’t explain high rates of crime! That’s extremely simple to understand and you wasting your time and energy defending Rushton even after I poked a billion holes into his bullshit you still defend him relentlessly, learning nothing in the process about how garbage his theory was—due to his misapplication of it!
“Now you want to deny this gap by adjusting for body type, but the white body type might have been selected for in part because it lowered T as part of Rushton’s r/K selection.”
Why adjust for any variable PP? Let’s just get the snapshot of that moment in time of the study and just not control or adjust for confounds and see what it looks like. But that’s not how shit works. Testosterone fluctuates based on age, so that get’s controlled for. Testosterone fluctuates based on BMI and WC, so that gets controlled for. And since those two variables also fluctuate, again, that’s why they must be controlled for. It’s very simple to understand.
“but the white body type might have been selected for in part because it lowered T as part of Rushton’s r/K selection.”
Bullshit and baseless conjecture because Rushton didn’t test Africans and Europeans in the environment that the selection was hypothesized to have occurred.
“but the difference is Gould has the entire establishment behind his bias, and the way to get tenure at university to celebrate Gould and trash HBD”
Gould was a great researcher and writer; you wouldn’t know that since you’ve never read him. You’re letting your bias, ironically, cloud your view of him, automatically assuming that he’s wrong and Rushton is right.
“so you have dozens of anti-Rushton articles, studies, and essays to choose from”
Specialists in their field shouldn’t respond to some psychologist waltzing into their field and misapplying theory?
“and the sheer weight of all that propaganda has manipulated you.”
The ‘sheer weight of all that propaganda’, i.e., all of the facts that were written against Rushton’s bullshit theory, convinced me. What you don’t understand PP is that I was just like you. Cheerleading for Rushton’s evolutionary theories. I was just like you defending Ross et al 1986 against Richard et al 2014. I didn’t know better back then, but now I do.
It seems the sheer weight of Quest for Fire being your favorite movie, combined with you discovering Rushton’s bullshit theory is driving your bias. You said so yourself. Its ‘elegance and simplicity’ so ‘parsimoniously’ explains the data. Ecological theory—especially of the school Rushton erroneously applied to human races—is not ‘simple’. Sorry that your ‘simple, elegant, and parsimonious model’ is not a viable theory due to all the hole and misapplications. That’s the truth.
“The fact that you think you’ve blasted anything away shows your complete lack of intelligence”
I have. I rebutted Rushton’s penis size bullshit. I rebutted his testosterone bullshit. Your replies don’t cut it; you show no knowledge at all about testosterone. You handwave away everything that refutes what “Rushton said” and still push the same shit years later.
I know that by admitting that his theory is bullshit that something like twenty years of your life will have been for nothing. Well, that’s how the world works. Why hide from reality? Rushton’s theory is wrong and anything that follows from his theory is wrong by proxy as an explanation for an observation. Is that so hard to grasp?
“Or to quote Chris Langan”
Who is this and why should I care what he says? You talk like you know it all, yet you can’t concede things when your superior is showing you how wrong you are.
To quote myself:
You’re wrong and Rushton is wrong.
pumpkinperson said:
“Having said that, the totality of studies seem to point to at least a small black > white T gap”
I have cited multiple large analyses; it’s between 2.5 and 4.9 percent—trivial to explain crime or disease rates!
I don’t care whether it explains crime or disease. That’s peripheral to Rushton’s theory. Rushton never claimed the racial differences were large but I suspect they’re larger than you claim given the sky high T of black high school dropout youth, even if it’s greatly inflated by honor culture as some speculate.
There is something very simple to understand here. Testosterone does not cause violence, nor does it cause PCa.
There’s a lot of research showing at least a weak correlation between T and aggression though inferring causation is always tough, as MeLo is trying to explain to you. Meanwhile the American Cancer Society states: androgens (male hormones), such as testosterone, promote prostate cell growth. Having higher levels of androgens might contribute to prostate cancer risk in some men.
“but the white body type might have been selected for in part because it lowered T as part of Rushton’s r/K selection.”
Bullshit and baseless conjecture because Rushton didn’t test Africans and Europeans in the environment that the selection was hypothesized to have occurred.
Rushton’s assuming the phenotype = genotype + environment model which means the racial T ranking will generally hold in almost any environment where you place the races together.
Gould was a great researcher and writer you wouldn’t know that since you’ve never read him.
I’ve read some Gould and I agree he’s a great writer and I respect his punctuated equilibrium model, but like all of us, he has blind spots and biases, and they’ve had a huge effect on the culture.
Specialists in their field shouldn’t respond to some psychologist waltzing into their field and misapplying theory?
You mean specialists like E.O. Wilson, one of the pioneers of r/K theory? He endorsed Rushton’s theory.
What you don’t understand PP is that I was just like you. Cheerleading for Rushton’s evolutionary theories. I was just like you defending Ross et al 1986 against Richard et al 2014. I didn’t know better back then, but now I do.
You’re still an ignorant cheerleader RR. You’re just cheering for a different team.
It seems the sheer weight of Quest for Fire being your favorite movie, combined with you discovering Rushton’s bullshit theory is driving your bias.
Biased != wrong
I have. I rebutted Rushton’s penis size bullshit.
No you just pointed out a few flaws in the research that Rushton himself admitted. Race research has been taboo since WWII so the data is not as advanced as it should be by now. Pointing out obvious flaws in the studies is shooting fish in a barrel.
I know that by admitting that his theory is bullshit that something like twenty years of your life will have been for nothing.
That’s like saying childhood is wasted because kids believe in Santa. Just the opposite. I won’t deny I’m psychologically invested in Rushton’s theory, but to quote MeLo “you still haven’t demonstrated the validity of your point”
You talk like you know it all, yet you can’t concede things when your superior is showing you how wrong you are.
You misspelled “inferior”.
To quote myself:
You’re wrong and Rushton is wrong.
Move over Shakespeare!
That’s going to have to be the last word RR. Maybe we can discuss it again if you and Afro ever finish your guest post.
afro's girlfriend is a dude. said:
RR presented me a lot of sex I wasn’t aware existed
i assume you’re referring to sex between men and women of the same age.
i realize that this is very rare in france.
meLo said:
Jesus christ, it’s a party.
“I don’t know the answer and it is meaningless.”
It isn’t meaningless, I wanted to know if the T difference between High SES blacks and whites was higher than the average difference between regular people.
“Do you think that people are going to be the exact same age, down to the month? ”
So no twin studies?
“The point is the one study that loves getting thrown around is garbage and assayed them in a 5-hour range between 10 am and 3 pm”
Do the fluctuations ever “settle” back to an average?
“It doesn’t cause crime”
You can’t derive causality if there are still hidden variables. Even then, the correlation is still positive.
“Also buddy, you said that it doesn’t disprove Rushton’s r k theory. Then you said that his theory was done when Graves got his hands on it.”
Yes I did say that and I still mean it, You’re attacking T levels when anyone with an actual understanding of r/k theory could see that he misapplied it. You’re beating a dead horse. Falsifying a theory doesn’t require the dismantling of every single parameter.
“r-selection occurs when organisms migrate to a new ecosystem so they’ll need more individuals. K occurs in places like Africa, with endemic diseases, ”
I don’t understand where you got that from, r/k selection is dependent on carrying capacity and population size. If Eurasia is more resource deprived but Africa has higher populations, which environment has the lower carrying capacity? Harsh conditions select for both r and k phenotypes. You still haven’t demonstrated the validity of your point.
Phil78 said:
Afro,
You are correct, I was think more along the lines pf “aggressive” competition that would raise T levels, not necessarily the structure.
In that case, my best guess would be decentralized areas extending from SE Nigeria into Central Africa if we are to judge on traditional institutions.
RaceRealist said:
Melo
1) I don’t know the answer, it’s meaningless to me.
2) twin studies are garbage and overestimate heritability. I’ll get into that one day.
3) testosterone levels stay elevated.
4) sure its still positive. However it’s extremely low and as I’ve shown the environment strongly effects testosterone levels, and they stay elevated after conflict.
5) I just like this testosterone conversation because it’s interesting to see how people don’t have knowledge on something and stop push something despite having no knowledge of something.
6) r selection occurs when an organism goes to novel environments, K selection occurs for instance with endemic diseases. The point is, as I’m sure you know, Rushton reversed r and K selection for human races, it’s the reverse with Eurasians being r and Africans being K. That’s enough to chuck his theory out the window.
meLo said:
1) Don’t be ignorant, the answer has to do with the significance of the measured discrepancy. If there is a difference, how do you know it’s a small amount compared to the one between two people of the same ethnicity? How can you disprove a theory about the 3 Macro races when you don’t have a decent study that compares them?
2) If they are garbage then what are you using to gauge the level of genetic variation of T levels? Showing culture affects T doesn’t discount genetic influence.
3) What I’m asking is if the levels just fluctuate constantly or if there is any real average to the extremes. If the former how in the hell do you expect to prove it either way if you can’t even properly control for it?
4) So what causes the environment?
6) That’s not true. In a Scientific sense all humans are K selected organisms. As to which Macro race is more K selected it isn’t really dependent on ” novel environments” It’s dependent on variability and both africa and Eurasia have had plenty of that in the past 7-4 million years. Places with higher population densities(social competition cough cough*) like urban cities are more K selected, and Africa is nowhere near as technologically advanced as Eurasia. What are the infant mortality rates between each continent? What about Fertility rates?
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
Places with higher population densities(social competition cough cough*) like urban cities are more K selected, and Africa is nowhere near as technologically advanced as Eurasia.
In the r/K paradigm, what matters isn’t population density like pop/km², it’s population relative to carrying capacity.
RaceRealist said:
Melo I will address your contentions in an article tonight for PP’s blog. On r K selection, that will be addressed sometime next week. We need to make it pristine and hit all of the points.
meLo said:
“what matters isn’t population density like pop/km², it’s population relative to carrying capacity.”
Indeed as I stated earlier.
“On r K selection, that will be addressed sometime next week. We need to make it pristine and hit all of the points.”
I’ll be waiting,
SantoCulto said:
Listen ”Pumpkin”
[do you perceive i’m calling you Pumpkin and not PeePee isn’t*]
I will try one more time, only one more time…
i will expect my comments here
NON-redacted and for ”jason”, i don’t know this shitty came.
IF my comments were
redacted
and/or
don’t accepted
i will finally never will come back here. It’s different than the last time because you’re giving me a very bad impression of your character, i hope you prove to me you are not that pumpkin person, now, i’m perceiving.
pumpkinperson said:
All your comments are there, but I’m not posting any new comments you say to or about Jason/RR/Afro or that Jason/RR/Afro say to or about you because I’m tired of the name calling. If you want to leave that’s up to you, but these rules are for your own good, and theirs.
Santoculto said:
Why this comment is being censored??
Santoculto said:
You will answer today or in the next year?
Remember if is true I’m popular here (I doubt if is a great magnitude) so I’m the upper hand at least partially speaking.
pumpkinperson said:
You’re polarizing. Some people strongly dislike you but philosopher considers you very intelligent in your native tongue & Mug of Pee writes:
santo is a genius.
if only he could speak english.
SantoCulto said:
I’m not, it’s not my original intention, i’m just clarifying what you said here. I’m not a provocateur, not always, [redacted by PP, June 11, 2017] are clear evidences that when i react in very bad ways it’s just via reciprocality.
”Verbally intelligent” but as my english is minimalistic so… in the end, what’s matter IS thinking lines/ideas/analytical and critical skills and not excellent grammar, even i know i would need improve it to be better understood, but blame my extreme rational pragmatism and relative lower consciousness for that.
