computer calculation of what humans looked like 70,000 years ago based on combining an ancient skull with the face of a modern African tribe from an ancient lineage
One of my beliefs is that Africans have genetically preserved an extremely ancient phenotype , or at least preserved more of that phenotype than non-Africans. While I may never be able to prove this in full, and educated commenters like Phil78 provide counterevidence, Wikipedia provides a tiny bit of support for my assertion:
With the evolution of hairless skin, abundant sweat glands, and skin rich in melanin, early humans could walk, run, and forage for food for long periods of time under the hot sun without brain damage due to overheating, giving them an evolutionary advantage over other species.[7] By 1.2 million years ago, around the time of Homo ergaster, archaic humans (including the ancestors of Homo sapiens) had exactly the same receptor protein as modern sub-Saharan Africans.[16]
Pumpkin Person 
LMAO
The melanocortin I receptor (MCIR) locus makes a protein that affects the color of skin and hair. At this locus, amino-acid differences are entirely absent among African humans, abundant among non-Africans (especially Europeans), and abundant in chimpanzee/human comparisons (Rana et al. 1999, Harding et al. 2000). Previous studies have found no evidence of either directional or diversifying selection, so the pattern in these data has been attributed to tight selective constraint within Africa–a defense against the strong sunlight there–and relaxed constraint in Eurasia (Harding et al. 2000).
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=702892
So not only non-Africans are less evolved because of their higher genetic load but some aspects of their phenotypes make them closer to chimps thant to Afros. Sad!
Why the hell are you comparing people to chimps Afro? I’m talking about which HUMAN population most resembles the ancestral HUMAN population. Next Afro will tell us which race looks more like fish.
Good idea.
The ancestral hominids were furry like mug of pee, so you have the answer to your question.
“Why the hell are you comparing people to chimps Afro? I’m talking about which HUMAN population most resembles the ancestral HUMAN population. Next Afro will tell us which race looks more like fish.”
Yet by your logic of shared traits, that would make the features thajt eurasians share with chimps OLDER and more archaic in the human line than Africans, making the latter more “novel” by comparison.
As for that post on receptor proteins, that tells us only a little on their phenotypical functions and alignment in their “coded DNA”, which I proved Jensen to have never used in in the fashion you do despite citing as support for you technique.
And like I asked before, what is the source of the reconstruction above?
Yet by your logic of shared traits, that would make the features thajt eurasians share with chimps OLDER and more archaic in the human line than Africans, making the latter more “novel” by comparison.
It depends whether the archaic phenotype has the same genetic origin in Eurasians as it has in chimps. If yes it’s an example of genetically preserving primitive traits and thus evolutionary retardation, but if no it’s just an example of convergent evolution.
As for the source of the reconstruction, about the 42 minute mark in this video:
To Afro,
looking at that quote, it doesn’t seem to state that chimps and eurasians are closer, but rather that when humans and Chimps are compared that are varied in protiens as well as Eurasians.
However, I have read that skin was original more “pinkish” as it is in many chimps when hominids had fur, those some are dark like gorillas.
“It depends whether the archaic phenotype has the same genetic origin in Eurasians as it has in chimps. If yes it’s an example of genetically preserving primitive traits and thus evolutionary retardation, but if no it’s just an example of convergent evolution.”
Agreed.
“As for the source of the reconstruction, about the 42 minute mark in this video:”
While they do bring up genetics, likely for the skin tone, again it begs the question on the biological basis to classify it as exclusively “negroid” for reasons as I’ve stated of how this confounded with relations on coding DNA versus climatic functions as well as pbservations on ancient skulls for OOA Africans.
With that said those, I have found this.
https://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/06/06/origin-of-modern-humanity-pushed-back-260000-years-bp/
However, still a few problems. If using the San as a model, then their phenotypes wouldn’t clearly express that as relative to blacks they are lighter and less prognathic, along with other features that prompted them to be considered different races all together.
Further you also have the divergence dates, with it stating that Blacks and eurasians (Sardinians and Dinkas) diverged latter than Blacks and San (Dinka and San), consistent with my observations on data I both collected myself as well as Data you provided,
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/05/29/dark-matter-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-60822
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/05/29/dark-matter-2007/comment-page-1/#comment-60913
http://anthromadness.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-east-african-cluster.html
of “Capoid” and “Negroid” Genepools being of different migration splits. True, the first implies that the “Negroid” wave mixed with a genepool similar to ancient “Capoids”, yet if we are to go by Phenotype they would appear more “recently” then Capoids despite having more pronounced traits.
While they do bring up genetics, likely for the skin tone, again it begs the question on the biological basis to classify it as exclusively “negroid” for reasons as I’ve stated of how this confounded with relations on coding DNA versus climatic functions as well as pbservations on ancient skulls for OOA Africans.
Well it depends how you define Negroid. I would define Negroid as all members of our species that have directly inherited from a common sub-Saharan ancestor, MOST (or all) of the following traits: kinky hair, dark skin, a flat nose and a prognathous face
So whether or not Andaman Islanders or the guy in the guy in the reconstruction is Negroid, depends on whether they inherited their African phenotype directly from the same African ancestors as modern Africans did, or whether they evolved convergently. If it’s the latter, then they’re NOT Negroid as I would define it.
In other words, just as our species (homo sapiens) is defined by a common phenotype (vertical face, high round dome shaped cranium etc) inherited from a common ancestor, divisions within our species (macro-races) should also be defined based on a common phenotype inherited from a common ancestor.
european furriness and diversity of hair and eye color may have been from neanderthals.
european furriness and diversity of hair and eye color may have been from neanderthals.
I wish people would shut up about the 3% Neanderthal DNA in non-Africans. All races have a bit of archaic DNA but it’s a trivial amount. Basically the Out of Africa total replacement model of human origins is correct, but the weak form of that model.
and i’m not furry except on my chest.
Speaking of which, Ancient South Africans had proportionately longer torsos than they would now.
“Kurki et al. (2008) used a well-characterized archaeologically
derived sample ( , ca. 34 N p 124 S) to demonstrate that
limb and limb-trunk proportions of that set are the same as
those from samples used by earlier researchers. Small values
for dispersion around mean values reinforce the consistency
of proportionality within the sample. Comparative study
shows that both brachial and limb-to-trunk indices for the
LSA sample are consistent not with low-latitude but with midlatitude
populations, such as those from North Africa. In this
respect, the presumption of heat adaptation is not supported.
On the other hand, the LSA sample shows some features that
are normally linked to heat adaptation, including distinctly
narrow bi-iliac breadth (BIB), low ratio of BIB to femur
length, and small stature. ”
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1086/667521.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A26df0c651ee4d3df08dc2c47a99dec74
Thus that in modern Capoids would be a recent development, With prognathism being more pronounced in mixed populations that would have East African pastorlist admixture. Both have generally small hands and feet (as opposed to characteristics of Negroids).
https://books.google.com/books?id=dDrYsjGq35wC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=bushmen+hottentots+prognathic&source=bl&ots=6KLT_hE3Hm&sig=ztA3lnuWMz3Uh4NmpM-NPl546ag&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7spX85cjUAhVMzoMKHY9dDigQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=bushmen%20hottentots%20prognathic&f=false
p. 101
Click to access 145409.full.pdf
As a correction from the study, it says that West Africans would actually have some substructure from a different Population than Capoids that was ancient in Africa.
“Several studies point to the possibility of deep population structure among sub-Saharan groups from central and West Africa4, 33-35 186 , but not for the Khoe-San. It is possible that some fraction of the deep split 187 times between Ballito Bay A (and Ju|’hoansi if restricted to modern-day individuals) and other modern-
188 day sub-Saharan individuals/groups can be explained by low levels of deep structure/admixture. But, 189 unless it is common to all non-San groups, it is unlikely to have a substantial effect on the split time 190 estimates in this study. Interestingly, West African populations partly capture this deep population 191 structure (Extended Data Fig 2), but it is not seen in East African groups (SI 6.5). ”
Data Figure 2 shows them to be theoretically to be about 70% East African (similar to OOA) and 30% Basal.
However, they would still be expected overall to be less ancestral in phenotype compared to the San.
“Next Afro will tell us which race looks more like fish.”
i vote white people, simply because I”m a dirty joo lover.
“I wish people would shut up about the 3% Neanderthal DNA in non-Africans. All races have a bit of archaic DNA but it’s a trivial amount. Basically the Out of Africa total replacement model of human origins is correct, but the weak form of that model.”
Why? Neanderthal admixture gives some benefits (and some negatives), but I don’t think it’s really been looked at if Neanderthal genes enhanced our fitness and intelligence. You never know, a combo of this or that may be what it took for Eurasians to have higher intelligence.
You and Afro are not allowed to talk to me.
Not a word.
Capiche?
“Well it depends how you define Negroid. I would define Negroid as all members of our species that have directly inherited from a common sub-Saharan ancestor, MOST of the following traits: kinky hair, dark skin, a flat nose and a prognathous face”
Well I’m a little more discrete in traits and ancestry, coding DNA and ancestral traits in relation to others not agreeing with you as demonstrated before.
“So whether or not Andaman Islanders or the guy in the guy in the reconstruction is Negroid, depends on whether they inherited their African phenotype directly from the same African ancestors as modern Africans did, or whether they evolved convergently. If it’s the latter, then they’re NOT Negroid as I would define it.”
Again, my use of actual ancestral phenotypes (skulls and protiens) shows discontinuity.
“In other words, just as our species (homo sapiens) is defined by a common phenotype (vertical face, high round dome shaped cranium etc) inherited from a common ancestor, divisions within our species (macro-races) should also be defined based on a common phenotype inherited from a common ancestor.”
Yet that stands crude compared to the more comprehensive biological traits capture by the criteria I refer to above, that being the limit of surface traits exclusively.
Hell, even by your criteria it agrees with my conclusion (Again, Carleton Coon’s Model).
Yet that stands crude compared to the more comprehensive biological traits capture by the criteria I refer to above, that being the limit of surface traits exclusively.
My simple list of phenotypic traits used to define “negroid” might be crude but so is the list of traits used to define “homo sapiens”, or am i wrong?
My larger point is that whatever criteria we use to divide the homo genus into different species, should also be used to divide the human species into different macro-races
Hell, even by your criteria it agrees with my conclusion (Again, Carleton Coon’s Model).
Coon used objective phenotypic criteria to determine different populations, but afaik, coon made arbitrary decision on when to divide one race into two.
For example coon lumped East Asians and native americans into a single mongoloid race, yet he divided congoids & capoids into separate races instead of a single negroid group
These decisions sound arbitrary and it’s easy to imagine another anthropologist lumping and splitting his races quite differently
“You and Afro are not allowed to talk to me.”
…Me? I thought I was being a good boy.
I was talking to RR
Yay!
“My simple list of phenotypic traits used to define “negroid” might be crude but so is the list of traits used to define “homo sapiens”, or am i wrong?”
Wrong, mainly again due to the results my criteria provides on the matter of crania and protiens, relevants guides to classification.
“My larger point is that whatever criteria we use to divide the homo genus into different species, should also be used to divide the human species into different macro-races”
And seeing how my method, which looks at coding DNA, also links with Neutral dna, which do you believe is more consistent?
Further I’m pretty sure I’ve weakened the case looking direct at studies of coding.
“Coon used objective phenotypic criteria to determine different populations, but afaik, coon made arbitrary decision on when to divide one race into two.
For example coon lumped East Asians and native americans into a single mongoloid race, yet he divided congoids & capoids into separate races instead of a single negroid group
These decisions sound arbitrary and it’s easy to imagine another anthropologist lumping and splitting his races quite differently”
Was it ? I’ve listed above the various traits that long distinguished them from Negroids and it seems he WAS right about their separate divergence looking at modern DNA, which I devoted Two comments on discussing.
Even modern Craniometric but San at a distant relationship with blacks, so how would his separation be arbitrary? Compared to his association with Native Americans and NE Asians and what we know about their relation now, that pretty damn close.
Wrong, mainly again due to the results my criteria provides on the matter of crania and protiens, relevants guides to classification.
But scientists don’t look at proteins when deciding whether fossil remains are homo sapiens or not, they just look at whether the head has a certain appearance: High rounded dome cranium, flat face etc. Similarly when deciding whether a person is Negroid or not, I too look at whether the head has a certain appearance: dark complexion, kinky hair, flat nose, prognathism. Now I agree my method is sloppy, but the scientists are sloppy too, hence they can’t even agree on whether a 300,000 year-old skull is a member of our species.
And seeing how my method, which looks at coding DNA, also links with Neutral dna, which do you believe is more consistent?
Your method might be superior but it’s not what’s done, primarily because the study of human taxonomy predates genetic advances and because ancient DNA is hard to extract.
Further I’m pretty sure I’ve weakened the case looking direct at studies of coding.
Well what weakened it for me was reading that humans and chimps differed most on non-coding DNA but it was probably you who showed me that link. AFAIK the key distinction is not coding vs non-coding; it’s neutral vs non-neutral
Was it ? I’ve listed above the various traits that long distinguished them from Negroids and it seems he WAS right about their separate divergence looking at modern DNA, which I devoted Two comments on discussing.
Lots of research found they clustered together genetically (though perhaps all these studies are wrong):
To Elaborate more on what makes your definition if Homo Sapiens (which is not even the official full guide on Sapiens traits) different from your definition of Negroid is that ones is reliant on surface traits that ignores various other underlining structures that are relevant to their ancestry and relation.
See the old thread on this subject if you need a refresher.
“But scientists don’t look at proteins when deciding whether fossil remains are homo sapiens or not, they just look at whether the head has a certain appearance: High rounded dome cranium, flat face etc.”
Which I also looked at regarding the differences. Also they don’t look at proteins for ancients humans simply due to the lack of them, they can and do with races as I’ve discussed before.
“Similarly when deciding whether a person is Negroid or not, I too look at whether the head has a certain appearance: dark complexion, kinky hair, flat nose, prognathism. Now I agree my method is sloppy, but the scientists are sloppy too, hence they can’t even agree on whether a 300,000 year-old skull is a member of our species.”
Skull versus surface traits and a certain development in Jaw Shape/size, not exactly deep enough for determining racial differences.
I again direct you to the last article on the subject.
“Your method might be superior but it’s not what’s done, primarily because the study of human taxonomy predates genetic advances and because ancient DNA is hard to extract.”
And I used pre-genomic data to bolster my conclusion as well.
.
“Well what weakened it for me was reading that humans and chimps differed most on non-coding DNA but it was probably you who showed me that link. AFAIK the key distinction is not coding vs non-coding; it’s neutral vs non-neutral.”
Coding DNA will still create major biological differences that will shift association, and even then I look at “selected” traits like skulls and protins in hair.
“Lots of research found they clustered together genetically (though perhaps all these studies are wrong):”
The studies general show, if you look at the ones you often show me, that The San’s closest relatives compared to other Africans are Ethiopians (due likely to admixture/shared ancestry between the two populations as I’ve heard from Razib), a population that already has a distant relationship to other Africans.
All they really say is that other Africans are their closest members, not exactly the nature of the relationship which multiple studies show to be a complex one as I outlined earlier.
Which I also looked at regarding the differences. Also they don’t look at proteins for ancients humans simply due to the lack of them,
Proteins for what? First you need to decide what phenotype you’re looking for before you can look for the genes that code for it. Or are you suggesting they just compare protein DNA in general? That didn’t work out so well for comparing humans and chimps as you noted.
Skull versus surface traits and a certain development in Jaw Shape/size, not exactly deep enough for determining racial differences.
But that’s precisely the point. Racial differences are not that deep. They’ve only had tens of thousands of years to evolve, not hundreds of thousands like species differences. But I do see your point that if there’s some African guy from 150,000 years ago who superficially meets all my Negroid criteria, yet has a radically different shaped skull from all of today’s humans, it wouldn’t make sense to classify him as Negroid, I agree. You could call him a pre-Negroid perhaps, but not a Negroid.