The Philosopher said:
Santo is proof that much is lost in translation. It is actually a shock translating his posts into english. Impressive.
purpletigerbot said:
> No, I wasn’t a great student (hard to believe but true) because I spent all night obsessing over controversies on the internet and then slept in so late I missed class.
How do you score on conscientiousness?
[User name redacted by PP, June 9, 2017] said:
a truly conscientious person would also have “not good” grades.
fucking retard.
what you meant was, “how do you score on amorality, striving, and obedience?”
[User name redacted by PP, June 9, 2017] said:
the rich hated brexit so much that kensington and chelsea went for labor.
Jimmy said:
K&C is ~20% non-white. Affluent non-white but still non-white.
UK seats are usually won with ~38% of the pop vote
The rich voted tory because Theresa may was a remainer during the referendum campaign
This election was meant to give her a clear majority which would have weakened the tory backbenchers who are hardcore anti-EU
This was the first election where i was eligible to vote.
i voted for comrade corbyn
the establishment wanted a hung parliament because it kills two birds with one stone
1. No corbyn victory
2. No victory for anti-EU tory backbenchers.
mark my words the UK will not leave the EU
The Philosopher said:
DUP might be in. Brexit will happen. The polling is now even more positive for it.
[User name redacted by PP, June 9, 2017] said:
a brilliant way around denmark that may draw some ad revenue is simply no moderation (in its most general sense) combined with articles (in the most general sense) which attract anti-danes without being explicitly anti-danish.
no moderation means plenty of abuse from danes and their allies too. it doesn’t just mean anti-danes. it means abe foxman vs mark weber “moderated” by richard spencer. foxman would never agree. but that could be reported.
think like a dane to defeat the danes.
say, “to those who claim this tv network, magazine, newspaper, blog, etc is anti-danish i say, ‘it isn’t. this is just what our viewers and readers think. we don’t moderate their comments and we make an effort to include all points of view, even the most extreme. our purpose is to find the truth. it is not to curate opinion. fair, balanced, and representative.'”
this is what unz is trying to do to some extent. but because unz is danish this is co-opting, controlling.
The Philosopher said:
I genuinely don’t think Unz is co-opting. You know I have no trouble seeing malicious intent. He doesn’t have it.
Jimmy said:
Unz is generally a good guy but he has a genetic interest in people not going all the way down the rabbit hole.
in all the years i have been on that site i have only had 1 comment published
He has no problem talking about jewish privilege in college admissions, which is heroic, but he doesn’t publish comments that are ……. lets just say ” direct ”
Unz is not an enemy but it’s very healthy to be suspicious of all jews
better safe than sorry
SantoCulto said:
There are three types of political/ideological moderates
– pseudos
– current moderates
– real moderates/aka rationals
pseudos can be ”moderates” combining super and or REAL extremisms of both sides, for example, SOCIAL DARWINISM/on the ”right” + COMUNISM/ on the ”left”.
current moderates are those who have more amalgamated views be-twin two extremes
real moderates have real [-world] views that are suspended or fixed in the space and time, what’s good now has been good since the dawn of humanity.
complete lack of common sense
common sense
GOOD sense
[User name redacted by PP, June 10, 2017] said:
[first 2 sentences redacted by PP, June 11, 2017]
such moderation is expensive and pointless. no one’s going to stop reading because of stupid comments on a site like that.
steve sailer has posted every comment i’ve ever made.
this blog needs more pictures of black junk.
pumpkinperson said:
steve sailer has posted every comment i’ve ever made.
Only because he probably recognized you from my comment section. Not to brag but I’m on Steve’s blogroll.
The Philosopher said:
Does steve read this I wonder
Name redacted by PP, June 11, 2017 said:
you’re insane peepee.
i’ve never used the same handle.
pumpkinperson said:
He could have recognized your writing style & opinions
[User name redacted by PP, June 9, 2017] said:
the answer to Q1 is probably but not necessarily.
human intellectual and brain development i expect is like a growing tree.
there are always exceptions.
and the problem isn’t that growth and catch up is impossible. it is possible.
the problem is it’s socially impossible.
those who might’ve been smart but are dumb are apart, separated from, antipathetic toward their societies, and intelligence is a social phenomenon.
for more see the documentary Meet the Hitlers.
“Hitler” is a surname for people unrelated to hitler. such people are the subject of this documentary. the only people who won’t give an audience are the brothers on long island who really are related to hitler.
two of the characters, the white trash tatto-ed nazi smoker and the little german man are very interesting. you may find them repellent, but they’re still interesting. their lives might have been very different.
the little german is especially profound. one gets the impression that he’s not very bright…even though he only speaks in german. but he’s the most interesting character i’ve seen in a movie since Little Children.
[User name redacted by PP, June 9, 2017] said:
as a result of increasing american and danish influence (the latter largely via america) the national socialist period has still yet to be explained. it’s lessons have still not been learnt. it’s treated as an irruption out of no-where which should be ignored. it’s the boogey monster.
the standard treatment of national socialism is absurd. patently false. the issues it raises are just too much to be contemplated.
btw pill, “patently obvious” should never be used unless you’re joking.
[User name redacted by PP, June 9, 2017] said:
…its lessons…
peepee loves horror.
much can be learned from the truly horrible.
unfortunately psychiatry and its believers take the same tack as historians of nazi germany. they blame “sociopathy”.
but why are there any sociopaths at all?
no answer and no interest from the little children whose fires illuminate the commanding heights.
[User name redacted by PP, June 9, 2017] said:
that is, historians don’t blame nazism on sociopathy. but they throw up their hands and say, “there is no explanation.” or they blame it on white trash.
excuse me. i meant to say “white trashes“.
afro has taught me a lot about english grammar.
The Philosopher said:
Yes, it seems very facile the official narrative. There is most importantly 1 element of the narrative I keep getting censored for continuously everytime I raise it that explains why the narrative must be facile in order to form a chain link.
If you have never considered it for a moment, I want you all to consider the possibility the Danes are much more psychopathic for survival reasons, to the point of brainwashing their host to have social improvements, than other races of man. Even including their related MENA cousins.
[User name redacted by PP, June 9, 2017] said:
odd that my most anti-danish comments before posting are pulled somehow. it’s infuriating, but unlike pill i’m not paranoid. it’s just that i can’t type and laptops are shit. one accidental key stroke and…erased.
POS!
…
anyway…
i could prevent it by copying everything once every 30 seconds.
…
the nazis were NOT sociopaths. they were ideologues.
the one dispositive symptom of sociopathy is cruelty to animals.
the nazis are the biggest animal lovers EVER.
…
so how’d they do it?
how did they kill all those innocents?
the answer is…
ALCOHOL!
the killers were permanently DRUNK.
it’s in the interview, but i don’t remember what minute.
http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=518986612
the holocaust was impossible without alcohol.
this is also mentioned by a train driver in the film Shoah. his face is on the cover.
[User name redacted by PP, June 9, 2017] said:
peepee loves horror yet she doesn’t believe in God.
this means there is no such thing as evil for peepee.
all human behavior, however evil in itself, is explainable.
i disagree.
some human behavior is not explainable.
not now. not ever.
this is evil.
serial killers are universally evil in this sense afaik.
if ted k is a serial killer he’s the only exception i know of.
the nazis are 100% explainable.
but the danes promote the idea that the nazis are in-explicable, from Mars, and irruption of irrationality, etc.
which can be ignored, swept under the rug.
it’s absurd.
sometimes much can be learned from the truly horrible.
sometimes the lesson is evil is a thing, not just a category.
that’s not the lessons of the nazis.
SantoCulto said:
”peepee loves horror yet she doesn’t believe in God.”
Don’t make sense, bible is a horror story!!
The Philosopher said:
Yes, you can see it from what evil wants in the aesthetic. How does a society, a people, an environment look once evil is perpetuated, embraced and adopted. THe future envisioned by the Danes is objectively evil.
This is what Hitler saw when attacking the Jew SS R.
der zauberer von messkirch said:
the closest thing to oprah i have is…
Der Zauberer von Messkirch.
what’s his IQ peepee?
der zauberer von messkirch said:
of course unlike peepee i have zero interest in his personal life.
it’s what he’s written that interests me.
what did he say of aristotle?
“What was Aristotle’s life?’ Well, the answer lay in a single sentence: ‘He was born, he thought, he died.’ And all the rest is pure anecdote.”
SantoCulto said:
SantoCulto said:
Some disturbing views by Pumpkin
– Praise billionaires without really know how effectively altruistic this people are/if;
– Blind obsession with Oprah;
– Don’t care about people who are [ethnically] different from him/her/hx.
Analyse a disturbing world with the calmness of a [urban] monk.
illuminaticatblog said:
Spent 6 days at the mental hospital. I now take Lithium, Zyprexa, and Ativan.
I have Psychotic and schizophrenic feature, Asperger’s symptom, bipolar and anxiety, OCD.
I ate 1.5 marijuana chocolates and started haveing racing thoughts. It was a nightmare. Dark forces were trying to hurt me. So many things happened I thought I was having DMT trip. After the THC left my system I came back to reality and was in the hospital. The doctors the Chaplin and the therapist were really nice to me. I now know why my family is so mest up. My mom has the mental age of a 5-year-old my aunt a 6-year-old. My brother an 8-year-old my sister an 14-year-old and myself 19.
Because I was afraid of going to hell 7 years beginning at age 12.
I found out where the Super-ego is in the brain
Orbitofrontal cortex
subjects with damage to the left lateral OFC have been found to be defensive and to present themselves in an “angelic light”.[18] Low volume in this area has also been correlated with experiencing “fear of God”.[19] On the other hand, subjects with greater volume in this area have been found to score higher on the Mach IV test measuring Machiavellian personality traits[20] and activity in this region has generally been connected with Machiavellian thinking.
I would alway think God hates me. And that I was a bad person. And no adults ever helped me know better. Because my mom moved away from my abusive dad and because she has the mental age of a 5-year-old. It was like no one was there for me
I asked her at the hospital why she doesn’t talk to me, she said she cannot pay attention. I told her she needs to get help but she just stares at me. The two doctors I had IQ’s of at least 125. They made a report on me. I’ve been to the hospital 5 times.
(2007, 2009, 2011, 2016 and 6 days ago 2017)
My sister is haveing her friends protect her from her boyfriend. The fought again when I was in the hospital.
I am getting better at understanding how the brain functions to produce intelligence. It all has to do with sensory motor skills. Asperger’s people have problems integrating perception and action. This begins as a baby but in autism, the failure is to connect actions to perception. This makes development slower. This is why social skills are poor. It is hard to know why a person acts they way they do. They avoid eye contact so do not know how to read faces. The make up reasons for other behavior. Developmental stages are delayed. Communication and understanding social norms are delayed.
IQ may not be impaired in Aspergers because IQ tests lack temporal reasoning. Nothing moves like eye contact or anthropomorphization. Autism block out the social world, not patterns found in thing arrangements. Mental manipulation goes into what will not overstimulate them. They like order not chaos. So autistic savant abilities. Like Daniel Tammet. But what it is that makes Aspergers distinct is that they do not contemplate the perspectives people have of others. They lack third person perspective.
In schizophrenia, the third person perspective is hyper active to such an extent that delusion happen. A woman once killed three kids in Halloween masks because she believed the kids were demons sent from Satan to kill her. Schizos find patterns that don’t exist thus delusion thus Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion). The pole of autism and schizo is:
obliviousness / delusions
Q: Is my wife cheating on me.
Autism: I do not know, she never told me.
Schizo: she had to because bad things happen every time the cat in my head bites me. Or I lost my luck penny so she is cheating on me.
Order and Chaos
Rules and Anarchy
Oblivious vs Magical Thinking.
Normal people can read body language well. I cannot. But do know emotions, how they say what they say, inflection.