All they really say is that other Africans are their closest members, not exactly the nature of the relationship which multiple studies show to be a complex one as I outlined earlier.
But Bushmen and Africans are genetically a lot closer to each other than either group is to anyone else, at least according to the genetic studies I cited
To PP,
Notice how each of those graphs are in consistent with the relation,likely due to factors like the ethnicities sampled and admixture, along with what each graph is measuring.
The first one doesn’t seem like a typical distance graph, ( could be proven wring with additional context) but lets look at the two others.
First of all, the relation of Khoisan, Bantu, and Nilotic so close to each other is clearly confounded by admixture as Bantus (when in “pure” form resemble SE Nigerians the most) are know to mix with those two groups.
Otherwise it seems fine.
The PCA graph however shows the relationship I’ve mentioned, with the Khoisan being distant with out much continuity inbetween with other groups clustering to West Africans.
My recent studies clearly explain why.
Well maybe Bushmen used to be a separate race from other sub-Saharan but there’s been so much intermixing that they’ve merged back into one. Either way, I think it makes sense to define them as a sub-race of sub-Saharans, not a different race.
“Proteins for what? First you need to decide what phenotype you’re looking for before you can look for the genes that code for it. Or are you suggesting they just compare protein DNA in general? That didn’t work out so well for comparing humans and chimps as you noted.”
What do you mean “not so well”? The above Wiki note by Afro showed clear differences in proteins.
“But that’s precisely the point. Racial differences are not that deep.”
Well they CAN be deeper, just not as deep as determining different species.
“They’ve only had tens of thousands of years to evolve, not hundreds of thousands like species differences. But I do see your point that if there’s some African guy from 150,000 years ago who superficially meets all my Negroid criteria, yet has a radically different shaped skull from all of today’s humans, it wouldn’t make sense to classify him as Negroid, I agree. You could call him a pre-Negroid perhaps, but not a Negroid.”
That’s better, but not quite the relation, I prefer Dienekes term of “Paleoafrican”.
.
“But Bushmen and Africans are genetically a lot closer to each other than either group is to anyone else, at least according to the genetic studies I cited”
And that relation between members, in my other response, changed and was confounded by admixture.
Modern studies that, with admixture accounted for, they indeed diverged from a different root.
“Well maybe Bushmen used to be a separate race from other sub-Saharan but there’s been so much intermixing that they’ve merged back into one. Either way, I think it makes sense to define them as a sub-race of sub-Saharans, not a different race.”
Actually the recent studies show other wise, that they haven’t. Bantu and Khoisan mixed somewhat, but not to the point where the differences “vanish” and unobservable from the perspective of Capoids.
Still a different race.
What do you mean “not so well”? The above Wiki note by Afro showed clear differences in proteins.
Of course there are protein differences but they don’t appear to be proportionate to the phenotypic differences as evidenced by the fact that that most of the chimp-human difference is in “junk DNA”, not DNA that codes for protein. So we can’t use the overall similarity and difference in the protein DNA of two populations to decide whether they have genetically inherited a similar phenotype from a common source.
However if we decide ahead of time that a certain phenotype defines a certain taxa, we can then use coding DNA to exclude from that taxa anyone who didn’t inherit that phenotype from a common genetic source because convergently evolved phenotypes will not have the same protein coding genetic origin.
So deciding on the phenotype must precede looking at the DNA proteins.
That’s better, but not quite the relation, I prefer Dienekes term of “Paleoafrican”.
I’d prefer the term paleonegroid because 1) Africans can be mistakenly thought to include North Africans, and 2) it a priori implies Andaman islanders are not Africans, which they may or may not be. But if you want to use the term “paleoafrican” I don’t object.
The question then becomes are paleoafricans a separate race from modern Africans, or are paleoafricans and modern Africans sub-divisions within a single African race? Based on the computer generated reconstruction I tend to assume the latter, but based on some of your skull data, I would assume the former. The question is how can paleoafricans have such radically different skulls to modern Africans like you claim, yet look so much like them according to reconstructions? I’ve heard eminent scientists tell their students that if an African from about 80,000 years ago walked into the class in modern clothes, no one would notice anything different about him, except for how well built he was. Something’s not adding up.
Actually the recent studies show other wise, that they haven’t. Bantu and Khoisan mixed somewhat, but not to the point where the differences “vanish” and unobservable from the perspective of Capoids.
Still a different race.
A different race or a different subdivision within the same race? The charts and graphs I provided imply the latter but perhaps there’s better data out there that implies the former.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982202013362
On the top on th Andaman Negritos, this study concludes that their alleles are more Homologous with Asians than Africans, supporting their phenotype to be independent of SSA populations.
Also from here, which includes skeletal data.
http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2055&context=humbiol
“Early mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) studies of the Andamanese (for a classical
genetic markers review, see Stock this issue), using both museum skeletal
material (Endicott et al. 2003) and modern populations (Endicott et al. 2003;
Thangaraj et al. 2003), stressed an affinity with Asian rather than African populations.”
The Thing is selected DNA isn’t really a common term, but genetic marker research is often used to find genetic causes. Thus, the studies available on the topic all seem to agree that they align with Asians since the 50’s, let me know of you find anything different.
“Of course there are protein differences but they don’t appear to be proportionate to the phenotypic differences as evidenced by the fact that that most of the chimp-human difference is in “junk DNA”, not DNA that codes for protein. So we can’t use the overall similarity and difference in the protein DNA of two populations to decide whether they have genetically inherited a similar phenotype from a common source.”
No, you can still determine differences using proteins, What causes those differences though, to a significant extent if not most of them, is the expression IN proteins (IIRC) which doesn’t make coding differences unimportant.
BTW Chimps and humans are most similar USING junk DNA, coding and expression is where most difference lies (though the latter could lie in Junk DNA).
In the end the proteins will still be different be it coding DNA or expression in junk DNA.
“However if we decide ahead of time that a certain phenotype defines a certain taxa, we can then use coding DNA to exclude from that taxa anyone who didn’t inherit that phenotype from a common genetic source because convergently evolved phenotypes will not have the same protein coding genetic origin.
So deciding on the phenotype must precede looking at the DNA proteins.”
That’s what is already done on presumptions on the islanders, but you would still have different genetic markers and alleles sets in human chimps comparisons regardless of phenotypical differences.
“I’d prefer the term paleonegroid because 1) Africans can be mistakenly thought to include North Africans, and 2) it a priori implies Andaman islanders are not Africans, which they may or may not be. But if you want to use the term “paleoafrican” I don’t object.”
1. The study already uses a similar term to my own so confusing it with “north African” in pointless, since they appear a certain time peroids and different “africans” present aren’t confused..
2. It’s well establish the Islanders are of the OOA aFrican descent, which the study defines as a different cluster.
3. I already gave reason why “negroid” is in accurate.
“The question then becomes are paleoafricans a separate race from modern Africans, or are paleoafricans and modern Africans sub-divisions within a single African race?”
They are clearly the former.
“Based on the computer generated reconstruction I tend to assume the latter, but based on some of your skull data, I would assume the former. The question is how can paleoafricans have such radically different skulls to modern Africans like you claim, yet look so much like them according to reconstructions?”
That’s because of the documentary likely not being specific, leaving out the limits of reproducing soft tissue. So in other words we are assuming the accuracy of them.
“I’ve heard eminent scientists tell their students that if an African from about 80,000 years ago walked into the class in modern clothes, no one would notice anything different about him, except for how well built he was. Something’s not adding up.”
Not really, of the now possibly 300,000 line of Sapiens existence, those of only 80k were fairly similar to us physically and possibly behaviorally.
Plus you are just using an anecdote out of context, what kind of “ancient” africans were known at this point? This is likely referring to OOA specimens, not paleoafricans as I’ve said.
“A different race or a different subdivision within the same race? The charts and graphs I provided imply the latter but perhaps there’s better data out there that implies the former.”
Yes, and I provided the better data that shows that such admixture confounds that they are simply a sub division.
Using unadmixed subjects (no Bantus like Xhosa or Tswana), the San and West Africans have quite the distant relationship.
No, you can still determine differences using proteins, What causes those differences though, to a significant extent if not most of them, is the expression IN proteins (IIRC) which doesn’t make coding differences unimportant.
Well if there’s some combination of proteins and expression that correlates much better with phenotypic similarity than neutral DNA does, I think that should be used for taxonomy while neutral DNA should be used for building trees.
BTW Chimps and humans are most similar USING junk DNA, coding and expression is where most difference lies (though the latter could lie in Junk DNA).
Well phenotypically chimps are more similar to gorillas than they are to humans, and yet in neutral DNA they are more similar to humans because we share with them a more recent common ancestor than gorillas do. So in order for your method to be an improvement, it would need to show chimps clustering with gorillas but not with humans, because while humans and chimps may share a more recent common ancestor, chimps and gorillas phenotypically preserve more of a common ancestor.
But until such protein/expression analysis is done, all scientists (and mere bloggers like myself) can do is classify things by a brief checklist of easily observable phenotypic traits that one assumes are inherited from a common ancestor until proven wrong.
2. It’s well establish the Islanders are of the OOA aFrican descent, which the study defines as a different cluster.
No one disputes that they share a more recent ancestor with non-Africans than with Africans, the question is whether they inherited their African phenotype from before humans left Africa or if its merely convergent evolution. I know you cited quotes from a study implying the latter, but I’m still not 100% convinced because so many of the scientists’ media talking points implied the former.
3. I already gave reason why “negroid” is in accurate.
paleonegroid != negroid
“Based on the computer generated reconstruction I tend to assume the latter, but based on some of your skull data, I would assume the former. The question is how can paleoafricans have such radically different skulls to modern Africans like you claim, yet look so much like them according to reconstructions?”
That’s because of the documentary likely not being specific, leaving out the limits of reproducing soft tissue. So in other words we are assuming the accuracy of them.
In science you have to make assumptions or you’ll never be able to move forward. If the assumptions are proven wrong you revise them, but you need at least a tentative model to work with.
“I’ve heard eminent scientists tell their students that if an African from about 80,000 years ago walked into the class in modern clothes, no one would notice anything different about him, except for how well built he was. Something’s not adding up.”
Not really, of the now possibly 300,000 line of Sapiens existence, those of only 80k were fairly similar to us physically and possibly behaviorally.
So you admit Africans from 80 K ago could have been just like modern Africans, but not Africans from before then?
Plus you are just using an anecdote out of context, what kind of “ancient” africans were known at this point? This is likely referring to OOA specimens, not paleoafricans as I’ve said.
It was a skull found in Ethiopia. The exact date is disputed. It’s thought to be 160,000 years old but Klein thinks it’s much more recent, but older than 50,000 years.
Using unadmixed subjects (no Bantus like Xhosa or Tswana), the San and West Africans have quite the distant relationship.
Are you saying Cavali-Sforza’s samples were too hybridized? And how distant is distant? When did they last share a common ancestor? And even if it was long ago, couldn’t they have phenotypically preserved enough of that ancestor (kinky hair, flat nose, dark skin, prognathism) to still arguably be one people?
*why negroid is inaccurate.
“Well if there’s some combination of proteins and expression that correlates much better with phenotypic similarity than neutral DNA does, I think that should be used for taxonomy while neutral DNA should be used for building trees.”
Think about what you just suggested, both essential overlap woth each in terms of use.
Also I’ve explained earlier, in the last article on the topic and well before, that wasn’t even Jensen’s argument with “selected DNA”.
Regardless, my research on proteins and coding DNA suggests compliance to “neutral DNA”.
“Well phenotypically chimps are more similar to gorillas than they are to humans, and yet in neutral DNA they are more similar to humans because we share with them a more recent common ancestor than gorillas do. ”
Define “more similar to gorillas”? Because in coding, as I explained before, they are closer to us but share differences in expression.
They maybe, due to being vertical climbers, functionally closer to gorillas in that respect, that’s not comprehensive enough to draw conclusions on who they are closer to.
For taxonomy reasons, coding DNA would say closer to us but simply selected for a different niche. That alone however does justify an arbitrary quantification of their closes selected “match” without deeper analysis in expressed traits.
“So in order for your method to be an improvement, it would need to show chimps clustering with gorillas but not with humans, because while humans and chimps may share a more recent common ancestor, chimps and gorillas phenotypically preserve more of a common ancestor.”
See reasons stated above.
“But until such protein/expression analysis is done, all scientists (and mere bloggers like myself) can do is classify things by a brief checklist of easily observable phenotypic traits that one assumes are inherited from a common ancestor until proven wrong.”
I would trust scientists more so.
“Although initial cytogenetic analyses suggested that chimpanzees and gorillas might share some unique chromosomal inversions (Stanyon & Chiarelli, 1982), these are now confirmed to be independent and non-identical mutations (Goidts et al. 2005). Humans and chimpanzees, however, do share identical inversions on chromosomes 7 and 9 that are not evident in the gorilla karyotype (Wimmer et al. 2002). Thus, the general phylogeny obtained from chromosomal comparisons suggests humans and chimpanzees are sister taxa (see also Dennehey et al. 2004).”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2409108/
Given the the 48 chromosome feature being the main similarity genetically between gorillas and chimps, chimps regardless having a closer relation to our chromosome sets gives us and idea on how much closer expressed phenotypes are by their fodder.
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full
This explains observed traits relative among humans and great ape species is little understood.
“No one disputes that they share a more recent ancestor with non-Africans than with Africans, the question is whether they inherited their African phenotype from before humans left Africa or if its merely convergent evolution. I know you cited quotes from a study implying the latter, but I’m still not 100% convinced because so many of the scientists’ media talking points implied the former.”
You shown me the “media scientist”, however studies regardless show that they likely show better continuity with OOA Africans, not Modern Subsaharans based on coding DNA, proteins, and skeletal features.
“paleonegroid != negroid”
That meant to say “inaccurate” in case you weren’t aware, that terms would imply a direct ancestral relation which was not what was found.
That’s because of the documentary likely not being specific, leaving out the limits of reproducing soft tissue. So in other words we are assuming the accuracy of them.
“In science you have to make assumptions or you’ll never be able to move forward. If the assumptions are proven wrong you revise them, but you need at least a tentative model to work with.”
I’m not saying they don’t have utility, I’m saying that by “being assumptions” they have LIMITED utility to confirm things.
“So you admit Africans from 80 K ago could have been just like modern Africans, but not Africans from before then?”
No, I said that they would be closer to H. Sapiens in modern times GENERALLY.
“It was a skull found in Ethiopia. The exact date is disputed. It’s thought to be 160,000 years old but Klein thinks it’s much more recent, but older than 50,000 years.”
Well a lot of skulls could fit that description, without a name I can’t find what your are talking about immediately. Regardless the whole description by the professor was simplified the nonetheless, as that time period would included specimens that are “anatomically modern”.
“Are you saying Cavali-Sforza’s samples were too hybridized? And how distant is distant?”
Compare the distance between the clustering West African samples in the PCA graph to that of Philipines and Australian natives.
” When did they last share a common ancestor? And even if it was long ago, couldn’t they have phenotypically preserved enough of that ancestor (kinky hair, flat nose, dark skin, prognathism) to still arguably be one people?”
Not really because they don’t have the same skin tones, they are structurally different in proportions, hair growth patterns are different, and various surface traits differences.
And as I’ve shown, the Capoids of south Africa are actually scarcely prognathic, showing less of those “ancestral traits” blacks are said to exemplify.\ despite being genetically from an older branch.
Pumpkin, your post is hard to understand.
Are you saying that blacks have more sweat glands than whites and East Asians?
They do.
“Are you saying that blacks have more sweat glands than whites and East Asians?”
Yes they do.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/10/04/race-and-body-odor/
“One of my beliefs is that Africans have genetically preserved an extremely ancient phenotype , or at least preserved more of that phenotype than non-Africans. ”
Well, lets lay out the major archaic traits between non-africans and Africans outside of skin color (in a general sense that is).
Africans- Longer digits, spine shape and shoulder blades, teeth and palate, arm reach, prognathism, flatter noses, and bone density.
Non Africans- Longer Torsos (and in turn stubbier legs), more abundant and denser hair, larger brow ridges (for West Eurasians that is), smaller heels, more sunken in eyes (that is at least for Northern West Eurasians as far as I know).
So While I wouldn’t exactly argue otherwise, the claim left by itself is misleading as two “modern” and ancient traits being valued on when they appeared versus how useful they are overall.
I left out head size because there is a bit of a conundrum between variation versus averages (see head sizes in the great lakes region), which some may have issues with to make conclusions.
Bone density, I might add as well, is more indicative of the presence of agriculture or rather how nomadic a population is rather than merely preserving non-sapiens traits. It only drastically drop compared to our close relatives due to the effects of farming.
https://www.livescience.com/49236-bone-density-human-evolution.html
That would by physically dysgenic if anything.
And if we played this game between Eurasians…that sort of dampers this being useful in determining Superiority based on your conclusions on the matter.
*with how to make conclusions
With that said, I would count head size after think it over.
Indeed. While I agree with pumpkins assertion that evolution trends toward complexity and Intelligence, phenotypically every macro race has it’s own share of archaic features and just because Intelligence might be hierarchical doesn’t mean every other physical trait is along with it. This is probably where RR gets frustrated with him.
It’s a little autistic.
This is a conversation that I’ve been itching for a while.
Let’s talk about trends and complexity. you start.
“Intelligence might be hierarchical doesn’t mean every other physical trait is along with it. This is probably where RR gets frustrated with him.”
Correct. Just because you can ‘quantify intelligence’ (there is not even a theory of individual intelligence differences! that seems like a huge problem to me) doesn’t mean that every trait is ‘hierarchical’.
“phenotypically every macro race has it’s own share of archaic features and just because Intelligence might be hierarchical doesn’t mean every other physical trait is along with it. This is probably where RR gets frustrated with him.”
Exactly, a trait being “new” only has value depending on the environment.
“Just because you can ‘quantify intelligence’ doesn’t mean that every trait is ‘hierarchical’.”
Exactly, just because IQ scores may somewhat correlate with divergence dates doesn’t mean every non-archaic trait will as well. As I’ve shown before, and as Phil has done an even better job of demonstrating, not all averaged traits between races perfectly correlate with a triarchic model of progression. Asians have primitive traits, so do Caucasoids, and looking at simple pigment variation reveals little.
“Let’s talk about trends and complexity. you start.”
Well my first point ties into my second one. Intelligence only trends progressively because (at least by my definition) it is essentially the potential to mentally adapt to any situation. An adaptation that general and variable is extremely beneficial. This does NOT mean that evolution selects for an increased variant trait every time. Neither does this mean that another trait couldn’t overtake it in usefulness(like cephalopod rna editing), but it does take the surprise out of the data on encephalization.
“(there is not even a theory of individual intelligence differences! that seems like a huge problem to me)”
Why?
” Asians have primitive traits, so do Caucasoids, and looking at simple pigment variation reveals little.”
Well the thing is all organisms have a mixture of ancestral and derived traits (notice how I didn’t use the words “primitive” and “higher/more evolved”). So to say that organism X is more ‘primitive’ than organism Z compared to organism Y makes no sense in Evo bio.
That chucks that “theory” out the window.
“Well my first point ties into my second one. Intelligence only trends progressively because (at least by my definition) it is essentially the potential to mentally adapt to any situation. An adaptation that general and variable is extremely beneficial. This does NOT mean that evolution selects for an increased variant trait every time. Neither does this mean that another trait couldn’t overtake it in usefulness(like cephalopod rna editing), but it does take the surprise out of the data on encephalization.”
For the sake of argument I’ll start with my go to. I fully see where you’re coming from. However, organisms that get cut off from a parent population and go to a new ecosystem with less energy will evolve smaller bodies and brains—especially brains—as they are so energy expensive. I’m sure you’ve heard of the island rule and island gigantism. If a smaller organism is introduced to a new environment with no predators its likely that it will evolve a bigger body and vice versa for bigger organisms; they will get smaller due to constrained energy.
Of course another trait could overtake its usefulness. So long as there is heritable variation for said trait in the organism (obviously).
“Why?”
Ian Dreary says there is no “grown-up” theory of individual intelligence differences like there are theories in chemistry and biology. I think that’s a huge problem. Why is there no individual theory of intelligence differences?
The best I can come up with on the spot is that brains are energy expensive. People with higher intelligence use less glucose to power the brain, people with lower intelligence use more glucose. So I believe that’s a good starting framework.
One more thing. I bought a philosophy book on race last night. It’s actually pretty damn sensible. He notes four concepts of race, the racialist concept, the minimalist concept, The populationist concept and the concept of social race. He says that the racialist position is wrong. But what surprised me is, for instance, the populationist position uses ancestry and geography as well as morphology.
I’ll provide the argument he provides refuting the racialist concept tonight. I want everyone’s thoughts on it.
One more thing. The brain size increase is a local level change. Meaning it can and will change with the right pressure.
“So to say that organism X is more ‘primitive’ than organism Z compared to organism Y makes no sense in Evo bio.”
At that point I think you might be being overly sensitive.
“I fully see where you’re coming from. However, organisms that get cut off from a parent population and go to a new ecosystem with less energy will evolve smaller bodies and brains—especially brains—as they are so energy expensive.”
Are you sure you get my point? I’m not saying within individual species that any encephalization is inevitably the next step. Intelligence is just another biological mutation that can be selected for it just happens to be one of the most versatile in beneficial applications. It’s short term evolution.
“theory of individual intelligence differences like there are theories in chemistry and biology. I think that’s a huge problem. Why is there no individual theory of intelligence differences?”
Are you talking about a theory that explains why people differ in intelligence or a theory about multiple intelligence’s, like Gardner?
Here’s something that may relate:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160610173512.htm
http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004967
“Primates display a remarkable ability to adapt to novel situations. Determining what is most pertinent in these situations is not always possible based only on the current sensory inputs, and often also depends on recent inputs and behavioral outputs that contribute to internal states. Thus, one can ask how cortical dynamics generate representations of these complex situations. It has been observed that mixed selectivity in cortical neurons contributes to represent diverse situations defined by a combination of the current stimuli, and that mixed selectivity is readily obtained in randomly connected recurrent networks. In this context, these reservoir networks reproduce the highly recurrent nature of local cortical connectivity. Recombining present and past inputs, random recurrent networks from the reservoir computing framework generate mixed selectivity which provides pre-coded representations of an essentially universal set of contexts. These representations can then be selectively amplified through learning to solve the task at hand. We thus explored their representational power and dynamical properties after training a reservoir to perform a complex cognitive task initially developed for monkeys. ”
Maybe Primates have an especially general level of intelligence.
“At that point I think you might be being overly sensitive.”
No I’m not. It’s a huge problem for college students who read phylogenies for the first time.
Phylogenetic fallacies: early branching means ‘primitive’ by a researcher who has authored numerous papers on how (and how not to) read phylogeny
http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2008/04/phylogenetic-fallacies-early-branching/
Do early branching lineages signify ancestral traits?
Once two lineages have separated, each evolves new characters independently of the other and, with time, each will show a mixture of plesiomorphic (see Glossary) and apomorphic character states. Therefore, extant species in both lineages resemble, to varying degrees, their common ancestor. Consequently, whereas character states can be relatively ancestral (plesiomorphic) or derived (apomorphic), these concepts are nonsensical when applied to whole organisms.
Click to access 10.1016%40j.tree.2004.11.010.pdf
“Are you sure you get my point? I’m not saying within individual species that any encephalization is inevitably the next step. Intelligence is just another biological mutation that can be selected for it just happens to be one of the most versatile in beneficial applications. It’s short term evolution.”
Right. However, it seems to be passive, not driven—just like ‘complexity’.
“Are you talking about a theory that explains why people differ in intelligence or a theory about multiple intelligence’s, like Gardner?”
First point. Here is the quote from Dreary (sorry for not citing, was on my phone earlier):
And it is facts that drive this present book. It is an attempt to cut out the middle man and put you in touch with some actual research data in human intelligence. There is no such thing as a theory of human intelligence differences – not in the way that grown-up sciences like physics or chemistry have theories. We don’t know enough about the workings of the brain to say why some brains seem to be more efficient than others. However, there are some hard facts about human intelligence differences. Just as in other sciences, these hard facts constrain what we can say about the topic: we should not be claiming things that go against or ignore the best evidence in the field. And just as we should expect of a science, we also have to be frank in admitting the faults of each study, especially when the results seem to agree with our own prejudices. The best scientists are their own most severe critics.
pg 14
Click to access Intelligence-a-very-short-introduction.pdf
Here is an example. It’s like Darwin only saying ‘Species change’, and that’s it; no theory of how or why. He’s just stating something obvious. Similarly, saying ‘Person A is smarter or has a higher IQ than person B” is just an observation; there is no theory of how or why for individual differences. There are theories for group differences (garbage cold winter theory), but no individual differences in intelligence? Hmmm… Sure it’d be a ‘fact that species change over time’, but without a theory of how or why, how useful is that observation?
If such a trend in primates exists and it is driven, that is, if the trend is a direct result of concerted forces acting on most lineages across the intelligence spectrum, then the inference is justified. But if it is passive, that is, forces act only on lineages at the low-intelligence end, then most lineages will have no increasing tendency. In that case, most primate species—especially those out on the right tail of the distribution like ours—would be just as likely to lose intelligence as to gain it in subsequent evolution (if they change at all).
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-008-0055-6
This paper seems to be good for our conversation. Give it a skim.
I think my proposal about glucose differences in the brain is a good starting point.
“Maybe Primates have an especially general level of intelligence.”
Meh. There is a primate g factor, that’s kinda like what you’re talking about here. Here is a source:
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1567/1017
Also, I’m beginning to take to the theory you push, the SBH. I’m still meh on it though. One question for SBH: you said that people erroneously assume that group size is a proxy for sociality, why, then, in everything I read is that the proxy for sociality?
I’m very skeptical on ‘intelligence genes’ now. Let’s talk about IQ too. I want to cover some good ground in this convo. I’ll start.
lol here is a good starting point:
Linda Gottfredson says that, “given what we know g’s nature and practical importance, Black-White genetic differences in g render the goal of full parity in either IQ or achievement unrealistic,” even though we know nothing about “Black-White differences in g (whatever that is. (Richardson, 2017: 14)
“No I’m not.”
Ehhh. By primitive I obviously mean traits physically similar to our archaic ancestors, im not trying to say anything about progression.
“However, it seems to be passive, not driven”
All mutations are passive
“there is no theory of how or why for individual differences. ”
Well simple genetic variation is probably the cause of that. Of course there are pockets of selection across migration lineages. In my own opinion I’ve always assumed feedback loops from increased technology and urbanization has caused higher k selection in some groups and subsequently higher intelligence.
“There is a primate g factor, that’s kinda like what you’re talking about here. ”
Indeed. Supposedly the study I cited was demonstrating that primates have brains wired for variability in problem solving tasks.
“you said that people erroneously assume that group size is a proxy for sociality, why, then, in everything I read is that the proxy for sociality?”
Because the literature on it is wrong. Group size tells little of the actual level of interaction at display, especially since group size can be used as statistical protection against predators, think bees, ants, herding animals, etc. A good portion of the literature testing the SBH has been from it’s original proponent(Dunbar), and Human origins is an underappreciated science to begin with so the criteria definition has never been actually contested. It’s what I’m currently researching.
Parental investment and SBH are intimately correlated
“intelligence genes”
It may be more about expression of said genes than which genes in particular.
“Ehhh. By primitive I obviously mean traits physically similar to our archaic ancestors, im not trying to say anything about progression.”
True. I didn’t mean it in a progress way. I meant it in the fact that people think whole organisms are “primitive” or “archaic”.
“All mutations are passive”
Huh? What I meant was a passive or driven drive. The quote from McShea implies that intelligence is passive. Meaning we can and will change with the right selector. It’s particularly pronounced for those at the right end of the tail distribution.
“Well simple genetic variation is probably the cause of that. Of course there are pockets of selection across migration lineages.”
But that isn’t a theory of why individuals differ. We have the theory of gravity, but no theory of individual intelligence differences. That’s kinda bad imo.
” and urbanization has caused higher k selection ”
Lol what? You know you’re using the term K selection wrong right? K selected doesn’t mean what you think it means. And what do you mean” higher intelligence”? Aren’t you against Rushton’s r K paradigm? In Rushton’s citation of Pianka 1970, intelligence and rule following wasn’t on Pianka’s little continuum, Rushton just added them when both traits can be selected for in K and r organisms.
You said Rushton’s r K bullshit was dead when Graves got his hands on it yet use Rushton’s erroneous use of the theory in conversation? I don’t compute.
“Indeed. Supposedly the study I cited was demonstrating that primates have brains wired for variability in problem solving tasks.”
I need to read those articles. What I cited was similar. Cool stuff.
“A good portion of the literature testing the SBH has been from it’s original proponent(Dunbar), ”
We know what happens when one or a few people push something.. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong though. I’m still convinced about that diet study and I need to return to that conversation with you. Anyway, I find it hard to believe that 30 years of research is wrong and that experts do things completely wrong with no definition of what they’re talking about.
” It may be more about expression of said genes than which genes in particular.”
Meh. I doubt we’ll ever find out. Numerous genes of small effect. I doubt we’ll discover a large amount and be able to engineer intelligence. Seems too sci-fi to me. Maybe I’m wrong but I doubt it.
But that isn’t a theory of why individuals differ. We have the theory of gravity, but no theory of individual intelligence differences. That’s kinda bad imo.
Only Flynn comes close to that with his exposure to modern thinking hypothesis and a huge amount of evidence seems to support him. Motivation also plays a huge role especially among low scorers. Nutrition is important although it’s not known if the causal link is direct. Pollution is another factor, as well as early and prenatal health. I don’t think a theory is necessary, it’s like height or diabetes risk, they are multi-factor phenomenons.
and urbanization has caused higher k selection
Yes, you can’t say that meLo, it makes no sense. I think you’re talking about demographic transition, which is something else.
Meh. I doubt we’ll ever find out. Numerous genes of small effect. I doubt we’ll discover a large amount and be able to engineer intelligence. Seems too sci-fi to me. Maybe I’m wrong but I doubt it.
The assumption that IQ has a strong genetic component comes from twin studies. But as we now know, twin studies are highly misleading and can’t isolate genes from environment
I think nothing will be found until there is no biological measure of intelligence. Which causes another problem: how can we find a biological measure when we can’t reliably tell who’s smart and who isn’t? Comparing the brains of syndromic retards with those of healthy people might be a solution, but it’s seems so simple that it would already explain variation in the normal range if the answer was to be found here.
Plus it’s a touchy topic, it’s not even really necessary as there are thousands of health issues that will gather researcher’s attention first whereas school achievement and job performance can be enhanced by cheaper environmental interventions. Finding genes for IQ/social mobility/life outcomes is only an obsession for those who don’t want to acknowledge that society just doesn’t give the same chances to everyone.
“I think nothing will be found until there is no biological measure of intelligence. Which causes another problem: how can we find a biological measure when we can’t reliably tell who’s smart and who isn’t? Comparing the brains of syndromic retards with those of healthy people might be a solution, but it’s seems so simple that it would already explain variation in the normal range if the answer was to be found here.”
I’ll give you direct evidence of this nature in genetics is slight, but observations in comparing gray matter levels and cognition for instances are done casually.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2557293/Is-proof-clever-genes-Teenagers-thinner-grey-matter-intelligence-research-suggests.html
This in particular focuses on gene isolation, but it just serves as an example as a “biological measure” as you put it. Grey matter levels in terms of variance and association to cognition is hardly challenged, what is though is the significance genetics and environment.