I have a perceptual issue that makes my brain stuck. Language is undamaged but I cannot see well because one of my connections is low functioning. It is the left ventail stream. I go 80 on picture completion, cancellation, and coding. Something is wrong with the projections of my left visual cortex into the frontal lobes.
I think you can make IQ go higher if you train the white matter tracks. It is as if your brain fibers are like muscles. If they atrophy then the work bad together with the strong fibers. Abd diet can improve blood flow to the brain and Omega-3 can create synaptic grows. And execs ad relation tightens focus. The cerebellum is at the bottom back of the brain and helps in motor control. It has been linked to processing speed. Over 140 regions in the brain are connected via white matter tracks. The brain can grow or atrophy just like the mussels in sports. In sport, you require lots of water and tone of the muscles. The brain is the same. Training has limits but what counts is that everything needs to work together. My anterior cingulate cortex is 135. All brain regions have an IQ level. What prevents me from doing allot of things I would like to do is the fact that functionally my perception has a functional hole. My perception-action cycle is messed up by perception. Cancellation and coding are the speed of your eyes and my eyes are super slow. But think this can be improved. I have seen people 80 years and do back flips in 2 months after using a cane to walk. And sin my mom never talked to my development was stunted. Anxiety is a horrible thing that prevents me from learning stuff. And I do not go to school. When I was in school this spring I made mistakes because my working memory is 95. I tried to pay attention but the anxiety was bad and my fingers hurt. But I learned allot from the math class.
My moms mental age is 5 and is why I felt so alone. I wish she could get better. I hope I can bet better. I think IQ can be raised really high. All that is need is to locate the regions of the brain that functionally weak they condition that area. Therapy with autistic people makes them have better social skills. The brain starts to coordinate in new ways. Poor schools have poor performance because the needs of children are not met. Behaviorism has bad ideas but it is still relevant. Child care can make children with disabilities function better. And even in normal adults. What need to happen is to locate brain areas and do training to integrate with of the regions.
The brains entropy system through conditioning can make the brain coordinate better at any age. We need neuroscience to test balance the brain. From birth children need support. Babies that do not get touched or breast need are physically and emotional damage. Delayed development can be overcome by therapy. And IQ can improve if we train it. No specific skills but self-awareness. White matter can be isolated to speed up. In the hospital, I met a person who has schizophrenia. Talking to him made him better. Isolation always decreases IQ. To increase IQ you need to buffer the systems that control internalized feedback.
Enhancing the coordination of internalized feedback is how IQ can increase. Everything works together. Perception and action hierarchy.
SantoCulto said:
”On the other hand, subjects with greater volume in this area have been found to score higher on the Mach IV test measuring Machiavellian personality traits[20] and activity in this region has generally been connected with Machiavellian thinking.”
SantoCulto said:
God fuck everyone!!
SantoCulto said:
Great observations!!! Seems ”default mode whatever” is hypo-active in autistics, on avg or whateverage.
[User name redacted by PP, June 9, 2017] said:
cut this up into 12 parts.
then repost.
illuminaticatblog said:
I do not think pumpkin will allow that.
It is more readable on my blog,
(I wish you could edit comments on PPs blog)
pumpkinperson said:
I would allow it if you spread out over time. Your comments tend to be extremely long (just like RR’s) but because you don’t divide into enough paragraphs, they tend to be very hard to read too. Keep in mind a lot of people have short attention spans; I certainly do.
GondwanaMan said:
WHOA…finally read this…whoa
That’s all.
marshamurphy1 said:
EVERYONE SHUT THE FUCK UP!
I JUST GOT FIRED!
pumpkinperson said:
Oh my God, what happened?
marshamurphy1 said:
Passive aggressive quant geek jealous of how much I increased hedge fund’s profits tells a few major clients about my history of prostitution and they go ape shit.
Meanwhile I caught some bitch from Bloomberg sniffing through my garbage trying to figure out my net worth.
God I need a fucking duby.
pumpkinperson said:
Meanwhile I caught some bitch from Bloomberg sniffing through my garbage trying to figure out my net worth.
How much are you worth now?
The Philosopher said:
Marsha, I’ve been privately studying the rape issue in the West. I’ve figured out that the majority of women don’t report rape because they ‘half solicit’ the rapist. As in, ‘lets see where this goes, Oh No, Bakersville’.
Out of interest, what would you estimate the incidence of rape is in
(a) a major metropolis
(b) low density suburbia
(c) A city like Portland and also Atlanta (take into account race here).
I would guess full on penetrative rape is 6-8%, and inlcuding attempted rapes maybe 10-12% in whole Western countries. I imagine you double it if blacks are a double digit % of the population. Agree?
The Philosopher said:
Lifetime incidence.
Now, ever since Jews took over our media and sending young women to the coalmines, I would say, the incidence of violent rape has dropped because blacks dont need to do that anymore now that an evil psychopathic genius elite has necromanced satanic spirits into our domain. Agree?
GondwanaMan said:
This Marsha chick is just making up shit
pumpkinperson said:
Philosopher thinks she’s legit
All i know is her IQs legit because she got the highest score I’ve ever seen on a test i emailed her & she did so immediately
The Philosopher said:
I can tell she’s intelligent. But she doesn’t say much to say what range.
She emailed your her test score?
illuminaticatblog said:
what was your job?
can you get assistance people around you?
We support you.
The Philosopher said:
Yes but it was probably the prostitution that got you the connects to get that job. Live by the sword, die by it.
Truthteller said:
She is a whore, that’s what her job is.
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
LMAO, your life sucks.
RaceRealist said:
How do you get fired from being a whore?
drew said:
Might be interesting to try to estimate Ben Shapiro’s IQ.. skipped two grades early in school and went to Harvard Law school at 20..
pumpkinperson said:
Yes, there are still plans for that.
The Philosopher said:
Are jews smart?
Yes.
Their bell curve extends all the way out. My guess is that verbal intelligence levels in jews are standalone. I notice many whites have poor verbal intelligence. And east asians suck. Blacks have none either.
This may be because quant aspergers is intentionally selected for.
I now realise, verbal is most g loaded, because that is our de facto survival intelligence maybe. Propositional logic. Predicate logic is not needed to figure out who is banging mssrs wife.
Seeing the jews is as cut and dry a verbal IQ test as anything. Pick up a newspaper. Do you see them? Underline the adjectives they use on a person. Put the person’s face on a piece of paper. Write down their beliefs or effects.
Do this 20 times.
Circle the commonalities.
Ask why?>
Jimmy said:
he is a mental midget
he got into Harvard law because he’s a jew
I wish these people would just leave us alone and move to their beloved Israel.
that want to colonize both western land and Palestinian land.
they can not be reasoned with
The Philosopher said:
The struggle of the will is about domination, not land per se.
elmo gets fired said:
JS said:
Canadians are less generous than Americans. French Canadians are the least generous of North Americans. Manitobans are the most generous, and they have the lowest mean IQ.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/canadians-are-less-generous-than-americans-on-every-measure
Does this mean Québec is the smartest province?
Smarter people have lower empathy. East Asians and Jews have the lowest, so it makes a lot of sense.
The Philosopher said:
Interesting point.
JS said:
Only in the Anglo Prole world, where many pyramid scheme charities are created to exploit people who are poor. This is possible, because the Anglo Prole world has a large caste of imbeciles to be exploited.
SantoCulto said:
Please J, it’s not a anglo prole thing, it’s a human thing, the difference is that anglo sphere is in worldwide power epicenter, by now.
Truthteller said:
Smarter people have lower empathy. East Asians and Jews have the lowest, so it makes a lot of sense.
Dumb.
SantoCulto said:
why
Truthteller said:
Because low IQ Blacks and “Dark Caucasoids” also have low empathy.
SantoCulto said:
Notice the difference between hypo-affectivity and psychopathy. The psychopath or sociopath is directed to do harm to others whereas the Chinese, on average, although they may be more hypo-affective, are not constantly oriented to do harm to others, on full-conscious way.
If psychopathy or sociopathy was high among the Chinese then there would be high crime and the opposite is most likely to be. On the other hand, the Chinese elite [Chineses with greater cognitive intelligence] seem as or colder than the Western elites, if that is possible.
Yes, East Asians, particularly those on the mainland, have a culture and history that is definitely bad for most of the local fauna. However, ” westerners ” do not lag behind in hurting other living beings, the only ones who have been saved from becoming food in the West are dogs and cats, and that still does not mean that they are always treated well.
Ian Paisley said:
english people laughing at the people pm may has made alliance with to make a very slim majority.
robert gabriel mugabe said:
is there too little demand for someone like nick griffin, noam chomsky, or Robert Griffiths in place of someone like rachel maddow?
in place of perhaps, but there’s plenty of demand to hear from such people.
so why are they hardly ever heard?
1. advertisers are very anti-communist.
2. denmark
pumpkinperson said:
1. advertisers are very anti-communist.
Not just advertisers; the media outlets themselves are owned by huge corporations.
The Philosopher said:
No danes. They dont care if they make money.
The Philosopher said:
I must say, when all of us are here, Pumpkin’s blog has the most interesting commentators.
The standard of pumpkin’s blogging has declined however. And his censorship doesn’t attract new commenters. Its repels them.
SantoCulto said:
Why so many ”brighter” people believe in nurturism-only*
Because most ”brighter” people are K-mentality, because they believe in nurture, it’s just a transference of what they have innately in its brains by evolutionary perspective/layer.
Better care of kids = nurture = nurturism belief
On other hand R-mentality people seems are more prone to believe in genetics and this tend to result also in ”free nurture”, instead try to train their kids, they leave them to be what they are, as well because perceived precocious behavior… possibly because more instinctive children are difficult ”to educate/to train”..
but as ”we” know, children necessarily are not educated, they are self-educated, if they have reciprocity/shared learning of what their parents are teaching them so they will internalize this learnings.
SantoCulto said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-36299929/donald-trump-challenges-sadiq-khan-to-iq-test
Place your bets!!1
GondwanaMan said:
My theme song:
JS said:
Even the most despicable of East Asians, the Chinese, are seeking vengeance against Jewish sociopaths:
http://www.lohud.com/story/news/crime/2017/06/05/chappaqua-deli-shooting-trial-hengjun-chao/369762001/
Chinese researcher shot his Jewish boss who fired him, because he was fired for rigging his research, who accused his Jewish boss for rigging the research policy at the Mount Sinai Hospital, a well known Jewish hospital.
Chinese and Jews are so despised for their sneaky behaviors and this kind of thing only happens in the dirty Anglo Joo world of money and sociopaths.
SantoCulto said:
https://www.infowars.com/anthropologist-says-white-genocide-is-a-good-plan/
The Philosopher said:
See the thing is, even if Marsha were a legit 170, non aspergers, being a woman would be very important in terms of what she’s interested in or how gripping any tribal feelings would be.
Hormones matter far more than IQ actually. I’ve said that since day one.
The Philosopher said:
There’s definitely something the air. The internet is allowing people to bypass the jew muzzle mass media.
So we get the alt right and the progressives breaking from the neoliberal cuckold ‘centrists’ in Europe and America.
The final clash of ideas will be whether progressivism is economic only, or race wise. My bet, is that it will be race wise…intriguingly because the jews cannot help themselves by using race as a weapon.
I’ve called it 6 months ago. They eventually will look to censor and control the internet like in China. The brainwashing in schools, movies can’t outweigh instinct and logic together.
The Philosopher said:
I always say its a good laugh thinking those conspiracy theory forums with the illuminated eyes and alien landings were more reflective of reality than CNN or HebeebeeC. Hahaha. What a shock. Kind of cool. We are the cast in our own 1984. And there’s a lord of the rings element to all this to boot – an evil force giving bribes (rings) and using the honeypot to get vassal rulers to bow before the maker of the money supply.
The Philosopher said:
And where was Mel Gibson 15 years ago?
LEADING THE FUCKING LINE AND SAYING THIS STUFF YEARS AGO AND TODAY STICKING TO HIS GUNS AND MAKING THE PASSION PART 2.
LEGEND.
The Philosopher said:
So who has history vindicated:
(a) Mel Gibson
(b) Oprah
(c) Alan Derschowitz
(d) Jonah ‘co opt the opposition into a cuckold cult’ Goldberg
I’d rather be Mel’s water boy, than do anything to advance the interest of anyone else on that list.
See Vox Day is saying Jonah G-berg might be mistaken about how its important to keep the borders open to ‘save certain industries’…
From what Goldberg? Tell me
From what?.
LEt’s get tTHIS 100% fuckin percent straight:
1. Goldberg DOESNT GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT THE ECONOMY
2. USING CONSERVATIVE FWEE MARKETING PRINCIPLES IS BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS AFFINITY FRAUD
3. Goldberg is an agent and an obvious plant by the real enemy. Not ‘big government;. Not ISIS.
If it was up to goldberg every white man would invite Umbongo Mc President Butt Naked Baboon over to do his wife while Goldberg sold the bootleg dvds rubbing his greasy jew hands all over his man tits with pizza crust rolling down his LIAR LIAR face.
pumpkinperson said:
History has vindicated Oprah at least 5 times:
1) Her support for gays decades before it was cool (though you think that’s a bad thing):
2) Her opposition to the Afghanistan war
3) Her jumping off the Iraq war bandwagon long before the rest of the MSM, and doing a 2 day anti-war show the day after Colin Powell’s UN speech making the case for war.
4) Her electing the first black president who saved America from war with Iran and brought health care to millions of working-class Americans
5) Her saving America from mad cow disease
Philly O' Sopher said:
I don’t think gay rights is bad.
Its just pretty obvious why its pushed so much.
DEVIANCE IS OUR STRENGTH.
SantoCulto said:
Other pseudo-phillosopher, such a retarded pig….
SantoCulto said:
”CRISPR gene editing can cause hundreds of unintended mutations http://phy.so/415266549 on reason why
CRISPR may push into non-human first”
– ”razib kahn”
RaceRealist said:
PP thoughts on this definition of intelligence?
Living things, then, need to be good at registering those statistical patterns across everyday experience and then use them to shape the best response, including (in the cell) what genes to recruit for desired products. This is what intelligence is, and it’s origins coincide with the origins of life itself, and life is intelligence. (Richardson, 2017: 115)
RaceRealist said:
In multicelluar systems, of course, the cells are not just responding to one another, but also collectively to the changing environment outside. That requires an intelligent physiology, as described in chapter 5. However, it is still the statistical structure of the changes that matters and that forms the basis of a living intelligence. Even at this level, closest to the genes, then, the environment is emphatically not a loose collection of independent factors to which the cells respond, in stimulus-response fashion, under gene control. This reality makes the additive statistical models of the behavioral geneticist quite unrealistic. (Richardson, 2017: 120)
pumpkinperson said:
PP thoughts on this definition of intelligence?
Sounds pretty deep, but it also sounds like he’s applying the concept of intelligence to things that have nothing to do with cognitive ability. But perhaps he’s just being poetic.
SantoCulto said:
”Sounds pretty deep, but it also sounds like he’s applying the concept of intelligence to things that have nothing to do with cognitive ability. But perhaps he’s just being poetic.”
an**
RaceRealist said:
It is deep, and it’s all true. Recall back to 6 months ago when I linked you to a paper showing that bacteria responds to their environment; phenotypic change occurs when something novel happens to the bacteria. The two quotations provided show how intelligence first begins in the multicellular world. The fact that bacteria and other teeny tiny organisms have something we would recognize as “intelligence”, in my opinion, shows we need a new definition. Anthropometric definitions of traits never tell the whole story. As is such with IQ, intelligence, behavioral plasticity, whatever word you want to use, it’s more complex then putting a pencil to paper and having a number spit out that asseses you in comparison to the general population.
pumpkinperson said:
The fact that bacteria and other teeny tiny organisms have something we would recognize as “intelligence”, in my opinion, shows we need a new definition. Anthropometric definitions of traits never tell the whole story
We recognize it as intelligence precisely because we’re anthropomorphizing
This goes back to our teleology dispute. Just because bacteria is functional doesn’t mean it’s goal directed; the latter implies intelligence
RaceRealist said:
I never claimed that bacteria was goal-directed or had goals that it was attempting to reach. I claimed, and backed with an argument and citation, that bacteria responds to whatever goes on in its environment. Bacteria—like all organisms—respond to environmental cues. That, I would say, is intelligence. The ability to respond to environmental cues, along with shaping behavior to best meet how the environment changes. Looking at intelligence through these glasses, most all organisms on earth are intelligent.
Intelligence, also known as behavioral plasticity, can be aptly applied to how bacteria interact with their environment.
We have had this conversation before in the past, it just now has a new spin on it. A whole bunch of new research shows that bacteria has behavioral plasticity—intelligence. Will provide cites in a bit.
pumpkinperson said:
Intelligence, also known as behavioral plasticity, can be aptly applied to how bacteria interact with their environment.
I agree that behavioral plasticity is closely related to intelligence, in fact I’ve used the term myself in that context, except I defined intelligence as “the cognitive capacity for goal directed behavioral plasticity”. As you’re always saying, “definitions matter”, and scientific definitions need to be as precise as possible, which brings us to the next problem with defining intelligence that way. What the hell is behavior? Definitions have ranged from “externally visible activity of an animal, in which a coordinated pattern of sensory, motor and associated neural activity responds to changing external or internal conditions” to “what an animal does”. Both definitions exclude bacteria.
RaceRealist said:
“I agree that behavioral plasticity is closely related to intelligence”
They are one in the same in my opinion. If your behavior is plastic (i.e., flexible), then you are able to react to how the environment changes. If organisms can react to how the environment changes, then that organism has—at least a semblance—of intelligence. This is just like the research on neural plasticity that’s come out in the past 15 years. The brain can and does respond to environmental cues and shapes itself based on those environmental cues—whatever they may be (re: the studies of cab drivers “On the Knowledge”, the changes in the brain of racecar drivers compared to controls), and if behavior is the same way—i.e., plastic— then an organism can react to what occurs in its environment and thusly have ‘plastic behavior’.
Bacteria are far more intelligent than we can think of. They adopt different survival strategies to make their life comfortable. Researches on bacterial communication to date suggest that bacteria can communicate with each other using chemical signaling molecules as well as using ion channel mediated electrical signaling.
Click to access 10.1007%40s12079-017-0394-6.pdf
That’s a paper published two months ago by the way.
“What the hell is behavior?”
Bacteria have been found to fit all of those criteria laid out in the article.
“Both definitions exclude bacteria.”
Bacteria fit all of the criteria listed in that article you provided.
pumpkinperson said:
They are one in the same in my opinion. If your behavior is plastic (i.e., flexible), then you are able to react to how the environment changes.
But you haven’t defined behavior.
If organisms can react to how the environment changes, then that organism has—at least a semblance—of intelligence.
But skin can react to environmental changes. We sweat when it gets hot. Is skin intelligent? I realize skin’s an organ not an organism, but the concept’s the same. But if you want to believe bacteria’s intelligent then you contradict all the times you and Gould cited bacteria as evidence that life has no tendency to become intelligent.
RaceRealist said:
My definition of behavior—the ability to react to outside stimulus.
You can think of bacterial intelligence as “the basis” for intelligence for all lifeforms. The evidence is clear: bacteria have behavioral plasticity, they can react to their environment, they can communicate with each other. Intelligence is the outcome of those variables, even if an “archaic form of” intelligence.
Organisms react to their environment. I’ve shown that bacteria have plastic behavior. I’m not beholden to arguments I’ve made in the past nor to who I cite. I am able to change my views with ample evidence.
That said, what I’m writing here does not contradict Gould on bacteria. You have to remember that the biomass of bacteria is so much more than that of humans. Now we know that bacteria react to their environment, communicate with each other and so they have a semblance of what we would call “intelligence”.
pumpkinperson said:
My definition of behavior—the ability to react to outside stimulus.
Does snow have behavioral plasticity? It melts when it gets warm. Is fire intelligent? It grows in reaction to environmental stimuli like throwing bark and gasoline on it. Are leaves intelligent? They blow in the wind. Is that not a reaction to environmental stimulus?
Intelligence is the outcome of those variables, even if an “archaic form of” intelligence.
So you now agree that some life forms are more primitive than others?
I’m not beholden to arguments I’ve made in the past nor to who I cite. I am able to change my views with ample evidence.
You wouldn’t have to constantly flip-flop if you adopted less strong opinions in the first place.
That said, what I’m writing here does not contradict Gould on bacteria. You have to remember that the biomass of bacteria is so much more than that of humans.
Their biomass only supports Gould’s argument if they’re an example of an organism that’s thrived despite its stupidity. You’re contradicting that narrative by arguing they’re smart, unless your argument is that they’re only a tiny bit smart and we humans are vastly smarter.
RaceRealist said:
“Does snow have behavioral plasticity? It melts when it gets warm. Is fire intelligent? It grows in reaction to environmental stimuli like throwing bark and gasoline on it. Are leaves intelligent? They blow in the wind. Is that not a reaction to environmental stimulus?”
What you’re talking about doesn’t occur due to the organism (leaves, snow, fire in your case) ‘wanting it’. Bacteria have been found to react to environmental cues.
Learning and memory — abilities associated with a brain or, at the very least, neuronal activity — have been observed in protoplasmic slime, a unicellular organism with multiple nuclei.
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080123/full/451385a.html
Click to access 10.1016%40B978-0-12-397947-6.00005-2.pdf
We propose that, if we were to leave terms such as “human” and “brain” out of the defining features of “intelligence,” all forms of life – from microbes to humans – exhibit some or all characteristics consistent with “intelligence.”
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00379/full
Which should be done because looking at us an an ‘apex’ of evolution is, as I’ve noted extensively, retarded.
But now you’ll say: ‘but our brains are why we are intelligent so leaving it out of the equation is stupid!’, maybe. But the point is that all organisms on earth show behavioral plasticity—intelligence.
“So you now agree that some life forms are more primitive than others?”
I used quotations for a reason, maybe I should have chosen a better word.
The variables noted—i.e., ability to change behavior based on its environment, to communicating with other organisms shows behavioral plasticity—intelligence.
“You wouldn’t have to constantly flip-flop if you adopted less strong opinions in the first place.”
Let’s see if you yourself are still saying this in a few days.
I understand Gould’s argument, do you? And what I am writing here is not contradicting the left and right walls of complexity. All I am arguing is that bacteria have a semblance of intelligence and that all organisms do. That does not contradict Gould’s argument on complexity.
“Their biomass only supports Gould’s argument if they’re an example of an organism that’s thrived despite its stupidity. You’re contradicting that narrative by arguing they’re smart, unless your argument is that they’re only a tiny bit smart and we humans are vastly smarter.”
No it does not. Gould’s main argument is that the mode of life has and will always remain bacteria due to how numerous their biomass is.
The mode has remained rock‐solid on bacteria throughout the history of life—and bacteria, by any reasonable criterion, were in the beginning, are now, and ever shall be the most successful organisms on earth. (Gould, 1996)
Nothing written above contradicts that. Life began in a bacterial mode. Fact. Bacteria remains the mode, even though organisms have become more ‘complex’. Fact. Nothing I’ve written has contradicted the left/right wall of complexity argument; bacteria are still the simplest organisms—the mode of all life since the oldest fossils we have discovered are of bacteria. Read Full House to understand his argumentation and especially his 0.400 hitter argument and how it ties into his overarching theme arguing against progress in evolution.