As for research into genetic association in IQ, why make the *assumption* that potential is the same when human intelligence itself is very likely raised to it’s level by genetics of our evolution?
In other words, why would individual variation exist in the past but not now?
By “strong” you might mean >50% which I’ll admit can be argued as far fetched as a hypothesis, but a “significant” could still be less yet important at the same time.
Thank you for the link, I didn’t know this gene, gonna try to find the study.
By strong I mean the HBDer assumption that genes determine most of intelligence and that the environment can’t do much to change it.
In my opinion, I consider IQ, or cognition in general, at best 80-85% “biological”, the remaining external environment.
However, I think possibly around 15%-25% is possibly pre-natal, the remaining biological component being genetic.
I could change this views based on criticisms of heritability studies in adoption and Twin studies or more info on cognition and gene links.
I can’t tell about cognition but I think IQ is 60% schooling and stimulation, 20% health and nutrition, 20% test motivation, 0% genetic unless it’s linked to a specific syndrome.
On intelligence: I really don’t know how to define it, I can separate many types of smart people.
-Those who can gain mastery of a few complex skills
-Those who can gain mastery of very diverse skills but not as thoroughly as the one skill geniuses
-Those who do not become competent in a specific domain yet are sharp when it comes to adapt to novel problems
-And the not so intelligent who can’t learn any skill nor adapt appropriately to an unexpected situation
Melo,
“We know what happens when one or a few people push something.. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong though. I’m still convinced about that diet study and I need to return to that conversation with you. Anyway, I find it hard to believe that 30 years of research is wrong and that experts do things completely wrong with no definition of what they’re talking about.”
Disregard this. I didn’t realize how bad that sounded. I wrote that comment right when I woke up.
I know that some people have been born super smart, that can solve super hard problems others can’t like it was a piece of cake. So I think genetics are a big factor in intelligence. Some people are just born geniuses, it’s obvious from seeing what they are capable of naturally.
Some people are just born geniuses, it’s obvious from seeing what they are capable of naturally.
Thanks cat
“I can’t tell about cognition but I think IQ is 60% schooling and stimulation, 20% health and nutrition, 20% test motivation, 0% genetic unless it’s linked to a specific syndrome.”
Again, this goes back to my argument, why would our current population not to have individual differences genetically as we likely did in the past.
It’s arguable how well IQ models overall intelligence, but I’m doubtful of a 0% genetic component in such a complex trait.
For instance, define “schooling and stimulation” and how does that earn the majority portion when IQ and grades having a moderate correlation at best?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#School_performance
Devotion to work based on time and discipline are shown to be better correlates, working memory being the major cognitive ability a play.
Click to access PsychologicalScienceDec2005.pdf
20%, for a predominately non-genetic position, is more realistic. Plus I’m pretty sure something as specific as “test motivation” could fit somewhere under stimulation.
I mean if you aren’t “stimulated”, how can you be motivated?
Again, this goes back to my argument, why would our current population not to have individual differences genetically as we likely did in the past.
Because if a trait is as advantageous as IQ supporters pretend, it is positively selected until fixation. Maybe that’s what happened by the time of behavioral modernity.
It’s arguable how well IQ models overall intelligence, but I’m doubtful of a 0% genetic component in such a complex trait.
That’s why I said IQ and not cognition as a whole. IQ is very artificial, the items as well as the normal distribution are artificially made up.
For instance, define “schooling and stimulation” and how does that earn the majority portion when IQ and grades having a moderate correlation at best?
Because IQ seems to measure thinking skills that are indirectly learnt through schooling and experience. IQ doesn’t measure knowledge (it’s not supposed to) so it doesn’t have to correlate with grades that much, it makes sense that it is more correlated with discipline and everything that relates to executive functions as taking a test is an effort and motivated and focused test takers will logically do better on IQ tests. Doesn’t mean they’re smarter, they’re just better test takers.
20%, for a predominately non-genetic position, is more realistic. Plus I’m pretty sure something as specific as “test motivation” could fit somewhere under stimulation
No, 0% genetic is more realistic as no convincing and replicated genetic finding has shown substantial influence on IQ (not its proxies like years of education)
Some people are just born geniuses, it’s obvious from seeing what they are capable of naturally.
How naturally? I don’t know any genius that was born and raised by wolves in the woods and became a rocket scientist. And what is a genius? Someone who solves freaky math problems yet can’t lace their shoes or learn a foreign language?
Makes me think of Mensa and the stories of people describing meetings with people who were boring and not that successful. Mensa is useless actually.
My posts are not appearing 😐
“You know you’re using the term K selection wrong right? K selected doesn’t mean what you think it means. And what do you mean”
No I’m not. I could not roll my eyes any harder. Parental investment and maturation rates are both drivers of social intelligence. Social/familial learning as a selection pressure prefers organisms with a prolonged adolescence. Do you honestly think I’m a proponent of Rushton?
“I doubt we’ll ever find out”
Isn’t China doing IQ research?
“it makes no sense. I think you’re talking about demographic transition, which is something else.”
No, it makes perfect sense. Maturation rates have been slowing and fertility rates have been lowering the more technologically advanced the world becomes. If the discrepancies are new there would be little doubt in my mind that they were due to the cultural niches we surround ourselves in, whether they be “genetic or environmental” or a combination of both.
“How naturally? I don’t know any genius that was born and raised by wolves in the woods and became a rocket scientist.”
Do you humans get raised by wolves “naturally”?
“Someone who solves freaky math problems yet can’t lace their shoes or learn a foreign language?”
Do you really think someone who has the ability to process complex mathematical solutions can’t tie their shoes?
Parental investment and maturation rates are both drivers of social intelligence.
Interesting. This might imply K genotypes are the least autistic, the exact opposite of my theory.
Social/familial learning as a selection pressure prefers organisms with a prolonged adolescence. Do you honestly think I’m a proponent of Rushton?
Just out of curiosity MeLo, what part of Rushton’s theory do you object to? The notion that East Asians are more K than Caucasoids who are more K than Blacks, or the notion that cold winters are partly the reason, or both?
“I could not roll my eyes any harder.”
You’ve not rolled your eyes really hard until they almost pop out of your head.
“Parental investment and maturation rates are both drivers of social intelligence. Social/familial learning as a selection pressure prefers organisms with a prolonged adolescence.”
Yet you yourself have stated that r and K can both select for intelligence (which is true, along with rule-following). Are we talking about things in the same context?
Well you are right that urbanization ‘increases K’, because K is competition (as well as alpha-selection which is closer to K than r).
“Isn’t China doing IQ research?”
Yea, but does that mean that I have to think that we will find out?
“Do you honestly think I’m a proponent of Rushton?”
It kinda seems like it.
“Do you really think someone who has the ability to process complex mathematical solutions can’t tie their shoes?”
More kids aged 2 to 5 can use smart phones rather than tie their own shoes. That’s showing our dumbing down, though.
I don’t recall that Kim Peak could tie his shoes. Take that for what you will (since you said ‘someone’).
“Because if a trait is as advantageous as IQ supporters pretend, it is positively selected until fixation. Maybe that’s what happened by the time of behavioral modernity.”
That would occur theoretically for a gene, not a “trait”. In other words, this would only apply to a “gene” for IQ, that doesn’t meant future selection for different ones won’t occur.
https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Fixation.asp
-“At that stage, all individuals are homozygous for that allele *until a new mutation arises.*”
“That’s why I said IQ and not cognition as a whole. IQ is very artificial, the items as well as the normal distribution are artificially made up.”
Define “artificial”. If you mean that as a single trait it is arbitrary as a define whole then yes, but that doesn’t make it’s sub-abilities abberations.
“Because IQ seems to measure thinking skills that are indirectly learnt through schooling and experience.”
Citation that the IQ skills are “learnt” through schooling?
” IQ doesn’t measure knowledge (it’s not supposed to) so it doesn’t have to correlate with grades that much, it makes sense that it is more correlated with discipline and everything that relates to executive functions as taking a test is an effort and motivated and focused test takers will logically do better on IQ tests. Doesn’t mean they’re smarter, they’re just better test takers.”
If you read my link it shows that discipline is a different faculty from IQ that is MORE correlated to grades.
Also grades would involve task including, in part, problem solving that is a part of IQ.
Also, how would you explain then differences in spatial ability (like in block design) in children that haven’t even or just begin school?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdev.12165/full
While likely effected by environmental conditions, these are clearly skills that develop independently of education, though likely enhanced by it.
“No, 0% genetic is more realistic as no convincing and replicated genetic finding has shown substantial influence on IQ (not its proxies like years of education).”
Replication I’ll give you is scarce for alot of alleged genes for intelligence, but on what grounds is there no “convincing” evidence?
A 100% environment explanation is even less realistic simply due to few scientist actually proposing so on a individual level, if we are rate models on how “convincing”
that idea.
The dominate view is a gene-environmental interaction.
“How naturally? I don’t know any genius that was born and raised by wolves in the woods and became a rocket scientist.”
That’s because feral children are stunted in stimulation in their brains like speaking, just because natural abilities need time to develop or interacts with environmental stimuli doesn’t negate a genetic component.
“And what is a genius? Someone who solves freaky math problems yet can’t lace their shoes or learn a foreign language?”
in Psychometric terms, a genius is generally anyone with a 140 IQ due to that being the general average of the mass of distinguished intellectuals when testing was early, like on gifted children.
Colloquially, generally a “bright person” by achievement.
What you are describing however, in psychological terms, is closer to a Savant which is actually quite different in being more specialized.
“Makes me think of Mensa and the stories of people describing meetings with people who were boring and not that successful. Mensa is useless actually.”
Not necessarily, in use it differs no less than colleagues of similar qualities interacting with each other as in any other institution.
However, due to the general selection of it’s members you probably will encounter “case studies” of social awkwardness exhibited in samples of children with alleged “160” IQs.
My first guess was that they likely too “specialized” but perhaps not exactly savants for technical reasons.
http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/underserved.htm
Here if found that, when matched with peers of the same age group, that exhibited less social problems.
However, the Mensa ones could be “feral” in the sense that this stimulation is essential in youth, and the later they achieve it the less effective it will be.
afro, if you have ever met someone with a super high IQ you will realize that they are just naturally more intelligent than you are. I have and it’s undeniable that I could not do anything to make myself as intelligent as my high IQ friend. I have one friend who has an IQ of 90 and another friend is 170. My high IQ friend is not a weird like some people at Mensa. He very much like Chris Langan, very strong willed but also laid back. My friend who is 90 does not like to have intellectual discussions with me. He likes to socialize and do activities. He likes to ride the bus and go places in town and visits people. He does not read books. There is no way he could become as intelligent as I am. It is simply a matter of fact that the brain processes information. Highly intelligent people process huge amounts of information. Low IQ people barely handle some information. If you are born with a brain the can handle huge amounts of information the most likely reason if because of genetics. Being highly intelligent does not automatical a weird or a nerd. If you can process high amounts of information then you can mentally do things others cannot. The genes made it so information can flow through the wires in the brain faster and more organized. In fact, the genes make it so the wires send signals in more directions to hold more information. If a brain is wired in such a way as to have only a small number of pathways for information to flow then the likely cause is genes that tell the wires what shapes to be. The genes in high IQ people shape the wires in the brain so that more pathways exist to hold information to do mental tasks. Social conditioning can only go so far to increase the number of pathways in the brain because genes are still the root cause of the shapes of the wires in the brain. High IQ people are born with more pathways (caused by genes) and that is the reason they have superior intellectual abilities.
Phil,
“Citation that the IQ skills are “learnt” through schooling?”
I have one. Need to check a book to get the source.
“Replication I’ll give you is scarce for alot of alleged genes for intelligence, but on what grounds is there no “convincing” evidence?”
Right. Most studies that show an association with intelligence are false positives. Ken Richardson spends a few pages in his book talking about these hits and how they’re hardly ever replicated. He’s also a huge critic of Plomin et al and behavior genetics. He makes sense.
“That’s because feral children are stunted in stimulation in their brains like speaking, just because natural abilities need time to develop or interacts with environmental stimuli doesn’t negate a genetic component.”
Think back to when I talked about the importance of childhood as well as our discussions about neural plasticity, symbols and mindware.
Afro,
“Makes me think of Mensa and the stories of people describing meetings with people who were boring and not that successful. Mensa is useless actually.”
Our findings support previous research showing that giftedness is not a risk factor for impaired psycho-social well-being of boys or girls.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4611085/
melo talks about grooming of social intelligence among the Chinese. How will this be used?
The Chinese are isolationist and will always be the guys behind the scenes not in the world stage, but nazis don’t see them as puppet masters like the Zionists. Just bunch of unassuming workers always striving and are harmless.
test
Pumpkin
“This might imply K genotypes are the least autistic, the exact opposite of my theory.”
Don’t confuse the Autism/schizo spectrum as analogous with personality traits. Both are cognitive extremes brought upon by maladaptive expressions.
Blacks, hispanics and even some asian groups have higher levels of Autism than whites. In fact most people with autism have incredibly low IQ’s. Someone with an extremely high IQ from the average is obviously going to have a hard time socializing. Not because they lack the ability but because at 2 1/2 SD’s you begin to lose common ground mentally.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4067639/
http://www.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/03/27/aapnews.20140327-1
“Just out of curiosity MeLo, what part of Rushton’s theory do you object to? The notion that East Asians are more K than Caucasoids who are more K than Blacks, or the notion that cold winters are partly the reason, or both?”
Yeah I don’t think the observed trend has been present through out our entire evolutionary history. Neanderthals were more R selected than us, in certain aspects. I think Asians are more K selected now because of Urbanization and increased technology.
RR,
“Yet you yourself have stated that r and K can both select for intelligence”
Can you please quote exactly what I said? That is true, Octupus are Intelligent, and social, but also R selected in their reproductive habits. Scary.
“That’s showing our dumbing down, though.”
No, Using a smart phone is harder than tying shoes. Kim peek is an idiot savant not a “normal” genius.
JS,
“melo talks about grooming of social intelligence among the Chinese. How will this be used?”
I am? The Chinese are very social, at least to eachother and sociality isn’t the same in every culture, A cut throat business culture and a stoner one, are both manifestations of social interaction but within different contexts.
Don’t confuse the Autism/schizo spectrum as analogous with personality traits. Both are cognitive extremes brought upon by maladaptive expressions.
I assume you’re saying they’re diseases, and not anything that was selected for. That’s probably true, but certain diseases can be spandrels of traits that were selected for, the classic example being sickle-cell anaemia, a byproduct of selection to resist malaria.
Blacks, hispanics and even some asian groups have higher levels of Autism than whites.
Blacks have lower rates of autism than whites according to this (consistent with my speculatiom that autism is the K disease):
In fact most people with autism have incredibly low IQ’s.
They average low IQs but some research suggests they come from high social class families which tend to have high IQs, suggesting autism might be a highly evolved genotype that malfunctioned. Wild speculation I admit.
Someone with an extremely high IQ from the average is obviously going to have a hard time socializing. Not because they lack the ability but because at 2 1/2 SD’s you begin to lose common ground mentally.
I agree 100%, and people too often assume that anyone who doesn’t fit in lacks social intelligence, when sometimes they’re just too smart for the people around them. Autism is a tricky thing to diagnose because of such confounds.
Neanderthals were more R selected than us, in certain aspects.
It depends whether they were more r selected than us before or after we left Africa.
The R/K selection between Caucasoids vs Mongolids is misleading. I understand this comparison when you compare them to the brown n black folk.
Again, most East Asians, do not create high quality living spaces. This makes the Mongolids more r selected than let’s say the Irish. With a lower standard of living, there is an evolution for the r scenario like what you find among the black underclass in their neighborhoods and economic state. Socially speaking, East Asians should be r selected, they are not individualist, quite the opposite. The same goes for Jews, when you compare to Europeans. Currently, all collectivist societies have lower standard of living.