My argument is: If bacteria can do all of the above variables I’ve mentioned, then they have some semblance of intelligence. If they can comminicate with other organisms and change their behavior based on cues from their environment then they have some sembelance of intelligent behavior—behavioral plasticity.
None of that contradicts right/left walls of complexity because bacteria are still the mode of all life—the modal bacter—and will remain the mode until the Sun explodes.
pumpkinperson said:
What you’re talking about doesn’t occur due to the organism (leaves, snow, fire in your case) ‘wanting it’.
Bacteria don’t want anything either which is why you had to use the term in quotes.
Bacteria have been found to react to environmental cues.
Like everything else in the universe.
Which should be done because looking at us an an ‘apex’ of evolution is, as I’ve noted extensively, retarded.
No, defining behavior as reacting to stuff is “retarded” as is claiming bacteria wants stuff.
I used quotations for a reason, maybe I should have chosen a better word.
No you should never have denied the concept of primitive organisms in the first place.
I understand Gould’s argument, do you?
Of course
All I am arguing is that bacteria have a semblance of intelligence and that all organisms do.
If you dumb down the definition of intelligence so that virtually everything in the universe qualifies, then your argument is vacuous.
Nothing written above contradicts that. Life began in a bacterial mode. Fact. Bacteria remains the mode, even though organisms have become more ‘complex’.
So you claim bacteria has behavioral plasticity and language but is not complex?
RaceRealist said:
Yes I used it in quotations, I know to catch myself, words have definitions as we know.
How about I amend my definition to “behavior is when a biological system reacts to cues from its environment”. I’ve already laid this out with the citations provided. Even a slime mold has been found to go through a maze to find food.
Yes I should have denied the existence of “primitive organisms” in the first place. Bacteria are more numerous and are in and can colonize more environments than humans.
It’s not about dumbing it down. You maybe should reword what you wrote to “if you don’t apply an anthropmetric twist to evolution then most every organism on the planet had a form of” intelligence” and can react to environmental cues around it.
Claiming that bacteria have behavioral plasticity and a form of communication doesn’t mean that it’s not “complex” (whatever that means). Since bacteria remain the mode, then that proves Goulds argument of the right wall of complexity. Think back to the drunkard’s walk and how he’s bouncing to and from the wall and the gutter—the right wall of complexity he will eventually always reach. That bacteria can react to their environment and can communicate doesn’t toss Gould’s argument in the trash.
pumpkinperson said:
How about I amend my definition to “behavior is when a biological system reacts to cues from its environment”.
Well a lot of people would define behavior as how an animal reacts to its environment. You want to broaden the definition to include all organisms yet you want to narrow it to exclude non-life. That’s kind of arbitrary. What about artificial intelligence?
I’ve already laid this out with the citations provided. Even a slime mold has been found to go through a maze to find food.
Even a computer can play chess
Yes I should have denied the existence of “primitive organisms” in the first place. Bacteria are more numerous and are in and can colonize more environments than humans.
1) Primitive != failure
2) Humans are a single species. There may be a billion species of bacteria. Per species we may have colonized far more.
You maybe should reword what you wrote to “if you don’t apply an anthropmetric twist to evolution then most every organism on the planet had a form of” intelligence” and can react to environmental cues around it.
Of course intelligence is anthropocentric. It’s supposed to be. It was a word created in part to describe the difference between man and beasts. Plato anticipated your argument over 2000 years ago when he defined intelligence as the ability to CONSCIOUSLY adjust, thus explicitly excluding non-intentional adaptations.
Claiming that bacteria have behavioral plasticity and a form of communication doesn’t mean that it’s not “complex” (whatever that means).
It means they ARE complex, thus trashing Gould’s claim that non-complexity is the mode (which itself was a bit of a contrived argument because he arbitrarily chose the mode over the mean or median)
RaceRealist said:
“Well a lot of people would define behavior as how an animal reacts to its environment. You want to broaden the definition to include all organisms yet you want to narrow it to exclude non-life. That’s kind of arbitrary. What about artificial intelligence?”
Have you a better way to classify it? It’s clear they have some semblance of ‘consciousness’ whatever that is. They react to their environment and communicate. I don’t even know why this is being debated. They’ve been shown to do these things. They are facts. I want to ‘narrow it’ because they show a modicum of intelligence, which is clear unless you deny it?
“Even a computer can play chess”
Computers were developed by humans.
“1) Primitive != failure”
Never said otherwise.
“2) Humans are a single species. There may be a billion species of bacteria. Per species we may have colonized far more.”
True. I do believe that one species of bacteria is able to be in more environments than humans. Re: extremophiles.
“Of course intelligence is anthropocentric. It’s supposed to be. It was a word created in part to describe the difference between man and beasts. Plato anticipated your argument over 2000 years ago when he defined intelligence as the ability to CONSCIOUSLY adjust, thus explicitly excluding non-intentional adaptations.”
Lol. No it’s not supposed to be. The fact that bacteria can constantly adjust show that they have ‘intelligence’. Do you deny this? Yes or no?
Your anthropocentrism is strong here. Why should the human brain be the measuring stick of ‘intelligence’? Leaving the human brain out of it and treating it like anything else, every organism on earth shows a modicum of intelligence what’s so hard to believe about that?
“It means they ARE complex”
(whatever that means) no they aren’t.
“because he arbitrarily chose the mode over the mean or median)”
Tell me more about how you understand Gould’s argument.
pumpkinperson said:
Computers were developed by humans.
Developed by biological system != biological system.
Never said otherwise.
But you implied otherwise.
True. I do believe that one species of bacteria is able to be in more environments than humans. Re: extremophiles.
There are many species of extremophiles.
Lol. No it’s not supposed to be.
Intelligence was a word created by humans to describe a suite of abilities that are relatively unique to humans. Next you’ll be claiming it’s anthropocentric to deny snakes are bipedal.
The fact that bacteria can constantly adjust show that they have ‘intelligence’. Do you deny this? Yes or no?
Yes.
Adaptation != intelligence. Goal directed adaptation is what implies intelligence.
Evolution itself constantly adjusts. So I guess we can add “intelligent design” to the list of RR’s “theories”.
(whatever that means) no they aren’t.
They have language and intelligence but they’re not complex. Wow! That’s even more supernatural than Immaculate Conception.
Start your own church RR!
Tell me more about how you understand Gould’s argument.
From what I’ve heard about Gould’s argument, he believes (correctly) that movement in random directions (whether by a drunk walking home from a bar or by evolution) will tend towards one direction if there’s a barrier preventing movement in the opposite direction. In the case of evolution, that barrier would be the fact that there’s a limit to how simple an organism can become because by definition an organism must have some complexity to be alive and self-replicating.
So yes, I get his theory, I just think it’s incomplete because it fails to explain the trend towards encephalization despite no left wall on brain size.
That’s going to have to be the last word RR because this is getting very repetitive. I know you’re obsessed with debunking everything I believe, but I think it’d be more healthy to get some interests of your own.
SantoCulto said:
”Intelligence was a word created by humans to describe a suite of abilities that are relatively unique to humans.”
And it does not mean it’s right. Based on the very definition of intelligence, from an anthropocentric perspective, most human beings would not be satisfyingly intelligent. Intelligence is what is required of behavior when it is pressured and needs to adapt, all species have it. The difference is that the human species is the most intelligent of all.
SantoCulto said:
Instinct = goal direct adaptation.
pumpkinperson said:
You can have instincts without goals. Birds don’t know they’re flying south to keep warm, they’re just programmed by evolution to do it, like a robot programmed by humans
SantoCulto said:
”You can have instincts without goals.”
Impossible, both are same.
”Birds don’t know they’re flying south to keep warm,”
Most humans also do not know what they do. You do not know or do not understand at all why you are obsessed with Oprah. You rationalize your choices or effects, but the causes, although they may be partially recognized [similarities], are usually caused by instinct. Instinct is the origin of behavior and yes, this is totally oriented. In fact, the difference between human and non-human behavior is that the former CAN re-orient itself more frequently and clearly.
”they’re just programmed by evolution to do it, like a robot programmed by humans”
And exactly the same for the human being. The only significant difference separating human from non-human cognition is meta-cognition. If the human being had neither the minimum of meta-cognition nor the level of the other species, it would be just like the other species, of course. Not even language can be defined as a human singularity, because many other species use communication systems, moreover, thanks to [comparatively] enlarged meta-cognition that it was possible to sophisticate human communication systems.
pumpkinperson said:
Both advanced & primitive life are programmed to replicate their genes, the difference is advanced life feels pleasure and pain and thus has goals it wants to advance. Primitive life does not have goals because without pleasure and pain there’s no motivation & without motivation you don’t INTENTIONALLY do anything
SantoCulto said:
”Both advanced & primitive life are programmed to replicate their genes, the difference is advanced life feels pleasure and pain and thus has goals it wants to advance. Primitive life does not have goals because without pleasure and pain there’s no motivation & without motivation you don’t INTENTIONALLY do anything”
You’re being extremely specist in making this conclusion.
You need to be self-actualized in relation to studies that have proven that many non-human animals feel pain and pleasure, even those who once believed they did not feel it. In fact it is very likely that EVERY life is sentient, for reasons that seem obvious to be drawn.
Repeating. There is no instinct without goal or vice-versa. Instinct = goal. What moves every form of life, and us, is instinct. The difference is not whether or not instinct, it’s how dominant instinct is to behavior.
So you’re saying that primitive life has no motivation **
Intentional = instinctive. Anything that relates to behavior can be regressed to instinct.
pumpkinperson said:
I never claimed humans were the only goal directed species but many species are not
You’re confusing the “goals” of the genes with the goals of their carrier. The former influences the latter but the former does not have goals, that’s just a metaphor advanced by Richard Dawkins in “the selfish gene”
SantoCulto said:
”You’re confusing the “goals” of the genes with the goals of their carrier.”
An*
It’s the same thing isn’t*
Explanation required.
”I never claimed humans were the only goal directed species but many species are not”
Examples required.
Life in itself is a goal. You do not understand this point. If there is no motivation there is no continuity of a species, the most primitive force that makes a species continue to perpetuate, its instinct. Even viruses have motivation, otherwise they will not invade other organisms.
The difference is the quality or level of self-awareness of the motivation, of course, we are at the top.
Please next time try to answer each point in my comments that you find most relevant. This helps a lot, even to compare questions with answers.
pumpkinperson said:
”You’re confusing the “goals” of the genes with the goals of their carrier.”
An*
It’s the same thing isn’t*
No, this is where people get confused. The “goal” of our genes is to replicate themselves (speaking metaphorically because genes don’t have goals). Our goal is to get what we want. But our genes program us to want things that increase the odds of our genes replicating, so we want food because it keeps us alive long enough to reproduce. We want love and sex because it increases the odds of us reproducing and being part of a couple that can raise kids. We want friends because humans need social groups to survive. We want to advance our politics because that’s how we help people who look like us to thrive, etc.
”I never claimed humans were the only goal directed species but many species are not”
Examples required.
Humans, crows, and apes are examples of goal directed life. Snakes, bacteria, and plants are examples of life with no goals.
Life in itself is a goal.
No over 99.999999% of all organisms that have ever lived did not have life as their goal.
If there is no motivation there is no continuity of a species,
Of course there is! Life continues because whatever behavior or traits that survive and self-replicate by definition live on, not because anything is TRYING to self-replicate.
the most primitive force that makes a species continue to perpetuate, its instinct. Even viruses have motivation, otherwise they will not invade other organisms
You’re confusing motivation with cause. Just because you cause something to happen does not mean you were motivated to make it happen. This distinction is very important in the criminal justice system. If you kill someone because you’re motivated to do it, you might be charged with first degree murder. If you kill someone unintentionally, you might be charged with involuntarily manslaughter. Over 99.999% of life on earth is like people charged with involuntarily manslaughter, except instead of ending life by accident, they cause life by accident and the genes that accidentally cause life get passed on precisely because they do so.