Dear meLo,
No, it makes perfect sense. Maturation rates have been slowing and fertility rates have been lowering the more technologically advanced the world becomes. If the discrepancies are new there would be little doubt in my mind that they were due to the cultural niches we surround ourselves in, whether they be “genetic or environmental” or a combination of both.
No, it makes no sense. First look at that on maturation:
Over the past 150 years, the age of puberty onset has fallen substantially across many developed countries. Although trends are apparent in both sexes,1 the evidence in females (where biological markers are clearer) suggests that, for instance, in northern Europe the age at menarche (first menstruation) fell during the 1800s, then further reduced by up to 3 years over the last century (fig 11).). Factors contributing to this fall include a combination of public health successes and changes in social structures. Thus, successes such as improved childhood nutrition and health status through reduction in childhood infections have been major factors accelerating the onset of puberty.7
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2465479/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10421080
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5035449/
However, we probably reach social maturity later now, which is a phenomenon of demographic transition but it does not align with biology.
Fertility rates are driven down by multiple factors, all part of the demographic transition:
-Decrease in child mortality,
-Decrease in child labor
-Extended schooling, especially for girls
-Increase in female labor
Do you humans get raised by wolves “naturally”?
It’s a metaphor, baby. I mean, you don’t become a genius if you grow up removed from sources of knowledge.
Do you really think someone who has the ability to process complex mathematical solutions can’t tie their shoes?
Yup, many folks who master very prestigious intellectual skills are quite helpless when it comes to dealing with more basic tasks. “Bright” people are not good at everything, that’s a fact. Most would be terrible hunter-gatherers I think. You know my position, if civilization collapsed, the Silicon Valley would be decimated and gangbangers would take over.
Melo,
Sorry I should stop saying shit without verifying. You said that cold and hot temperatures can select for intelligence, I looked for what you said last night but couldn’t find it.
In regards to smart phones, you know what I mean. Look at people when you’re outside and What’re they doing? Facingthe phone, not paying attention to the outside world. In my world that’s a sign of low cognition to be so enamored with your phone to stick your face into it all day everyday, even when you’re walking!
Pumpkin,
“but certain diseases can be spandrels of traits that were selected for”
So is Autism a spandrel of Increased mathematical intelligence or a decreased need of sociality?
“(consistent with my speculatiom that autism is the K disease)”
But what isn’t consistent is that Hispanics have the lowest instances and the newest data I found on the subject unfortunately lumps mongoloids and Australoids
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/prevalence/autism-spectrum-disorder-asd.shtml
“It depends whether they were more r selected than us before or after we left Africa.”
I’ll look into it.
JS
I’m sorry, I like that you’re talking to me for once, but I think you and I are on completely different pages.
Afro,
“fell during the 1800s, then further reduced by up to 3 years over the last century”
Are you sure it just isn’t being influenced by rising rates of Obesity? Even better nutrition causes early puberty. What i was talking about was an actual selection for genes associated with slower maturation rates. Sexual maturity isn’t the same thing as full maturity. While A young girl may have her period by 12, she actually isn’t done growing until 3-5 years later, even longer for boys.
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/28/7693.full
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/28/7774.abstract
“I mean, you don’t become a genius if you grow up removed from sources of knowledge.”
What? You mean environment affected intelligence? I had no idea!!
“Yup, many folks who master very prestigious intellectual skills are quite helpless when it comes to dealing with more basic tasks. “”
Like who? What do you define as a basic task?
RR
“In my world that’s a sign of low cognition to be so enamored with your phone to stick your face into it all day everyday, even when you’re walking!”
I think you’re just exaggerating, I agree though, people should be more active nowadays.
Melo,
Age at menarche is significantly mediated by leptin. There is an inverse correlation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9329346
I’ve written about this in regards to black girls.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/04/02/the-role-of-leptin-and-sexual-maturity-in-black-girls/
Lack of a father also has an effect, though I don’t recall why. This is also seen in Mexican girls. I’ve been meaning to write more about this. Leptin is related to body fat. When one becomes obese, they have a decrease sensitivity to leptin. Leptin is the opposite of ghrelin, the hunger hormone so it blunts hunger. Since there is a decreased sensitivity to leptin, they then eat more.
So body fatness and diet are factors for earlier menarche as to rightly note. Note, not discounting the evidence you provided. Showing that you’re right that it has to do with the increased prevalence of obesity, which basically means diet.
In regards to smart phones, I see so many people with their face glued to their phone. It’s ridiculous.
Anyway, you said “show me someone that can’t do simple thing A while being able to do complex thing B”. I showed that people can use a smart phone without knowing how to tie their shoes (able to do complex thing B while not able to do simple thing A). That troubles me.
“Note, not discounting the evidence you provided. Showing that you’re right that it has to do with the increased prevalence of obesity, which basically means diet.”
Exactly what I mean. Not to deny Afro’s study but i feel one that has identified actual selection taking place is more accurate considering confounding variable like obesity.
“That troubles me.”
I consider someone who is a genius to have IQ above 140 Kim peek is an idiot savant, not cognitively representative of the “average” genius.
“Exactly what I mean. Not to deny Afro’s study but i feel one that has identified actual selection taking place is more accurate considering confounding variable like obesity.”
Not to discount natural selection, but the food environment is why people are obese. We have paleolithic genomes in a modern world. Evolutionary mismatches are a large cause for the obesity epidemic, along with Western-like high fat diets (along with a high amount of carbs for a nice insulin spike) is why—as a country—we are so fat.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/01/15/agriculture-and-diseases-of-civilization/
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/02/19/an-evolutionary-look-at-obesity/
http://www.jlr.org/content/51/8/2352
“I consider someone who is a genius to have IQ above 140 Kim peek is an idiot savant, not cognitively representative of the “average” genius.”
True. When I used my example, I was talking about this which I forgot to link to.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/01/more-kids-can-work-smartphones-than-can-tie-their-own-shoes/70101/
19 percent of kids can operate a smartphone whereas only 9 percent of kids can tie their shoes.
Along with seeing people walking with their phones out all the time, I see countless people looking down at their phone while they’re driving.
“but the food environment is why people are obese.”
True, don’t blacks have higher levels of obesity than whites? do you think this is from the fact that they are closer to our hunter gatherer ancestors than the former?
“We have paleolithic genomes in a modern world.”
No we don’t. The study I showed was an actual measure of genetic selection. It may not be necessarily that we eat food not compatible with our genes, we just eat food that’s garbage in general
“19 percent of kids can operate a smartphone whereas only 9 percent of kids can tie their shoes.”
But those are kids, you really think they’re never going to learn to tie their shoes? My 3 year old sister can’t tie her shoes, but she can use my smartphone. It’s to distract her.
“True, don’t blacks have higher levels of obesity than whites? do you think this is from the fact that they are closer to our hunter gatherer ancestors than the former?”
Depends. As a whole, blacks do. But 69 percent of black men are overweight or obese compared to 72 percent of white men. It is reversed with black and white women, 80 percent and 63 percent of white women are overweight or obese.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2015/12/20/ethnicity-and-obesity-rates/
Black American men with more African ancestry, however, are less likely to be obese.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/06/12/black-american-men-with-more-african-ancestry-less-likely-to-be-obese/
It’s interesting to note that they have lower levels of obesity than black women despite living in the same environment. That’s pretty telling to me. Though I’ve not ruminated on the cause for this. I will eventually.
As for your question, I have no idea. I’ve not thought about it in a while. I’m down for a discussion on this though. Give this paper a skim.
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fgene.2016.00089/full
“No we don’t. The study I showed was an actual measure of genetic selection. It may not be necessarily that we eat food not compatible with our genes, we just eat food that’s garbage in general”
Just because there has been some selection in American populations doesn’t mean that we don’t have paleolithic genomes. Read my post on evolutionary perspectives on obesity. If what you were saying is true, then we wouldn’t have this obesity epidemic we currently have in first world countries.
And that garbage food is novel to us and we’ve not had time to adapt to it so it causes maladies, like high carb, processed food.
“But those are kids, you really think they’re never going to learn to tie their shoes? My 3 year old sister can’t tie her shoes, but she can use my smartphone. It’s to distract her.”
True. I never said they’ll never learn to tie their shoes. This is a cultural thing anyway, however, it does show our dumbing down.
“If what you were saying is true, then we wouldn’t have this obesity epidemic we currently have in first world countries.
And that garb”
I don’t think that’s true at all. The study showed that just because selection for genes was going on did not mean that our culture would produce the opposite affects, we spend on average 2 years longer in school even though our genes are selecting for less. That was in the study as well.
“it does show our dumbing down.”
How?
Are you sure it just isn’t being influenced by rising rates of Obesity? Even better nutrition causes early puberty. What i was talking about was an actual selection for genes associated with slower maturation rates. Sexual maturity isn’t the same thing as full maturity. While A young girl may have her period by 12, she actually isn’t done growing until 3-5 years later, even longer for boys.
Whatever the cause, there is no reason to suspect selection for slower maturation since the trend in the developed world is that we’re maturing faster. Growth delays are more common in the developing world and menstrual age is higher there. Sexual maturity is what matters in the r/K. Otherwise, babies already have like 90% of their brain when they are born, there is no reason to believe they get the remaining 10% slower now than before.
Like who? What do you define as a basic task?
Cooking is somewhat basic. And many rocket scientists are probably terrible cooks.
” there is no reason to suspect selection for slower maturation since the trend in the developed world is that we’re maturing faster. ”
Because of things like obesity, i showed you an actual study indicating genetic selection for slower maturation rates. I suggest you read it.
“Sexual maturity is what matters in the r/K.”
I was using slower maturation rates, as in the organism has more time to learn, not when they can have babies.
“And many rocket scientists are probably terrible cooks.”
Is that because they actually lack the potential or is it because they just never invested in that skill?
“I don’t think that’s true at all. The study showed that just because selection for genes was going on did not mean that our culture would produce the opposite affects, we spend on average 2 years longer in school even though our genes are selecting for less. That was in the study as well.”
Right. However, if we were adapted to an agriculutura/processed carbohydrate diet, we wouldn’t have the diabesity epidemic that’s going on in first-world countries. Obesogenic environments matter and obesogenic environments cause evolutionary mismatches.
“How?”
I think we should be concerned with the real world, not with social media and the like. Yea, people are ‘socalizing’, but it’s nothing like face-to-face talking (don’t give me video chat as a counter).
Which reminds me. I watched this show called Year Million on Nat Geo two weeks ago and it was about virtual reality. They said that eventualy we’d be able to upoload our minds to computers and live forever in them.
Virtual reality is wild at the moment. I can imagine what it’ll be like in the future.
I wouldn’t want to upload my mind into a computer.
Another trait I forgot to add is a “rounder foreheads) for Africans. This is a consequence of the lower brow ridge effect, though the foreheads are generally low.
However once you get into th Guinea/ Central Africa both flatter foreheads and browridges become more prominent in the form of “overhangs” as said by Baker, in contrast I believe to the actual “notches” I see in this gallery on the Euro/Anthro site.
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?166744-Prominent-Brow-Ridge/page2
See Palaenegrid here to see a good look at the “overhang” type.
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/552-Egon-von-Eickstedt-s-quot-Das-negride-Afrika-Krperformgruppen-quot
The “Young Man from Ibuzo” also has a good example but without a flat forehead.
https://books.google.com/books?id=6YBKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=anthropology+awka+blacksmiths&source=bl&ots=xvPhiQ2FW-&sig=WiwgGkqcQHmXsJax3XlOElKPF7s&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijq8qb6s_KAhVlvoMKHQh2CfMQ6AEISjAJ#v=onepage&q=man&f=false
To RR,
“Language doesn’t emerge de novo in each person; it is passed, with little modification, from generation to generation. We speak the language of our parents, they spoke the language of their parents, and so on, further and further back in the past’ (p. 236). The evolutionary hypothesis in this view is that, before the invention of symbols in human evolution, brains ‘were raw perceptions, motor control, and emotions that were just sufficiently developed to enable continued animal survival. But now chimerized, they generate a rich diversity of attributes that had not existed previously’ (p. 238).”
Exactly. Basically without the first use of language, much of potential could be lost.
I’ve also just read some passages of Ken’s criticisms with genes and IQ, I’ll get back to you on the subject latter.
I want to expand on mindware and symbols. I think it’s an interesting perspective. Buy the book so we can ruminate on that together.
What did you read from Ken Richardson?
I would bet aphantasia is correlated very heavily with aspergers. Being able to imagine being on stage or doing a girl or having seroous ‘conversations’ with certain individuals is where its at.
Its such an odd condition i was unawsre of before bruno.
How refined is an normal fantasy?
When i think abstractly about 3d formations i can only focus on small areas, like dots skimming an imagined (as if i were figuring out the output of a function within a graph) surface. I can also see very vivid images, like lets say an cat.
When imagining social situations, i can only imagine my own actions and simple reactions from the other person, since my theory of mind is not elaborate.
As sailer says, afticans are not modern humans with neantherthal genes. Thats why they look very different.
But big Z says your eyes are evil and lying.
More boring crappy really boring work tomorrow. I sometimes would enjoy being fired a d living in my basement 24/7 catching up on these tv shows, books and games i eschewed for the previous 5 years in london ‘being serious’. Ive realised if i wasnt in constant paranoid agony i could live on less than 25k gbp and be as happy as 100.
As freud says, im one of the 5% who get pleasure, pain free from intellectual stuff. Freud was very perceptive about that. Not aspergy sudoku things, by knowing and playing video games.
Odd indeed.
how does paranoia prevent you from living on 25k GBPs per year?
a piece of evidence supporting the idea that koreans are the least changed since the first AMHs…
they have the smallest penises.
Judith Rich Harris posits that selection for lighter skin was driven by sexual selection, but states that parental selection for lighter skin further helped the fixation of the alleles for white skin in northern populations. Neanderthals were a furry population, as they had no clothes, so, logic dictates that if they didn’t have clothes then they must have had some sort of protection against the cold Ice Age climate, therefore they must have had fur.
Harris states that since lighter skin is seen as more beautiful than darker skin, then if a woman birthed a darker/furrier babe than the mother would have committed infanticide. Women who birth at younger ages are more likely to commit infanticide, as they still have about twenty years to birth a babe. On the other hand, infanticide rates for mothers decrease as she gets older—because it’s harder to have children the older you get (https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/08/06/the-evolution-of-violence-a-look-at-infanticide-and-rape/).
Erectus may have been furry up until 2 mya, however, as I’ve shown, Erectus was furless and had the ability to thermoregulate—something that a hairy hominin was not able to do (Lieberman, 2015; https://www.fas.harvard.edu/~skeleton/pdfs/2015a.pdf).
There is a preference for lighter-skinned females all throughout the world, in Africa China and India; and Latin America and the Philipines. Light skin is seen as attractive all throughout the world. Thus, since light skin allows better synthesize of vitamin D in colder climes with fewer UV rays, then there would have been a myriad of selective pressures to push that along—parental selection for lighter-skinned babes being one of them. This isn’t talked about often, but infanticide and rape have both driven our evolution.
Harris’ parental selection hypothesis is plausible, and she does use the right dates for fur loss which coincides with the endurance running of Erectus and how he was able to thermoregulate body heat due to lack of fur and more sweat glands. This is when black skin began to evolve. So with migration into more northerly climes, lighter-skinned people would have more of an advantage than darker-skinned people. Infanticide is practiced all over the world, and is caused—partly—by a mother’s unconscious preferences.
http://judithrichharris.info/n2a/medhyp.htm
Judith Rich Harris is the author of the book The Nurture Assumption.
You know that having the same protein receptor is largely meaningless, right? The modern-day SSA population is new, just like all of the races.
This also goes back to… endurance running!
Have you read the Nurture Assumption?
I have not. Have you? It’s on my bucket list.