The difference is the quality or level of self-awareness of the motivation, of course, we are at the top.
No the difference is the motivation itself, not the self-awareness of it. Cavemen were MOTIVATED to have sex, but they lacked the self-awareness to know that the reason they were motivated to have sex was because that’s how genes get passed on. They likely did not even understand the concept of pregnancy. By contrast snakes are NOT motivated to have sex. They have it by accident, but the genes that cause them to have these accidents get passed on since they result in reproduction, so now virtually all the snakes have these accidents. There’s no point having motives unless you’re smart enough to figure out how to reach your goal, and snakes are not, so motivation never evolved in them.
SantoCulto said:
”No, this is where people get confused. The “goal” of our genes is to replicate themselves (speaking metaphorically because genes don’t have goals) Our goal is to get what we want. .”
So the genes have goals, but they are actually ”goals”. Very confusing. No Pumpkin, if there are genes that regulate all behaviors and the priore the vast majority of these behaviors are not directly linked to reproduction, indirectly for sure, then to say ” the goal of the genes is replication, ” it seems to be partially wrong. Remembering that ” we are our genes, we express them through our behaviors, of course, in response to the environment, but according to what we ALREADY have. ” Yes, life’s primary function is to survive and self-replicate, this is indisputable, but in relation to complex lives, we have a longer path to the primary function of life = to resist.
You are making an excessive and wrong subdivision between the goal of genes and behavior, if they are the same.
”But our genes program us to want things that increase the odds of our genes replicating, so we want food because it keeps us alive long enough to reproduce.”
Primarily the energy we capture from the food we have as a fundamental function to keep us alive, remember that in the vast majority of species the reproductive period lasts a short period of their life trajectory.
Most of the time species and even humans are primarily concerned with surviving / resisting rather than replicating.
” We want love and sex because it increases the odds of us reproducing and being part of a couple that can raise kids.”
This is what we, humans, now know, thanks to the bio-cultural changes that have contributed to increase our perceptual capacities. Yet for the rest of the other species, reproduction is like a basal program of operationality, so they necessarily do not know that one thing leads to another, precisely because of the preponderant instinct.
”We want friends because humans need social groups to survive. We want to advance our politics because that’s how we help people who look like us to thrive, etc.”
humhum.
SantoCulto said:
”Humans, crows, and apes are examples of goal directed life. Snakes, bacteria, and plants are examples of life with no goals.”
In fact because of their domestication the cow seems much less ” goal-directed ” than a bacterium.
You seem to be completely lost in the concept of goal. You need to get back to planet Earth.
ALL LIVES have a goal and express it through their evolutionary strategies. And the main purpose of life is to resist, to survive. This is the g factor of behavior.
To say that a snake has no goal is absurd. I did not understand how you separated these examples.
The only difference between the simpler way of life and the human being, the most complex way of life, is precisely the level of complexity, but in terms of goal all lives are the same in a primordial way.
Because the plant does not move does not mean that it does not have a behavior, that does not feel, that does not have reproductive strategies. The simple fact that the plant defies gravity and prostrates itself erect, and more, throughout its life [tries to stand all its life] shows that even where there are no constant movements, there is behavior.
If there is no ” goal ”, there will be no life, understand that. What differs from our ‘goal’ to that of a plant is its level of complexity.
”No over 99.999999% of all organisms that have ever lived did not have life as their goal.”
I’ll repeat, I think you’ve lost yourself completely in the semantic part, in the goal concept but especially in your application.
At least you need to explain your conclusions, I’d like to read them. So far you’re just making affirmations. It’s like you’re reading the end of a book, its ending. But you need to tell us your reasoning process.
It is very likely to be completely wrong if, as I have already said, all life has a ‘goal’, and it is in itself, in its own survival. No goal, no reason to exist. One of the reasons for the success of simpler species, besides its simplicity, is that while we humans, being very complex, we tend to be also exceptionally subjective, they are extremely objective.
”Of course there is! Life continues because whatever behavior or traits that survive and self-replicate by definition live on, not because anything is TRYING to self-replicate.”
I don’t understand.
SantoCulto said:
”You’re confusing motivation with cause. Just because you cause something to happen does not mean you were motivated to make it happen.”
It is a subdivision of this behavioral process that is completely wrong, if what causes the behavior / cause is precisely the motivation, is interconnected, and the higher the instinct, the more intense is that process.
You are implying that behavior comes from nowhere if there is no prior motivation.
I’ll explain this process from the organism to the action. You have an organism, with its typical characteristics. So when he acts, he is actually expressing his intrinsic or mental characteristics, and extrinsic or physical, if it is generally the mental characteristics that manipulate the physical characteristics. Their motivation to act born on their biological characteristics, which have been selected via natural selection. Your motivation is first to exist, to resist or to survive the challenges of your species, your ecological niche, and for a generally short period of your life, your/its body prepares you for replication. The first objective of life is to exist. Without objective/goal, without motivation, without stereotyped behavior and with wandering or chaotic behavior, notice that the stereotyped or characteristic behavior of all life forms shows that yes, there is a motivation, an goal that is related to the species of the organism.
goal = end
motivation = mean
”This distinction is very important in the criminal justice system. If you kill someone because you’re motivated to do it, you might be charged with first degree murder. If you kill someone unintentionally, you might be charged with involuntarily manslaughter. Over 99.999% of life on earth is like people charged with involuntarily manslaughter, except instead of ending life by accident, they cause life by accident and the genes that accidentally cause life get passed on precisely because they do so.”
This is a very good example, but you are saying that high levels of self-awareness and goal are the same, or the first lead to another, and again, there is no biological discontinuity between species. All species are primarily self-conscious, but generally instinct is so strong that it produces this “natural blindness.” The difference between the human goal and the non-human goal is that the former has been able to achieve a comparatively high level of independence from the environment, precisely because of a greater self-consciousness [greater self-sense of differentiation in relation to surroundings or environment] .
It would be a good metaphor to differentiate self-consciousness from consciousness. In fact, most living things do not do what they do without intention. In both cases, there is the self-consciousness factor. If I killed unintentionally, then first it was an accident, and second, I realize that I did not want to kill that person.
You mean that 99.999% of life on Earth is an accident *
Another thing, this goes against the idea of stereotyped behavior that practically defines the behavior of all species, including human, because unintentional homicide is just a kind of bug in behavior, when you do not want to do something, and However it does.
All forms of life, including human life, are programmed by their biological characteristics to act in a certain way.
pumpkinperson said:
Santo, there’s no need to respond with that many comments. Please try to edit yourself in the future, because true wisdom can be expressed concisely. I don’t have time to respond to all those comments so I’ll just respond to part of this one.
It would be a good metaphor to differentiate self-consciousness from consciousness. In fact, most living things do not do what they do without intention. In both cases, there is the self-consciousness factor. If I killed unintentionally, then first it was an accident, and second, I realize that I did not want to kill that person.
You do not need to realize it for it to be an accident. People get in car accidents and die instantly, never living long enough to realize they did not want to kill themselves and others.
You mean that 99.999% of life on Earth is an accident
Over 99.9%. Even most human life that has ever existed has been accidental in the sense that people were not trying to make babies. The sex was intentional, but the baby was an accident. The difference between humans and more primitive life like snakes is that the latter are so lacking in intention that even their sex is accidental.
How can you not understand the concept of an accident? Have you never done something you didn’t intend to do?
Even for some humans sex is accidental like when a man is tossing and turning in his sleep and gets his wife pregnant. The baby would then inherit the genes for tossing and turning in his sleep and that’s how accidental sex could get passed on even in humans, just like in snakes. You might think the goal was to reproduce, but not only was the pregnancy unintentional, but even the sex was. That’s what most life on Earth is like. Non-goal directed accidents that are favoured by natural selection because they accidentally self-replicate.
What you need to understand is that life is not something magical, it’s just a bunch of random accidents and whatever survives and replicates, lives on, BY DEFINITION. Primitive life is not that different from any other chemical reaction, like a fire spreading rapidly through a forest. It’s self-replicating, but it’s entirely accidental.
SantoCulto said:
”No the difference is the motivation itself, not the self-awareness of it.”
” Cavemen were MOTIVATED to have sex, but they lacked the self-awareness to know that the reason they were motivated to have sex was because that’s how genes get passed on.”
All your argument starts from something that in my opinion you misunderstood.
Self-consciousness is the progressive process of self-recognition, that is, as to the very functioning of your own body-mind system.
Your example seems to contradict your first sentence. If it is not self-consciousness/awareness, then why the cave man supposedly would not recognize the cause-and-effect relationship between sex and reproduction *
”They likely did not even understand the concept of pregnancy. By contrast snakes are NOT motivated to have sex.”
During its reproductive period, snakes not only know they need to reproduce, but they always do. What distinguishes a snake from a human in this sense is that the human being can think about sex for a much longer period in his life than a snake. Sex for the snake is totally goal-directed towards breeding.
”They have it by accident but the genes that cause them to have these accidents get passed on since they result in reproduction.”
So you’re calling instinct a accident*
”so now virtually all the snakes have these accidents. There’s no point having motives unless you’re smart enough to figure out how to reach your goal, and snakes are not, so motivation never evolved in them.”
Again, what I said from the beginning.
SantoCulto said:
What differentiate a human being from a snake in terms of understanding the reproductive process. We have a broad instinct and we keep it to ourselves or we learn this cause-and-effect relationship. Internalizing information is the same as turning it into instinct / memory. So when we go with a person of the opposite sex to the bed, we take the condom if we do not want the reproduction to occur. And as we store this information *
First, I believe that our own perceptual reach already stores information in a non-verbal / sensory way, and when we are exposed to situations that require this information to be used, it manifests itself based on a sensation. For example, if I am going to introduce my penis into a woman’s vagina and without a condom, then if I did not have a human communication system, vocabulary, then it is possible that before the act my brain sent a signal of: This is not right, she can get pregnant. ” But as I have already recorded in my mind this instinct of human language, I was exposed from the very beginning, and therefore I became able to store information verbally, so I use it intuitively OR instinct [neo-instinct].
The snake is born with its almost ready instinct and therefore becomes incapable to internalize more information than the human being. And since she does not have an extremely sophisticated communication system as a human being has, then she interprets the world in a sensory / non-verbal way. The snake has motivations and goals that are limited to its instincts.
None of this proves that its behavior is accidental or errant.
SantoCulto said:
Intelligence and behavior concepts collide frequently only because without a contextually smart behavior to survive/to fit in given environment, life itself would not be possible to be. When life was born, intelligence also was born.
It’s similar the frequent collusion between agressiveness and instinct.
Directional/purposeful violent behavior has been very important to survive and can be described as fundamental aspect of irreflexive intelligence, in natural world. But instinct itself is not synonimous for agressiveness, in the same life itself is not synonimous of intelligence.
IQ measure and/or estimate intelligence applied in modern-level/broader human tasks but the conceptual/descriptive basis of human intelligence is the same for any species and yes, the current modern-levels is the highest levels of humanity until now, quantitative or chrystallized aspects.
The better way to define intelligence is
whatever magnitude, place, time, intelligence is the minimally correct pattern recognition that predict [correct] behavior or action.
Human intelligence is also the generalization or colonization of intelligence ”within” organism attitudes or behaviors. Humans are most generalist not just because ”they’ can adapt in more than one environment but because this generalist nature express their broader perceptive levels.
And my putrid view, wisdom IS the uber-correct achievement of intelligence purpose, in every perspective of action, intra or self, inter or other-selves, around, i’ts the self-correction with the ideal as ideal and the ideal is the combination between physical proportional reciprocality or action/reaction and reflexive proportional reciprocality.
what we call injustice IS the golden law in natural world [the weak being beated by the strongest]. so we are just inverting the golden law of elementary interactions, and it’s evident we need a common-term or balance.
SantoCulto said:
Remember that life is just the mirror, the reflex-ction of the same logic that sustain every fuck thing…
Philly O' Sopher said:
You would possibly be better of typing your comments in portugeese and google translating them.
I can see what you’re saying. In essence, intelligence is knowing when to override instinct due to pattern recognition.
Now, the golden rule of nature is The Struggle of the Will. The yearning to be the dominant. The cruel joie de vivre.
However, even in nature in the wild, cooperation is common. Birds fly into crocodiles mouths to feed on sinews and fragments. In return, the croc gets his teeth cleaned. Various bacteria first infest, then symbiotically move with the host.
Philly O' Sopher said:
Or is intelligence in the modern context, knowing when you’re instinct is correct and your programming from the Danes wrong?
Thats what they study in Tavistock. How to fuck with peoples heads. Day in. Day out.
SantoCulto said:
”I can see what you’re saying. In essence, intelligence is knowing when to override instinct due to pattern recognition.”
Human intelligence* maybe
Pan-bio-logical concept of intelligence = instinct or behavior adapted to reflect the patterns of given environment or environments.
”Now, the golden rule of nature is The Struggle of the Will. The yearning to be the dominant. The cruel joie de vivre.”
now*
I don’t deny that cooperation is common but when we have a weak versus stronger, the stronger usually wins, the cowardice or unfairness.
Danes**
The challenge in the modern world is learn to think in multiple perspectives and act based on this.
SantoCulto said:
Europeans are losing exactly because they, on avg, can’t think beyond black and white thinking lines.
SantoCulto said:
”You would possibly be better of typing your comments in portugeese and google translating them.”
I already tried to do this [as now]. Maybe I’ll do it more.
SantoCulto said:
Our ability to detect patterns is based on our type, level, and [cumulative / crystallized] potential of instinct.
The form influences its expression. This explains for example why a typical homosexual man [or not so much] tends to think more like a typical heterosexual woman than a typical heterosexual man.
A person’s hormonal, physical, and cognitive characteristics determine or reflect their instincts and how they will understand their reality.
Yes, human intelligence consists primarily in the control of instinct, becoming its controller. However most humans are still in the early stages of this process, in fact, all of us, for more or less we are in the same stages.
In parts, it can be said that the globalization of human thought is inevitable, because all this cultural diversity we have produced is only illusions of parochial grandeur, taking the culture itself as if it were the light of all truths, especially the most important ones , Whereas, in fact, there is only one. This local chauvinistic exceptionalism is totally mistaken and yet it has been the human way of understanding and interacting with the world ever since.
Philly O Sopher said:
Immediate 20-30 IQ bump^^^
SantoCulto said:
If you want i can write in portuguese and translate it those who want to do it.
SantoCulto said:
I’m homossex AND i find this absolutely DISGUSTING!!! Poor child!!!
The Philosopher said:
This is common in se asia.
Clue: madculine env absent
Does this happen capetown?
[named redacted by PP, June 11, 2017] said:
homosexuality is bourgeois decadence.
SantoCulto said:
”homosexuality is bourgeois decadence.”
It’s not IS but correlates, many homossexuals are uper-burgeoises / pragmatic-mundanely hedonist-consumist-niilist
Philly O' Sopher said:
Upper class homosexuality is a feature, not a bug. My explanation is the soft upbringing causes it.
afro will be forced to marry his mother. sad! said:
heterosexual promiscuity is also bourgeois decadence. so is wearing advertising. afro is very decadent.
“bourgeois decadence” does not refer to the decadence of the bourgeoisie, per se. it refers to the decadence of societies ruled by the bourgeoisie. it’s an essential feature of capitalism.
especially now that the developed world is in post-scarcity, something like 80% of the formally employed do jobs which if they weren’t done few would ever notice.
that is, the economy requires making people want things they don’t need. various sexual perversions are such things though they are not outright sold. (((mass media))) knows that sex sells and perverted sex sells too. there’s a morbid curiosity, especially when it’s presented as not perverted.
SantoCulto said:
So what would be your most appropriate sexual lifestyle *
Amish *
One of the reasons for the success of capitalism or its hegemonic version, and not as part of society, but as the epicenter of society, is precisely because it understands the needs of the human mind and responds promptly to them.
Capitalism is applied psychology, but for highly suspect purposes.
To say that the bourgeoisie [which consists of the poor and the moderate classes, or servants, who, by being more intelligent, have managed to position themselves in society since the middle ages, and as their demographic values have been increasing, have been gaining Influence in society …. and the Jews are the most intelligent bourgeois … Also because the bourgeoisie has helped the nobility to accumulate power] promotes decadence, pure and simple, first it is necessary to exemplify such decadence, because what we have seen is a sweeping success of them in providing the improvement of the quality of life In a general way, although, of course, with the famous ” necessary evil ” of mass sacrifice in jobs that occupy a good part of their time and with wages that fall short of their uncontracted efforts.
RaceRealist said:
“What do you think of Mensa’s testing standards?”
Speaking of Mensa, here’s a good article:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/apr/25/what-im-really-thinking-member-of-mensa
‘Relationships were a problem, as there aren’t many men who like smart women. I tried socialising in Mensa. I don’t any more. Being intelligent doesn’t make you empathic or honest’
I know, n=1. PP any idea of any studies on Mensa members?
This study showed no predictive effect of IQ on being promoted to a senior doctor (!)
Click to access TheAcademicBackboneV16withSupplementaryInformation.pdf
So in one of the professions where IQ is thought to be the most important, it isn’t predictive of being promoted to a senior doctor. Hmm..
pumpkinperson said:
So in one of the professions where IQ is thought to be the most important, it isn’t predictive of being promoted to a senior doctor. Hmm..
Yes but this goes back to the range restriction problem we’ve previously discussed. For example, we can infer a pretty high correlation between height and basketball ability in the general population from the incredible average height of the NBA, but because height is range restricted within the NBA itself, it’s not very good at predicting who will be the next Michael Jordan (who was not tall compared to other NBA players). In the same way, the promoted doctor might not be high IQ compared to other doctors because almost all doctors are smart, thus limiting the power of IQ to discriminate.
RaceRealist said:
I mean, is simply going ‘range restriction’ all the time a good go-to? The studies sampled were 5 meta-analyses of people just entering medical school. The final sentence of the conclusion is telling:
The relatively poor correlations of the AH5 test of intellectual aptitude provided little support for the use of academic aptitude measures in selection.
This seems to be a case for expertise… hmmm… It’s an interesting study, read it if you get the chance.
I also came across another study showing that orthopedic surgeons have higher grip strength and are more intelligent than their anesthetic colleagues.
The stereotypical image of male orthopaedic surgeons as strong but stupid is unjustified in comparison with their male anaesthetist counterparts. The comedic repertoire of the average anaesthetist needs to be revised in the light of these data. However, we would recommend caution in making fun of orthopaedic surgeons, as unwary anaesthetists may find themselves on the receiving end of a sharp and quick witted retort from their intellectually sharper friends or may be greeted with a crushing handshake at their next encounter.
http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d7506
Another case of range restriction, right? How would it be best to measure this?
pumpkinperson said:
I mean, is simply going ‘range restriction’ all the time a good go-to? The studies sampled were 5 meta-analyses of people just entering medical school.
It wouldn’t matter if they sampled 5 million meta-analyses, medical students are still range restricted. What you have to appreciate is that success in any field depends on a wide range of traits and attributes, in addition to luck and circumstances. Thus, the best way to observe the role of IQ is to look at people who differ wildly in success or wildly in IQ, like I did when I found perhaps a 70 point IQ gap between self-made decabillionaires and the homeless. When you’re looking at people who are all already doctors, who cares if one gets promoted. That’s such a trivial difference in success when compared to the full range of human achievement. Why don’t you do a study comparing the IQs medical students who flunk out of college and medical students who cure a disease and win the Nobel Prize? Who cares about these little mickey mouse studies? Go big or go home.
RaceRealist said:
“When you’re looking at people who are all already doctors, who cares if one gets promoted.”
But if we are talking about doctors with similar education/skills, then the comparison is apt. In a sample of doctors from their beginnings in medical school, IQ is not a predictor of being promoted to a senior doctor. Fact.
“Why don’t you do a study comparing the IQs medical students who flunk out of college and medical students who cure a disease and win the Nobel Prize? Who cares about these little mickey mouse studies? Go big or go home.”
I could say the same to you about a lot of your claims.
pumpkinperson said:
In a sample of doctors from their beginnings in medical school, IQ is not a predictor of being promoted to a senior doctor.
So? Maybe becoming a senior doctor has more to do with ambition, hard work, and sucking up then it has to do with intelligence.
RaceRealist said:
I agree with you. I enjoy looking at the workings of things within samples, not always between them and other samples.
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
Relationships were a problem, as there aren’t many men who like smart women
Smart woman = unsufferable feminist that asks questions a mile a minute and interprets everything you do.
Thanks but no thanks.
RaceRealist said:
I know a few intelligent women with advanced degrees who are not feminists. Even better that they have similar views as myself. Smart women are out there!
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
You’re right, not all smart/educated women are feminists but those women who brag about being smart bitches are feminists. I’m lucky these chicks aren’t attracted to me as everything about me screams phallocracy but I have friends who are totally emasculated by smart bitches who wanna control everything.
Philly O' Sopher said:
Theyre called ‘femcunts’. Got a boat oar up their arse.
Philly O' Sopher said:
Speaking of types that aren’t attracted to one, I would say the main type that shun me are east asian women and gamma women. The habitual liar higher than thou crafty types. Maybe it because I scream ‘not a mark’.
Trying to think of a gamma woman in pop culture. But the strange thing is that WIMMENZ rights means you can’t portray women badly. I suppose Gone Girl type women. Since I can almost read minds, I sometimes go too far in setting boundaries.
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
All women who fuck for free shun you.
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
When I say I dislike feminists I really mean it, my girlfriend has a femcunt friend that tried to sabotage our relationship at the beginning, and it’s obvious that she still hates me and that she’s maliciously waiting for me to fuck up like she said I would.
These whores are so frustrated by not being able to keep a man that they need to spread their shit in other’s relationships. They should get a life and be fucked real raw like the bitches they are deserve.
Philly O' Sopher said:
It may be because she’s jewish. Most jew women are ‘femcunts’. In fact they made up the whole ideology.
Betty Friedman, Gloria Steinem.
Maybe homosexual Afro’s future jilted wife.
Very likeable person.
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
No, the girl I talk about aint even jewish. Every girl crew has a “woke chick” who spills her feminist venom whenever her friends open up on their relationship issues. Ironically, the “woke chick” has the most disastrous romantic life of all the girls in the squad.
My girl is Sephardi, that’s a very phallocratic culture.
afro will be forced to marry his mother. sad! said:
These whores are so frustrated by not being able to keep a man…
they shouldn’t be. social isolation is much more tolerable and less damaging now with mass literacy, 1,000 cable channels, the internet, the public library, etc.
more people are living alone than ever.
the charterhouse is 99% hermitage, 1% church. social isolation can be a very good thing. it’s just that it’s bad for most people.
learning to enjoy one’s own company and keep one’s own counsel (except in anonymous blog comments) is a good thing. it should be pursued.
but a big motivation for sexual liaisons is companionship. people want friends not just fuck buddies, especially as almost all non-sexual friendships are shallow. there are lots of things people would never tell their friends. and, in fact, men past the age of 25 rarely have any friends.
afro will be forced to marry his mother. sad! said:
but there are basically no things people won’t tell their spouse.