I read part of it. I need to finish it, but I left my copy back in Vegas.
peepee also conveniently ignores that correlations between the ACT and the WAIS have been determined. all of them were > .72.
merely calculating an expected value means nothing peepee. especially if the sample value could be significantly different from the expected value.
furthermore it is not always true that E(X) = E(E(X|Y=y)). this requires that the E(X) exists. it may not. and it requires that the order of integration can be reversed.
merely calculating an expected value means nothing peepee. especially if the sample value could be significantly different from the expected value.
Why the hell would it be?
furthermore it is not always true that E(X) = E(E(X|Y=y)). this requires that the E(X) exists. it may not.
Why wouldn’t it exist Mug of Pee?
and it requires that the order of integration can be reversed
Say it in English Mug of Pee. I don’t speak geek.
Just as you can estimate the degree of regression from knowing the correlation, my Genius was realizing you could estimate the correlation from knowing the degree of regression.
But like Frey and Detterman, mine is still just an estimate and is thus dependent on various assumptions (bivariate normal distribution, no SLODR or ceiling bumping etc)
The only definitive way to know the correlation in the general population is to give the SAT and an official IQ test to a general population sample.
…revers-ible…
still waiting.
needless to say inferring a correlation between 2 tests using only the 99th percentile from one of them is retarded.
only a retard would do such a thing.
you can guarantee that whatever the correlation is for this 99th percentile it will be much smaller than for the population as a whole, unless N is really big. but even then very high scores may have other problems. they may be less reliable for example. harvard students usually take more than just the SAT. they may take the ACT, CBATs, and AP tests. most of them will have taken the SAT more than once and most will have taken the NMSQT also.
for a large N and an average of all these scores i guarantee the correlation with the WAIS would be >= 0.80 for the population of all those who took these tests.
the correction for restriction of range is unnecessary when the correlation is calculated peepee style as a quotient of sample means.
needless to say inferring a correlation between 2 tests using only the 99th percentile from one of them is retarded.
only a retard would do such a thing.
IDIOT!
Just the other night you calculated the expected regression of people averaging above the 99th percentile (Harvard) based on the bullshit correlation, yet you’re now calling it retarded to infer the actual correlation from the observed regression.
IT’S THE EXACT SAME CALCULATION IN REVERSE!
Moron!
of course it is. so what?
Then why would you try to use the correlation at the 99th percentile to make a prediction if you thought correlations at that level are so irrelevant?
You’re DUMB Mug of Pee.
Your Wechsler scores prove it.
what were his scores?
what were his scores?
He claimed his highest score was Vocab which tops out at +3 SD and his lowest scored was Digit Span (+0 SD) but then came up with the excuse that the tester magically terminated the Digit Span test before he could score higher because she was only interested in excluding an ADD diagnosis.
He’s very dumb.
my digit span score is 85.
do I have mild ADD?
If you correct an IQ test and the SAT for attenuation due to unreliability, I would suspect it to be about 0.7, maybe higher.
Even if the true correlation is 0.7, you’d still expect massive regression to the mean
the expected value would be .7xwhatever the score was IF the model of a bivariate normal distribution fit the very high end.
the bivariate normal distribution is JUST a model peepee. the data never fit the model exactly unless it’s gambling games. and they especially don’t fit the model for extreme values.
and it’s actually A LOT higher than .7 for g-loading.
new paper N = 161. Participants (M age = 19.07 years, SD = .78 years) were 45
males and 116 females who were recruited from the
introductory psychology subject pool at the University of
Texas at San Antonio (UTSA)…data were obtained from a
university with high admission rates (99% for first-time, full-
time new undergraduates; UTSA Fact Book, n.d.), which
minimizes range restriction problems.(NOT elite, and thus the high end was likely under-represented.)
The
g factor was strongly related to the SAT (coefficients = .78 and
.82 for Fig. 2A and Frey & Detterman, 2004, respectively) and
the ACT (coefficients = .76 and .77 for Fig. 2B and Koenig et al.,
2008, respectively). Given the strong g loading of intelligence
tests, it could be argued that the SAT and ACT (which are also
strongly g loaded) are intelligence tests.
you can read it and tell us all the authors are morons and you’re smart. this time their measure of g was a lot more than just the WAIS, iiuc. but it included a lot of WAIS subtests.
this is also for the new SAT. the old SAT would have even higher g-loading.
eat it dyke!
SAT and ACT predict college GPA after removing g.
this is also for the new SAT. the old SAT would have even higher g-loading.
There’s no evidence the new SAT is less g loaded
The g factor was strongly related to the SAT
As I’ve said before, the SAT is quite g loaded in academically homogenous samples where everyone’s had the same exposure to reading and especially math, but this is not always the case for the general U.S. population where high school education varies widely.
Also, the study you cite reported a dismal correlation between the SAT and Raven.
the question using my labor saving method is…
IF it is assumed that even at the very high end the bivariate normal fits perfectly THEN what kind of spread in average scores on test #2 could be expected.
an average of 122 might just be bad luck. if the same study were done again it might’ve been 130.
there is simply no way that college and professional school entrance exams could not be IQ tests if the g theory is true.
I agree they’re IQ tests which is why i cite them all the time in that context but what you don’t get is that harvard students don’t average IQ 143 just because their SATs average 143. There’s a selection bias effect you can’t seem to grasp & it’s not unique to the SAT. It would happen with any test used for selection even the WAIS
But it’s too subtle for you
Sad
On the wais 4 my (g) is 130
If g is a better predictor of SAT scores than FSIQ then my score of 1471 would make more sense. (but a person with my IQ of 113 is predicted to be the minimum for a 4-year bachelor’s degree) I only completed one semester at college.
There’s a selection bias effect you can’t seem to grasp & it’s not unique to the SAT. It would happen with any test used for selection even the WAIS
it’s not too subtle retard, because it’s FALSE!
the only “bias” would be if harvard selected DUMB people from those with 143 SAT-IQ.
there is absolutely no evidence of that. as far as you or i know the regression of harvard students is no greater than for those with similar SAT scores who didn’t go to harvard.
do you even know what a conditional distribution is peepee-tard?
there is absolutely no evidence of that. as far as you or i know the regression of harvard students is no greater than for those with similar SAT scores who didn’t go to harvard.
Still too subtle for you.
If I asked a bunch of jeopardy champs and a bunch of Harvard grads what their SATs scores were, both groups might average IQ 143, but the Harvard grads would regress to the 120s if given the WAIS while the Jeopardy champs would stay in the 140s.
This is because the Jeopardy champs are defined by their high general knowledge, so they’ve already regressed to the mean on the SAT and thus don’t do anymore regressing on the WAIS, but the Harvard students are defined by their high SATs and thus regress on the WAIS.
Understand my little dumb-dumb?
Pumpkon is lying about the harvard entrance criteria. Ever wonder why 20% of whites there are jews.
Is harvard jew doninated because of trablism?
Yes.
Were under occupation. The number one criteria is not iq its being a. Jewish. B black c some other diversity pokemon except asian and d sayong on your app form how you got a black rapist community service like hilary did
This is because the Jeopardy champs are defined by their high general knowledge, so they’ve already regressed to the mean on the SAT and thus don’t do anymore regressing on the WAIS, but the Harvard students are defined by their high SATs and thus regress on the WAIS.
THIS A WORD SALAD OF RETARDATION.
HAVE YOU EVER TAKEN A SINGLE COLLEGE COURSE IN MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS PEEPEE?
YES
OR
NO
???
I had no idea Mug of Pee was this incredibly dumb.
Harvard students are selected based on SATs which means they are selected for overperformimg on the SAT, relative to other tests & being disproportionately talented on those skills
Jeopardy champs are selected for general knowledge so they’re selected for overperformimg on general knowledge & being disproportionately talented in this area
Thus the SAT gives an inflated measure of harvard IQ just as general knowledge gives an inflated measure of jeopardy champ IQ
Mug of Pee has zero ability to think critically or intuitively about statistics. If it’s not a formula he’s memorized, he can’t adapt
And worse, he lacks the self-awareness to realize his weakness
As Pincher Martin said to you repeatedly and correctly “we both know you’re not that smart”
THINKS THIS STATEMENT IS NECESSARILY TRUE. IT’S NOT. AND THERE’S ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE FOR IT.
Just like there’s zero evidence that the NHL’s hockey skill overrates their athletic skill a lot more than the NFL’s hockey skill does, but no one with an IQ above 20 would doubt it.
By Mug of Pee’s low IQ logic, Michael Jordan should have been just as good at baseball as he was at basketball.
By Mug of Pee’s low IQ logic, Michael Jordan should have been just as good at baseball as he was at basketball.
FALSE.
if SLDR is FALSE…
AND…
there is a correlation between basketball and baseball ability…
THEN…
MJ should be better at baseball than most people…
AND…
better at baseball than most NBAers.
but SLDR is true in IQ and in sports.
MJ should be better at baseball than most people…
AND…
better at baseball than most NBAers.
Irrelevant Mug of Pee. His basketball skill would still be expected to exceed his baseball skill but a hockey champ’s would not (assuming equal correlations between sports)
Similarly an SAT champion’s SAT IQ would be expected to exceed his wechsler IQ but a jeopardy champ’s would not
AND IN FACT MJ WAS BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE AT BASEBALL.
HE JUST WASN’T GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE MAJORS.
LIKE MY NEIGHBOR.
HIS SON WAS DRAFTED IN THE 9TH ROUND.
MLB HAS 50+ ROUNDS.
SO HE HAS A CHANCE TO MAKE IT TO THE MAJORS.
BUT HE PROBABLY WON’T.
One thing i notice is how the staff at wsj, nyt, wapo are interchangeable. That is, usually jewish and have the same underhanded way of spreading their zionist opinions despite being ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’. Once you see the fraud is quite stomach turning. Fro example brett stephens as highlighted by sailer.
Or any number really.
Once you see the puppetshow you cant unsee it. The only thing is tge childish suspension of disbelief on authority if you neurologically have issues with authority you take Master shylock so much less seriously. . You are safe.
Low iq ‘racists’ instintively get the right answer. Thats why theyre more sexually attractive rac-ism is the number 1 criteria for selection today. It shows instinct.
Have you been following the fate of Otto Warmbier? Turns out he was Jewish, yet lower IQ nazis are showing sympathy for him at the hands of North Korean cruelty.
This is tribalism at work, since Warmbier is racially White. This, despite the fact that all WNs think East Asians are admirable for their fascist tendencies.
On the other side of the coin, some were initially sympathetic and critical of North Koreans, because they thought he was “White”, but lost all interest of the story, when they found out he was Jewish.
I got sick of watching jimmy dore. He keeps bashing the neocons and cant or wont acknowledge feinstein wasserman schultz rubin et al are all jews. He shares my beliefs on everything else except hbd. Thats why im closer to him than say, vox day or heartiste or even public persona trump.
(Secret trump i agree with on economics, trump changed my position on trade bizarrely enough).
But genetics is more important. So id vote trump over bernie.
I got sick of watching jimmy dore. He keeps bashing the neocons and cant or wont acknowledge feinstein wasserman schultz rubin et al are all jews
He doesn’t think about it that way. To most liberals, everything is about economic interests. Ethnic genetic interests don’t occur to them
They should. Arguably ethnic interests occur to them all the time – whats good for magic negroes, immigrants, why white men are evil etc – its just been warped by Danish high IQ sophistry and indoctrination.
In many way, liberals today are only about identity politics.
its just been warped by Danish high IQ sophistry and indoctrination. aka universalism
In many way, liberals today are only about identity politics. because they aren’t liberals. they’re sheep…herded by danes. at the same time, idenity politics sympathy among white gentile “liberals” is actually motivated by classism. among danish liberals it’s motivated by hatred of white gentiles and an all consuming desire to rule the world. it’s in all the danish holy books. it takes no special perceptiveness.
The end poi t of k selection is oblivion. Witbess the unsexy japanese abd chibese men. Ever wonder why the irish breed fastest in america and the uk.
R slection.
The irish are the most r selected white western race. Thats why british empire cartoons pre judaic rule protrated irish people as monkeys abd blacks. Because they are in some ways.
But also extremely tribal and aggressive towards competition. I.e. jews and blacks.
Mel gibson, trumpy and so on dont have those instincts randomly. It celtic warrior genes.
But being a warrior means a poor engineer or farmer. Hebce the relative poverty in ireland and scotland up until very very recently. And even then ireland is just a tax haven.
Ireland is now one of the richest countries in western Europe. Some people were claiming their IQ was like 87 as recently as 40 years ago but I think that data was retracted.
It’s a Lynn claim if I recall correctly. Take that for what it’s worth.
i predict the following…
the rarer and/or more spread out blacks are in a given population the closer their average test scores are to the majority.
blacks have strong quorum sensing.
if they are too common, they form plaques wherein their brains rot.
sad!
to Mugabe:
LOLWUT???
He’s basically saying blacks are bad influences on eachother and this is very true. In fact i think low ses whites are the only ones who dont create ghettos when lumped together. Ill have to find the study again.
Ever been to East Kentucky/West Virginia (I have)?
Lmao. Still pushing discredited shit, eh?
Do tell how the Irish are “r-selected”, I’d love to hear your reasoning.
‘Discredited’. Youre very fond of official academics ‘proving’ and ‘disproving’.
Describe to me r/K selection then.
Note the diff betwerrn accrediting and proving.
Although the Irish are generally r selected, they also run the gamut of k selected. Nowhere in the numbers of other Northern Euros, but I would say they are more varied than let say Southern Italians in the states. You’ll find more Micks in Academia/intellectual pursuits than greaseballs, who are like the Jews without the haughty attitude. Celtic tribalism is very different Jew tribalism.
Although I dislike British Isle proles, it should be unsurprising that dumb St paddy lads have done more for humanity than Chinese and Jewish pseudo geniuses. Quite unsurprising given the fact that Whites are simply better than Asiatics in the grander scheme of things.
According to stats, Ireland has a lower average IQ than Spain. Ireland was a backwater for eons, longer than that of Spain. Yet, you find more Chinos frying egg rolls in Ireland than in Spain. Then there’s the tax haven thing, where Apple gets to install its operations. Spain gets none of these privileges. This scenario already proves why IQ can be misleading and why East Asian IQ is in fact a farce and irrelevant.
Has marsha ever proven her iq pumpkin?
Well Robert disagress, but I think thats what it boils down to. Prop v predicate. Thats why aspergers Wittgenstein kept doing If>then logic on verbal statement, rather than debating the gist or manner of the statement, he was concerned with saying whether a statement said what it said. Because he has apsergers.
Derrida/Foucalt don’t have aspergers. They are silly smart. Not real philosophers as they’ve never said anything interesting.
My contention is this: Philosophy is purposely directed to inanity and angels on a pin type debates because, and this is crucial( (as its the same in economics over equilibrium), it is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS for high verbal IQ people to start punching holes in the jew fraud. Fraud can only exist without violence.
Far better to get young sharp minds wrpaped in debates over the meaning of ‘it’.
I’ve never seen the SAT. But if its like the GMAT, I suspect studying makes a massive difference. If I did the gmat cold, I would score much more poorly relative to my potential than if I refreshed my math.
This is because people don’t appreciate that type of math in these tests can become crystalised intelligence – trig, algebra I/II, finance math & prob.
If you are looking for ‘g’, I’m not even sure the culture fair shape tests are much more appropriate. The theory is that a person with high g should be able to recognise and use patterns in a variety of symbolic verandas – laguage, math, coding, music, poetry etc.
I’m sure psychologists have studied the correls between different types of tests.
If you are asking about “intelligence”, that is different to ability or ‘g’ for me. Intelligence is talking to someone and appreciating their views on the world because they may not be able to memorise 5000 license plates and see the stat patterns like Buffet, but the won’t pay for their seperated wife’s lover’s new house or let their wife die of an STD and run off with her tennis coach or give their money to barbarians in Africa.