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
Next name change: Afro’s cum is my breakfast.
No one’s meant to be alone, there are just some people who are too self-centered to enjoy other’s company and being a pleasant presence in someone else’s life. And sorry to shatter your naive worldview but many spouses unfortunately hide a lot of things to each other.
afro's 10 year old illegitimate daughter said:
you’re a joke afro.
and the one who doesn’t get it is you.
sad!
afro's 10 year old illegitimate daughter said:
many spouses
in france.
for example your interminable/pretend fiancee doesn’t know that you are a homosexual.
illuminaticatblog said:
“but there are basically no things people won’t tell their spouse.”
I do need a friend.
A best friend.
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
in france.
Oh no, just think aboit your pussy-grabbing idol.
for example your interminable/pretend fiancee
It’s actually coming very fast. A wedding ceremony over several days with guests from a dozen different countries takes time to prepare. We aint getting married in our basement.
doesn’t know that you are a homosexual.
Don’t take your dreams for reality, you’ll never get it, all you’ll get from me is a couple pics to jack off to.
Philly O Sopher said:
Speaking of disasterous romantic lives. Wheres that ultra feminist Deal to weigh in and defend her right to bash white men because jews told her so.
I wonder if Marsha is a feminist. Prostitues tend not to be feminists.
Feminist treatment of prostitution is a very interesting subject. Apparently the empowerment motive conflicts with the using women like footstools. To this day, the jew women pharisees haven’t provided an edict on whether being a whore is good or bad.
I suppose because it helps undermine goy society and destroy families, its probably to be encouraged.
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
You don’t understand, feminists fight for women’s right to be whores for free. It’s only when they put their money where their mouth is (get paid) or get what they low key ask for (get “raped”) that women are poor victims of phallocratic oppression.
Philly O' Sopher said:
A few years ago I knew this dude who bought his fiance’s parents a house in their slum in Indonesia, supported her and sent her on holidays and one day he rings me out of the blue to show me an explicit video some random guy sent him, mocking him, showing her blowing him and so on.
Devastated was not the word. I was surprised myself.
You can never go K selected unless you plan to make her wear a burqa. The arabs 100% have it right from hundreds of years of experience. Their women are R selected. 100% fuckin percent you would put them in the house and lock the door.
Philly O' Sopher said:
That said, east asian women tend to be the most loyal. I don’t know about se asians.
Philly O' Sopher said:
And of course, World Jewry’s sole prupose in controlling the media is to turn Western women R selected and tear it all down.
The Jews – our beloved, really really welcome secret rulers.
RaceRealist said:
I mean, I guess if you give r- and K-selection new definitions that have nothing to do at all with ecology then what you’re saying is apt. But it isn’t.
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
Yup, but well, that’s philibuster, this guy has a lot of trouble with reality.
Philly O' Sopher said:
You don’t understand R/K. You’re getting confused. Its ok. Lie down. Think very hard about whether shotgun reproduction is survival or splendour.
RaceRealist said:
“You don’t understand R/K. You’re getting confused. Its ok. Lie down. Think very hard about whether shotgun reproduction is survival or splendour.”
Agents of K-selection are short food supply, endemic infectious disease and predation. Agents of r-selection are temperature extremes, droughts, natural disasters. Agents of selection for alpha-selection are when resources are in short availability and must be protected. Alpha-selection is closer to K-selection than to r-selection.
If population A has to deal with endemic disease, then the more intelligent will be favored since this agent of selection imposes density-dependent mortality—K-selection. The more intelligent will be selected since they will, for instance, know of herbs to use to cure disease.
On the other hand (contrary to what is usually stated about cold winters), temperature extremes are an agent of r-selection—so cold winters are agents of r-selection. Individuals would be favored that know how to build fires and make warm clothes as is commonly said, but what people—including Rushton—get mixed up is that these agents of selection are based on density-dependant and -independent factors.
Who doesn’t understand r/K? You’re the one spewing the same old shit that’s been discredited. And even if the evolutionary implications from Rushton’s theory, it’d still be wrong because he doesn’t understand agents of selection, nor did he include alpha-selection which is closer to K than r!
Even if this research were reworked without the claims to evolutionary legitimacy, its empirical flaws would remain unremedied. Basic methodological considerations apply to these racial comparisons irrespective of their context, whether is it biology, anthropology, psychology, or sociology.
Click to access 10.1037%40h0078956.pdf
Read the paper and get back to me when you do because it decimates Rushton.
Who doesn’t understand r- and K-selection again?
Philly O Sopher said:
“Many scientists have criticized Rushton’s application
of a hypothesis about r- and K-selection to
putative human racial differences (e.g., Cain &
Vanderwolf, 1990; Lynn, 1989a, 1989b; Silverman,
1990; Weizmann, Wiener, Wiesenthal, &
Ziegler, 1990; Zuckerman & Brody, 1988).”
First sentence of that paper made me laugh and not read the rest of the paper. She might as well have thrown in Steve Schwarzmann, Robert Rubin et al. Hahahaha.
Jewish verbal intelligence sophistry is confusing you. Agents of selection are not selection types. Try again!
RaceRealist said:
You read some of it. It’s a start! Now our your bias aside and read the whole thing and tell me if you still believe it.
RaceRealist said:
You’ve also still yet to address the confusion between agents of selection as well. Rushton didn’t understand that part about r/K selection theory. Read “What a Tangled Web He Weaves” by Joseph Graves. It’s funny. I tossed it aside last year, but now reading it with an open mind, he is RIGHT and Rushton is WRONG.
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
It’s official, Macron has turned France into a single-party state.
Philly O' Sopher said:
^^^SO fucking retarded it makes my screen cry.
it will soon be illegal not to marry your mother in france said:
french elections are fixed. sad!
it will soon be illegal not to marry your mother in france said:
the guy who gets 24.01% in the first round from a party he started a few days before wins 91% of the french legislature?
this doesn’t even happen in totalitarian dictatorships.
please explain how the vote was tampered with afro.
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
It’s more like 72% to 79% of the legislature that he’s expected to win. But abstention was sky high, 50%.
He had 32% at the first round today, since it’s a centrist party, his candidates are expected to win almost all second rounds they qualified for since left wingers will prefer them to a conservative opponent and vice versa. And the Front National is just a rumor.
we need to talk about kevin...i mean islam...why such resistance from peepee? said:
this is the problem with france’s electoral system…and the uk’s…and america’s…and canada’s iirc.
it’s not proportional representation.
it has run offs, but run offs are effectively plurality/first past the post.
what am i talking about?
it means that if a macron party candidate wins 25% of the vote in calais, but all other candidates receive less, the macron candidate wins…
or the macron candidate wins the first round…and thus probably the second…
the minority parties are shut out.
…
proportional representation is not a cure all. it’s failed in south africa.
will there be a coup in ZA? will the country be partitioned?
sad…but that’s what it needs.
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
MPs represent constituencies and are supposed to be in touch with local affairs. A proportional election would give seats to party apparatchiks who never leave Paris.
What’s happening now is less a Macron victory (although his approval rate is high) than a pathetic collapse of the two big historical left-wing and right wing parties. And the French public has been favorable to a big centrist force that would stop the stupid left vs right pseudo-divide for a while, Macron just had the ability to rise above parties and become the face of renewal.
The Philosopher said:
Afro is easily the dumbest commentator on this blog
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
I’m always overwhelmed by the intelligence of your arguments each time you try to have a conversation with me.
Now take your pills.
Jimmy said:
macrons rise just looks a little too neat
Truthteller said:
Afro is easily the dumbest commentator on this blog
You couldn’t be farther from the truth. I’m pretty sure he have an IQ above 125, whatever it means.
I really don’t think his cognitive abilities are what obscure his understanding of some subjects.
Smarter doesn’t necessarily means more rational. There is a significant part of gifted people having seriously irational beliefs.
Philly O' Sopher said:
This joke actually sums up very well the way Nathan Rothschild thought (and I suspect many leading power brokers today). Not in a stupid way, but a very psychopathic ‘I need A done, so the straight line to A should be done, not the socially understood way’.
Jewish genius lies less in abstract reasoning that doing a the sopranos way of solving problems. The italians also have it obviously.
My guess is that without aid, Israel would be very much like modern Italy. Not high trust enough to be wealthy, but not an shambolic cesspit.
Philly O' Sopher said:
She’s a very good example. Heidi Fleiss was a Hollywood brothal madame for top actors. Jewish of course. Was a very big story 15 years ago.
Apparently for other reasons, a Hollwyood reality show did a brain scan and found big irregularities with her frontal lobe i.e. can’t feel empathy.
I suspect Jews have ‘discordant’ frontal lobs because they have evolved not to feel empathy. I imagine blacks are like that as well.
You could prove it by sampling frontal lobes of jews. And we could prove once and for all jews are a psycopathic race.
You can tell its true in the physiognomy.
https://i2.wp.com/richarddawkins.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Screen-Shot-2016-11-28-at-11.55.08-AM.png?fit=289%2C394&ssl=1
http://idamclient.ushmm.org/IMAGES/(S(0xy0pyuu4umaaqu4bnmuqfqc))/RetrieveAsset.aspx?instance=IDAM_USHMM&id=26793&page=0&size=1&width=800&height=800&qfactor=2&type=asset
You look like a criminal because:
(a) you are
(b) you are
(c) you are.
[last sentence redacted by PP, June 11, 2017]
SantoCulto said:
”Bullying is wrong”
https://twitter.com/lradtke77/status/873326182267330560
afro will be forced to marry his mother. sad! said:
pretty sure that’s been photoshopped santo.
SantoCulto said:
I know.
afro will be forced to marry his mother. sad! said:
but it’s not just fags like santo and deal with it.
straight women don’t take unattractive men seriously.
which may seem odd, because there’s a myth that men don’t take attractive women seriously.
it’s a myth. in general unattractive people of the opposite gender and ugly people of the same gender are assumed to be dumb.
what men don’t take seriously is women who wear way too much makeup and have ridiculous hair or wear high heels to the grocery store. and such women shouldn’t be taken seriously. they’re stupid.
ceteris paribus IQ is a huge turn on to men and women.
SantoCulto said:
There is a recent study that says the contrary, that people who were considered more attractive were seen as “less competent scientists.”
A beautiful face facilitate human interaction. However among the less attractive people there are those who despite their clearly below average appearances in attractiveness have friendly facial expressions. It is not only the face, but also the facial expressions that determine the degree of attractiveness or at least the pleasantness of the person. Of course, there is a limit to ugliness, and those who are very, very ugly, tend to cause us two emotional responses: pity or disgust.
And, I’m not ” fag ”. Excuse me. But I do not know you personally, and I would not tolerate being treated so disrespectfully. Especially not because you do not know him personally.
” Fag ” is a term derived from the gay stereotype, and it fits better, even without necessarily containing offensive content, only the most stereotypically gay.
afro will be forced to marry his mother. sad! said:
but it is funny. none of trump’s wives are or ever were that good looking. the first lady has a great body, but her face looks weird.
The Philosopher said:
Id say the miss universe contestants are good looking. He owned the pageant.
Melania is good looking.
The 2nd wife is good looking as well. Not great. But good.
Trumpy killed heidi klum by saying she was worried about veing past it. Interesting analysis by heartiste in how she was seeking approval from him after. If he dropped the muddhark bomb slyly she would have jumped into bed with him.
Dropping the mudshark bomb goes into it id. At the end of the day, at the back of their minds they know somethibg is off with what was done.
If you sack up abd say it, the tears come.
Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 said:
Come on, Melania is hawt.