Many jocks are more ‘intelligent’ than nerds to talk to.
yes. the measurement of g and achievement cannot be separated when “achievement” means something very general. when it means achievement at specific things then of course the two are not very well correlated.
the GMAT math section has a very high ceiling yet its questions require no more than high school math. perfect scores on the GMAT are very rare. or were. i scored 790 on the practice, 770 on the actual. but i’d have to take it 10 times to have a 50% chance of scoring 800.
the supposedly “culture reduced” tests appear to me to be the most culture laden.
studying only makes a difference in the speed component. that is, it makes one familiar with the test format and question types. this can’t improve scores much.
but everyone “studies” for these tests. if by “studies” is meant they do at least one practice test.
no one shows up to these tests having no idea what’s going to be on them unless they’re morons in which case “studying” wouldn’t help them.
i know from experience that after i knew the format and question types further practice exams made no difference in my score. and even the first practice exam made no significant difference.
it was really on the old GRE analytic section where “study” really made a difference. this is because it was a pure speed test. no matter how smart you were there’s 0% chance you’d make a perfect score without doing a few practice tests.
ping pong champions scored lower on the analytic than whites.
this despite the supposed advantage of slants on pure speed tests.
The bottom line is elite college kids who average about +3 SD on the SAT average about +1.5 SD on official IQ tests
I’ve observed this now in 4 studies (count em)
It doesn’t matter whether it’s SLODR or just a mediocre correlation
Either way the SAT is not selecting the top minds
the SAT is just as valid a means of selecting “top minds” as any IQ test if SLDR is true…
You’re the one assuming the extreme regression that high SAT people show is caused by SLODR. I’m assuming it’s caused by a mediocre general population correlation that gets inflated by the misleading application of range restriction correction to college samples.
But I just thought of a very easy way to test which it is, and I will do so with a few quick calculations.
and A LOT better than any “official IQ test”.
The SAT is the only test where I’ve confirmed such severe regression but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen with other tests, but if SLODR is true, then it’s perhaps more damning for the SAT than the Wechsler because the former measures so few abilities that it needs those few abilities to be predictive (g loaded) of untested abilities. By contrast the Wechsler measures those other abilities directly.
the SAT + ACT + AP exams + CBATs is going to have a g-loading of 1.0000…rounded to the nearest millionth.
You’re basically just measuring the same abilities over and over again so you might not get enough diversity to achieve a virtually perfect g loading. On the other hand some achievement tests are about as g loaded as the Wechsler IQ tests (i.e. Wechsler Individual Achievement Test) but it might be more diverse and fair to people of different backgrounds than the tests you describe
i don’t recall any.
I’ve documented three of the four studies.
I am doubting that my wais score of 113 is accurate.
I think I am much higher.
From my estimate, I should be capable of masters degree
The average IQ of a person with a master degree is 120.
115 Bachelors degree
120 Masters Degree
125 Doctorates degree
where’s the money shot?
peepee waved away the SAT/ASVAB correlation as “achievement tests correlate with achievement tests.
but actually the SAT and ACT correlate MUCH BETTER with commerical IQ tests according to SAT and ACT predict college GPA after removing g ☆
Thomas R. Coyle ⁎ , David R. Pillow
but actually the SAT and ACT correlate MUCH BETTER with commerical IQ
No they don’t. The raven-sat correlation in the study was a dismal 0.38 iirc
The reason the SAT’s g loading was so high when placed in the IQ battery as opposed to the achievement battery was because in the latter analysis, the tests were given to academically heterogenous college kids while in the former, they were given to kids attending the local college in their hometown, thus controlling for educational background
If you gave the SAT to all american young adults including high school dropouts & kids from the ghetto & trailer parks, the g loading would collapse.
Understand dumb-dumb?
But look at your sample as it travels through time. Roberts SAT in the 70s was much more predictive of achievement than 50m latinos later in 2017.
But pumpkin, if we only look at the homogeneous group then the SAT does predict g
I scored 1471 on the SAT and my g is 130.
Because I am in the homogeneous group my g is predictable from my SAT score.
Of all the kids that took the SAT my SAT IQ is 142.
one in three hundred ninety one people score at 1471
There general intelligence should be at least as high as mine.
I am still trying to understand what general intelligence is.
But currently I know that if you are good at one task you are good at all other tasks to the same degree.
my general ability to do well at all tasks is 32 times better than a person with a g of 100
“I am still trying to understand what general intelligence is.”
Even the experts are, honestly.
they correlate better with a composite of “official IQ” tests than they do with the ASVAB.
the RPM always has a low g-loading.
contra lying fucktards like jensen.
The other problem with the study is it included both the SAT & the ACT in the test batteries from which g was extracted
Including 2 tests measuring the exact same thing biases the g loadings in the direction of the overrepresented abilities
Subsequent
analyses indicated that SAT and ACT scores from indepen-
dent university samples were significantly correlated with
Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (r corrected for range
restriction = .72 and .75 for the SAT and ACT, respectively)
ALL THE EXPERTS AGREE WITH ME.
ALL THE EXPERTS DISAGREE WITH “I AM EXPERT”.
SAD!
Range corrected correlation at elite college != general population correlation
Only a complete moron could think otherwise
What a stupid piece of shit you are
the two were NOT used together.
look at figure 1 peepee the
Read how g was measured you dumbass
Show me a single study showing the SAT correlates highly with IQ/g in a general population sample
You can’t because such studies don’t exist
why would i need to.
it’s 100% irrlevant.
SATs predict scores on “real IQ tests” almost PERFECTLY…for those who take the SAT.
so it may exclude mixed-race dykes.
but they’re a small minority.
sad!
Didn’t think it was possible for anyone to be this stupid.
Here’s Frey & Detterman’s formula for predicting IQ from SAT.
X’IQ = (0.095 * SAT-M) + (-0.003 * SAT-V) + 50.241
Their formula, not mine
Harvard has an SAT IQ of 143 now plug their SATs into the formula & see how well it predicts that
Mugabe does not care about the general population sample.
He wants validation that his g is high because of his SAT score.
what was Mugabe’s SAT score anyway? Do you know pumpkin?
I’m leaning more towards Pumpkin in this debate, but what I think is so amazing about the SAT is that it predicts college GPA over and above g. The only test (i know of) to do that. That’s amazing!
Although I knew a white guy (half-Jew) in high school with almost perfect SAT scores who flunked a bunch of his classes and went to community college…
kitty and gman = peepee for non-autists.
121.19 = (0.095 * 769) + (-0.003 * 702) + 50.241
my IQ should be 121.
The person I know with an IQ of 170 predicted that my IQ was actually 118.
I think it could be the case that my WAIS 4 score of 113 might not have accurately measured my true ability.
I do have a mental illness where I am unstable most of the time.
I have feelings of inadequacy and lack stimulating activities and socialization.
This study sought to assess the ability of the equations Frey and Detterman (2004) presented to assess IQ
in the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS). The study confirmed Frey and Detterman’s equation
(2) best predicted IQ from recentered SAT scores. Nonetheless, both of the Frey and Detterman’s
equations did not match the optimal model found in the current data, namely that SAT Total or SAT
Verbal, alone, best predicted IQ as measured by the RIAS. Implications from this study are much the same
as those stated by Frey and Detterman, namely, that SAT appears to be a measure of general intelligence
and is a useful tool in predicting cognitive functioning. Nonetheless, future research is needed with a wider
range of IQ instruments to assess which SAT variables are the best predictors, and what weight each should
be ascribed.
Click to access RIAS-pred-SAT-study-beaujean2006.pdf
peepee’s link is broken or she’s lying.
as usual.
Based on the regression corrected for nonlinearity with the addition of the squared SAT
component, we developed the following equation to predict IQ from SAT scores:
X’IQ = (0.126 * SAT) + (-4.71E-5 * SAT_) + 40.063
that’s “SAT” and “SAT_”.
where does it say these are SAT-M and SAT-V?
We developed an equation for predicting IQ from SAT scores in the Study 2 data set. The
resulting equation includes SAT-M and SAT-V scores, in place of the total score, as neither the
squared nor the cubic component of SAT added significantly to the prediction of IQ (p > .05).
The following is the equation obtained:
X’IQ = (0.095 * SAT-M) + (-0.003 * SAT-V) + 50.241
this is for the RPM only.
obviously the RPM correlates better with SAT-M.
but the RPM is a shitty IQ test.
The prediction would have been just as bad for the WAIS
also notice from the study that grades are much less correlated with IQ than the SAT and ACT.
this again contradicts peepee-tard and agrees with mugabe.
those like professor shoe for who educational credentials are God claim that the smaller correlation is due to restriction of range.
this is NOT true provided the student body is representative of those who have taken the SAT. and there are unis where this is the case. non-elite flagship state unis like professor shoe’s former uni, the U of O likely have SAT score distributions very close to that of all SAT takers. and in this case the SAT gpa correlation was pathetic.
the authors claim that UTSA’s open admissions obviate the restriction of range problem, but i would guess the high end is under-represented.
It doesn’t matter if they’re representative of the SAT population since the SAT population itself is restricted relative to the general U.S. population
This why IQ/achievement tests best pedict grades in elementary school, when you have the full range of ability, and the correlation drops in high school and drops more in university and further still in graduate school
…for whom…
of course it might be that the high SATs at schools like the U of O are at the U of O because they had bad grades in high school and this has continued at uni.
but if peepee is looking for the perfect study she’s not going to find it. psychologists are too fucking retarded to know the difference between a dispositive study and a merely interesting study.
so again mugabe is confirmed.
canada has the world’s dumbest elite.
no wonder they like hockey.
But seriously mac demarco is a musical genius. He has the same thing as scriabin. Nutty guy.
Shut up, nobody cares about what you say.
Angry he was outed^^
Lick my balls.
Kitty, did you try SAT one time? Or the reported score is your best one? Was your mental state the same while taking the WAIS?
Today I went to the community college to try and get advice from an adviser but they were closed because of some meeting.
I am confused if I did take the SAT because I know of no test that has a scale of 800 and 800, other than the SAT. Why would my score be 1471 if it was not the SAT that I took? My school transcripts specifical says 769 on mathematics and 702 on reading so I assume it was the SAT I took. These scores are in a box and the title of the box on the paper says (New Mexico High School Standards Assessment Grade 11) So I still cannot be certain about what I took. I need to talk to a college advisor to know for sure. I probably took the test one time and I do not remember how I felt when I took it. When I took the WAIS 4 I almost fainted during the last fifth of the test. I had to stop answering some of the problems because I was passing out.
I would recommend you find a job working with animals.
Look, dont react so desperately to my curiosity – I m from distant land and know nearly zero about SAT, ACT , GRE etc….. But I know that there is no one and only perfect measure for mental capacity .
If we know ALL scores from a person , on different valid tests, and inercorrelation between the tests, we may try to guess what his IQ is
. Its ok if a person have his scores withing like 30 points or more – just like subtests iin WAIS. . I know some guy, a tailor -( just to give you a funny example)He scores consistently very highly on any untimed spatial, visual , matrix -type etc etc tools ( 135 fucking plus) and about 100 on almost everything else), so…He is perfectly mentally normal, if we dont consider his criminal youth a disorder :)) .
If you recheck your school score it would be interesting anyway
to the Philosopher: that’s actually a really thoughtful idea. Illuminaticat, have you considered that?
I was once told I should be a counselor.
My empathy is really high and I am nonjudgemental.
I am good at listing to people and making them feel better.
I am good at helping people understand different perspectives about life.
I think it is because my verbal IQ is really high (132).
So I can communicate better than most people can.
I can talk people through their problems.
I can make them feel respected.
Lets be honest (((((afrosapiens ))))) has been shilling for the satanic star since he got here.
I haven’t been posting commercials for a while by the way.
I know you like it. Now bend over, I have a gift for you.
yes. my theory is that afro is another one of peepee’s multiple personalities which she developed as a result of sexual abuse.
Alice in chains are even better to listen to than 20 years ago.
Yeah, hey, I want to travel south this year
I won’t, won’t prevent safe passage here
Why you act crazy?
Not an act maybe
So close a lady
Shifty eyes, shady
Yeah, hey Yeah, tears that soak a callous heart
Why you act frightened?
I am enlightened
Your weakness builds me, so someday you’ll see
I never thought these lyrics as a teenager had relevance. And now they do.
Alt right is derived from alt rock. Sailer has a good article about it in taki mag.
1979 – smashing pumpkins. One of the greatest pieces of music of all time.
you need to be gassed pill.
Apprently billy corgan and pharrel were tested as musical geniuses askids and sent to a special music school instead of high school.
I was always a grunger. Its wonderful we still have the memories and mementos from that very special time in america. It makes me sentimental.
plus baseball is a “heterogeneous” sport in terms of the abilities required.
given his height jordan might have made a very good pitcher. but he didn’t try that afaik.
so if jordan were a 160 IQ basketball player and one knew nothing about his height and build one might expect he was 142 IQ baseball player.
142 IQ is NOT enough for the majors.
From my personal experience:
SAT (taken in mid-2000s): prepping for the verbal consisted of memorizing a list of 1000 vocab words. Raised my score about 60-70 points to perfect 800. Math score didn’t go up much from practice (around a dozen practice tests taken over a year). Writing score saw improvement after practice by about 50 points.
GMAT (taken in early 2010s): didn’t prep at all. only got 640 (i think)
GRE: didn’t prep. got 98% on verbal, much lower on math.
LSAT: test where prepping helped the most. logic games can only be perfected with at least a few weeks of intensive practice learning how to diagram.
Oh Me https://g.co/kgs/Asp2pK
For a brief period of time he was the best musician in the world. Magical.
Pat smear on rythm is pitch perfect filling in. I just clapped with the audience.
peepee is right regarding basketball and baseball that SLDR is obvious.
but she’s wrong that it’s obvious for SAT or Jeopardy! champs.
that is…
basketball will have a lot of very tall people who may be only mediocre athletes otherwise. baseball players do tend to be tall, but height is not essential to baseball ability the way it is for basketball.
so imagine shaq trying to play baseball.
yuge strike zone, but he’d probably suck in the field.
he might be a very good pitcher though.
and then again baseball is the one of the three big american sports where un-mixed whites are still the majority.
peepee is right regarding basketball and baseball that SLDR is obvious.
but she’s wrong that it’s obvious for SAT or Jeopardy! champs.
No I’m not wrong and you don’t even need to invoke SLDR. The only reason we know Harvard students average high SATs is precisely because they did well on that particular test out of all the tests they could have taken, so it’s not a random sample of their ability. By contrast, Jeopardy champs are famous for something else, so for them the SAT IS a random sample of ability, and so unlike Harvard students, they would not be expected to regress from the SAT to the WAIS the way Harvard students do. But they would be expected to regress from Jeopardy test to BOTH the SAT AND the WAIS.
You simply lack the subtlety to appreciate a concept this abstract, though a lot of researchers make the same mistake.
and of course athletic ability doesn’t have the “tight correlational structure” of mental tests.
What percentage of those Hispanics are black Dominicans? I’m betting about half.
Counting just those from DR it’s about 10 percent (853 players in the MLB; DR having 83 players in the league).
I go in depth here.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/20/hbd-and-sports-baseball/
But I was probably wrong with my racial assertion:
James first compared fifty-four white rookies against the same number of black first-year players who had comparable statistics. “The results were astonishing,” James wrote. The black players:
* went on to have better major-league careers in 44 out of 54 cases
* played 48 percent more games
* had 66 percent more major league hits
* hit 93 percent more triples
* hit 66 percent more home runs
* scored 69 percent more runs
* stole 400 more bases (Entine, 2000: 22-23)
…
When comparing home runs, runs scored, RBIs or stolen bases, black players held an advantage a startling 80 percent of the time. “And I could identify absolutely no bias to help explain why this should happen,” James said in disbelief.
…
In an attempt to correct for possible bias, James compared players with comparable speed statistics such as the number of doubles, triples, and stolen bases. He ran a study focused on players who had little speed. He analyzed for “position bias” and made sure that players in the same eras were being compared. Yet every time he crunched the numbers, the results broke down across racial lines. When comparing home runs, runs scored, RBIs or stolen bases, black players held an advantage a startling 80 percent of the time. “And I could identify absolutely no bias to help explain why this should happen,” James said in disbelief.
James also compared white Hispanic rookies whom he assumed faced an uphill battle similar to that for blacks, with comparable groups of white and black players. The blacks dominated the white Latinos by even more than they did white North Americans, besting them in 19 of the 26 comparisons. Blacks played 62 percent more games, hit 192 more home runs, drove in 125 percent more runs, and stole 30 percent more bases.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/25/possibly-retracting-my-article-on-hbd-and-sports/
Doing a reanalysis will be fun. I’ll do it when I get the time.
Of foreign-born players, Dominicans made up about 37 percent. Dominicans make up about 33 percent of ‘Hispanic’ players (about 250 ‘Hispanics’ in the league, 83 Dominican-born players; this doesn’t take into account American-born Dominicans however). If feel up to it I may do something to tease out racial classification even more in baseball.
the lubianka is the tallest building in moscow.
why? it’s only 7 stories tall.
because you can see siberia from its basement.
hahahaha!
Some “liberal-bourgeois-bohemian” I know bought a big loft in the 20th with a wonderful view. They told me there is nothing worth living in an muslim-african neighborhood except lving in a muslim-african building. But instead of changing their mind, they sold their house and live now in the 9th and never speak about it any more. I bet they are telling diversity is enriching people’s life and that they despise islamophobia now. I have had never the chance to get this experience, so I can’t tell directly how it is myself.
But in professional environment, I found it was easier to work with muslim than with Asian (they are boring, hard to understand, passiv agressive and some can have cold anger episode).
And I prefer european (North, West and South, East European are very difficul) than american because those are falsely over-enthousiastic for anything (Great, let’s to that, it’s fun, wonderful, amazing). I don’t find fake smiles, fake energy, fake emotions and the void beneath it … cool.
Bruno — Maghreb types have been attacking the Chinese in Paris, assaulting and stealing their things. French media say resentment and jealousy of Chinese wealth are behind these attacks. The media are also saying they work hard and keep quiet, and don’t get welfare like the Muslims. Also, Chinese as always, as I have been saying all along, are isolationists and from a HBD viewpoint, they cannot engage in civic discourse with other groups of people. They have no business to live in Western lands. What value do these people bring to Europeans? Practically none whatsoever. Some Muslims say Chinese never care about equality rights or Isamophobia, but when something happens to them, they start to complain about inequality or racism.
Some Muslims say Chinese never care about equality rights or Isamophobia, but when something happens to them, they start to complain about inequality or racism.
The reverse is also true. All these behaviors are typical of low empathy race. Only empathetic Whites care about the well being of other people.
The Chinese score much lower than your typical Muslim on empathetic measures.
European guilt might invite Muslims to Europe. However, the Chinese have no reason to live in Europe.
The Chinese have a very scant commentary tradition. Do you know what I’m talking about?
All Caucasoid types from South Asians to Europeans have had an intellectual tradition of critique of their traditions from literature, philosophy and religion. Even Jews, they comment and criticize their own and have been doing for many centuries. The Muslims did have very a strong intellectual tradition of criticizing the Islamic religion. This is culture and this produces progress.
China on the other hand, was mostly a stagnant entity, very bureaucratic, and not very dynamic. It’s subjects can be classified as beta, passive, and not engaging.
I don’t know what kind of “empathetic measures” you are referring to, but the low empathy of the Chinese might not be the only answer to the problem.
East Asians generally have low self estime. Caucasoids are more narcissistic, which might explain their inclination to question all type of authority.
As you point out in the other thread, Asians are also less curious, may be that’s one more part of the answer.
Well let me just say that those statistics are wrong as black man. For example, while blacks committ crimes against whites 11 times more often than vice versa according to the FBI my argument is that if this happened….
WHY WOULDNT THE MEDIA TALK ABOUT IT?
Its not like the media isnt controlled by straight white men who would love to be racist!
Haha, you guys are so stupid. The media would 100% tell us all the dealio and is 100% not lying when its telling me to have sex with a black man daily.
I’m not gay though. But at least its a wholesome family message the white media is promoting!!!
france is a tolerant country full of pokemons.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR2008042802560.html
France should look for guidance from the Spanish model, and not from the Anglo Proles:
http://english.religion.info/2013/02/23/europe-spain-and-portugal-show-success-in-muslim-integration/
My trips to French Speaking Canada, French speaking Canadians were fond of Spaniards more than a tenfold over Angloproles. Spanish supremacy is just latent.
Furthermore, alt-right Nazis from Anglo and Krautlands, and the swathes of Nordicists never got a real taste of universal consolidation of anything. Fascism has it roots from North Africa, in turn made its way into Spain ushering the Reconquista, the Hapsburgs and the Empire.
That’s not a secret.Only some credulous Americans from rich neighborhoods think muslims are not a problem, since the sole muslims they know are the more civilised ones who had enough brain to immigrate to the US. In Europe, we get the lazy, double digit IQ ones, more representative of the population of their home countries, since it’s way easier for them to install here.
Spanish supremacy is just latent.
hahahaha
Perhaps, my issue is that I know a lot of Shiite Muslims, and the not the Sunni types. I also know a few Turks, and they are secular. Also few North Africans, but they are business owners, and not the low down welfare types.
But let me ask you, what benefit do I get from befriending East Asians, instead of Muslims? One group has a subset that seems hellbent in confronting Western Civilization face to face, and the other group in its entirety does nothing, but ride along like a bottom feeder. You do understand Western Civilization has run its course. Material well being is an artificial scarcity, when in fact it’s post scarcity.
It’s a good question!
I am not against a (very) selective kind of immigration.
” Perhaps, my issue is that I know a lot of Shiite Muslims, and the not the Sunni types. ”
I have gotten to know both over the years.
I know many Sunni muslims who are mostly Arabs and Turks with some south asians (pakistanis/bangladeshis) a few Afghans and some north africans.
I met the arabs, turks and south asians at College and i also met the arabs at every place i have worked at .
If i had to give a number of how many i know i would say about 30 .
My roommate for 4 years at Berkeley was a tall white arab from Yemen. he majored in electrical engineering.
He was the one who told me about the race mixing with Ethiopians . He showed me pictures of his family and they were all white. He then explained why many dont look like him. His family were highlanders so they were isolated from the rest of the country.
Ive also known quite a few Saudi guys from previous jobs .
I have also gotten to know 6 shiites at college . 3 were Iraqis , 1 was afghan , 1 was Iranian and 1 was a Somali-Indian hybrid called a Barawaani .
” But let me ask you, what benefit do I get from befriending East Asians, instead of Muslims? One group has a subset that seems hellbent in confronting Western Civilization face to face, and the other group in its entirety does nothing, but ride along like a bottom feeder. ”
I tried to befriend some asians at Berkeley but i found them to be depressingly boring.
The only asians that are not like that are the disgusting gamma male conservative Asians. I find those types to be even worse than Indian gamma males.
Whenever they would preach at me about how great the republican party was i would always think ” dude, you’re not even a real american…..”
you are right about the muslims being much more interesting.
i found the more radical muslims to be the most interesting and fun.
I didnt enjoy the company of the ” moderate muslims” as they seemed to be uncle toms.
I once met a “muslim” guy (south asian) who told me that he was a moderate muslim because he was planning to celebrate Christmas !
He was a class A uncle tom who would constantly put down his own people thinking that saying that stuff would make me respect him.
Strangely i have a great deal of respect for the radical muslims that i met at college and other places.
” One group has a subset that seems hellbent in confronting Western Civilization face to face”
I laughed out loud at this as i 100% know what you’re talking about
They are a very interesting people if they feel comfortable around you.
I vividly remember a discussion in my dorm room between my roommate (Arab) and his friend (Libyan) about the legality of targeting civilians, as a deterrent, if the occupier targets your civilians like say if the U.S fires a missile at a hospital and kills 100 iraqi civilians are you allowed to target 100 US civilians.
It was a 2 hour legal discussion based on islamic jurisprudence. My roommate (Arab) was arguing against it while the other guy(Libyan) was arguing for it.
It was an intense debate with both sides making very strong cases.
My roommate had a massive Arabic collection of classical books on islamic jurisprudence, legal theory, Arabic rhetoric, grammar and poetry as well as history and theology.
During that time i was impressed by the sheer depth of islamic scholarship.
so yes you’re right. The muslims are much more interesting than the yellow men.
but i have to say that the ones i know all have IQs greater than 130 based on their majors, grades and current incomes.
I dont know a single muslim who makes less than $150k
So they’re obviously not representative of their countries.
But i have a feeling that those guys made up a greater share of their populations in the past.
Perhaps people like that had less children which resulted in the collapse of the middle east.
If i was a geneticist i would go to that part of the world and take representative DNA samples from graves that were carbon dated to the middle ages and then take representative samples from the current populations and then compare them.
There has to have been a genetic change. A crash like that is just too extreme to be caused by anything other than a huge disparity in fertility rates.
I still chat with a Saudi guy who used to work with me at Citadel. About 2 years into my time there he moved to a company based in Saudi Arabia . one summer i was chatting with him on the phone and the topic of kids came up and i advised him to take advantage of the laws in his country by having 4 wives and then having 40 kids ( 10 each) as increasing the frequency of his genes would help his people.
I was shocked when he told me that he only wanted to have 1 child as that way he could give that child more attention and raise him/her properly.
I told him that he would be hurting his people if he did that as he is a very smart, affluent, tall, white arab with a great facial structure and no visible traces of black/south asian admixture. He was a member of the genetic elite.
I think i creeped him out a little judging by the tone of his voice. it was an awkward silence after that.
He then went on to tell me that his parents only had two children and that his maternal grandparents only had 2 children and that his paternal grandparents only had 1
Thats the kind of suicidal fertility pattern that i’m talking about
.
1,000 words. not one of them true.
JS – In Paris, some Chine hesitated to complain because they were robbed by muslim money not declared to the french IRS (they are kings of cash). But one asian succeeded to have a muslim condemned for a racist attack. The stupid maghreb guys said to the judges repeatedly they were targeting chinese people because they have tons of cash and they don’t defend themselves very much. So the racism (I would say opportunistic) attack was proven by the criminals themselves during the court session !
Also, the Chinese are isolationists. They are not engaging and show very little empathy. Just ask the Iranian gov’t. China is their ally, supposedly, since Chinese are their businessmen for Iranian oil, but show very little bravery helping Iran from American aggression. Many Americans fear China as the new world order. That’s not possible, because the Chinese do not have the courage to lead the world.
I was reading up on the Muslims and how they have knowledge about the Chinese scheme of not paying taxes. So the Muslims rob them. Furthermore, the Muslims say they are not exploiting the welfare from France. They are happy to get it and not ashamed to take it. The Chinese on the other hand are law breakers, they don’t pay taxes from their profits and they also work beyond the prescribed hours under French law. So these Muslims are not dumb…
Chinese on the other hand are law breakers, they don’t pay taxes from their profits and they also work beyond the prescribed hours under French law.
Once again, muslims also do. I have seen it with my own eyes.
To PP,
On the Topic of race and Taxonomy, what do these passages mean to you?
“Such readers should feel free to regard the minimalist concept of race, that is, as a concept that, though in many respects similar to the ordinary concept, is nonetheless distinct from it. What I would insist on is that minimalist races (groups satisfying the minimalist concept of race) are *races* (that is races so properly called)—either because the minimalist concept of race just is the ordinary concept of race or because it captures enough of the ordinary concept of race for minimalist races to be counted as races. My view is that if it can be shown that minimalist races exist, races exist. And if it can be shown that *minimalist race* is real, race is real.” (Hardimon, 2017: 29)”
“A race is a group of human beings
(C1) that, as a group, is distinguished from other groups of human beings by *patterns of visible physical features*,
(C2) whose members are linked by a *common ancestry* peculiar to members of the group, and
(C3) that originates from a *distinctive geographic location*
C(1)-C(3) fix the conditions of minimalist racehood. The minimalist concept of race is, first of all, a group-level notion. The predicate *race* is in the first instance a predicate of groups rather than individuals. The minimalist race concept is the concept of a kind of group. The concept does not require or allow a “constituent definition” in philosopher of science Elliot Sober’s sense of the term: what is it for a group to be a race is not defined in terms of what it is for an individual to be a member of race. What it is to be an individual member of a minimalist race is defined in terms of what it is for a group to be a race.
Now, one can have a basic grasp of the minimalist concept of race without recognizing that it is a group-level concept. A competent user might mistake it for an individual-level concept. It’s status as a group-level concept is something that becomes clear on the basis of reflection. The fact that it is a group-level concept puts it in line with population thinking, which understands specieshood to be a characteristic of populations, which is to say groups.
In representing races as groups of human beings, the minimalist concept of race represents race as a division of the human species. This is another feature of the concept that might not be immediately obvious. A competent user (for example, Voltaire) might fail to realize that a group he or she regards as a race belongs to the human race. But the concept of race is the concept of subspecies, insofar as the concept SUBSPECIES is understood generically as the concept of a subdivision of species. (Hardimon 2017: 31)”
“A quick survey if the three basic conditions of the mingling concept of race makes it clear that the concept is not racialist. It does not
(i) represent racial characteristics as necessarily possess by all and only members of a race,
(ii) mention normatively important characteristics,
(iii) position a significant correlation between visible physical features and normatively important characteristics,
(iv) posit the existence of a racial essence, or
(v) rank human populations on an evolutionary scale”
The above is just for background, here’s the actual commentary on data.
“>The results of Lewontin’s 1972 study and Rosenberg and colleagues’ 2002 study strongly suggest that it is extremely unlikely that there are many important genetic differences between races apart from the genetic differences that underlie the obvious physical differences.
>However, Lewontin’s argument that there are no racialist races because the component of within-race genetic variation is larger than the component of between-race genetic variation is untouched by Edwards’s objections. That conclusion rears solely on Lewontin’s statistical analysis of human variation (the validity of which Edwards grants) and does not presuppose the absence of correlational structure in the genetic data. In short, Lewontin’s data do not preclude the possibility that racial classification might have taxonomic significance but they do preclude the possibility that racialist races exist. Lesions 1972 analysis also showed that genes are not highly differentiated by race and that the variation in genes that underlie obvious physical differences is not typical of the variation of the genome in general. These considerations buttress the case against the existence of the racialist races.
> The fallacy that Edwards imputes to Lewontin consists in inferring that racial classification has no taxonomic significance from the finding that the between-race component of human genetic diversity is small. That inference is fallacious because the fact that the between-race component of human genetic diversity is small does not entail that racial classification has no taxonomic significance. Lewontin’s *locus-by-locus* analysis (which does not consider the possibility of a correlation between individual loci) does not preclude that individual loci might be *correlated* in such a way that people *could be grouped* into traditional racial categories. The underlying thought here is that racial classification *would* have “taxonomic significance” were it possible to group people into traditional racial categories by making use of correlations between individual loci.”
On the Topic of race and Taxonomy, what do these passages mean to you?
You’ll have to be more specific.
Sorry, meant to add additional text below, basically I was doing research on the acceptance of race and it’s taxonomic value, this being the first to distinguish it from from racialist ideas and simply describes a “minimalist” perception outright.
Those are very strong arguments. It’s worth noting that Rosenberg et al 2002 confirmed Lewontin’s 1972 analysis on the between group variation. The minimalist concept of race is a very strong argument. Hardimon refuted the racialist concept of race using Lewontin and Rosenbergs studies.
The populationist concept is also the strong as well. The important point to drive home is this: every concept that Hardimon describes sans the racialist concept does not use the existence of a racial essence or groups the races on an evolutionary scale. It is still possible to be a race realist without accepting the racialist concept.
Melo, what are your thoughts on the above arguments?