Scientists commonly assert that evolution is not progressive and that organisms occupying lower branches on the evolutionary tree are not anymore primitive or ancestral than organism’s occupying higher branches, because all extant life are, as journalist Peter Knudtson stated, “equivalent cases of time-tested evolutionary success”.
For example, Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote “evolution forms a conspicuously branching bush, not a unilinear progressive sequence…earth worms and crabs are not our ancestors; they are not even ‘lower’ or less complicated than humans in any meaningful sense.”
This web page even displays a helpful diagram of an evolutionary tree to debunk the idea of evolutionary progress:
It’s technically true that no extant species is precisely ancestral to humans. It’s also true that smart, complex and impressive life forms could theoretically have split off at any point on the evolutionary tree, and that “progress” is a somewhat subjective term. But if all extant life forms were truly equally evolved, and if lower branching life forms were in no sense ancestral to higher branching life forms, there should be zero correlation between position on the tree, and “progressive” traits like brain size and encephalization quotient (ratio of brain size to expected brain size for body size).
In order to test this hypothesis, I decided to compare degree of branching on the evolutionary tree (which I defined as number of splits on the tree before a given taxa splits off) and brain size/enchephalization, in 1) three major kingdoms of life, 2) four major animal groups, 3) five major higher primate groups, 4) four species of the genus homo, and 5) nine populations of modern humans.
For each of these samples, the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was computed. Such correlations can range from -1.0 (an increase in X perfectly predicts a decrease in Y, and vice versa) to +1.0 (an increase in X perfectly predicts an increase in Y, and vice versa). If evolution is progressive, we’d expect most of the correlations to fall between 0 and +1.0. If evolution is regressive, we’d expect most of the correlations to fall between 0 and -1.0. If evolution were neither progressive nor regressive, we’d expect a mix of positive and negative correlations, averaging out to roughly zero.
What I actually found was that all the correlations were positive, ranging from +0.5 to about +1.0.
Correlation between number of splits and encephalization among kingdoms: +0.5
The following tree shows that plants, animals and fungi are all descended from a common ancestor. That lineage split into plants (on the left) and non-plants (on the right) and then the non-plant branch splits again into animals and fungi. So plants are descended from one split, but animals and fungi are descended from two.
Notice how animals, which are descended from two splits have a brain (averaging an encephalization quotient of about 0.5), but plants which are descended from only one split, do not. This implies a positive correlation between number of splits and intelligence, but since brainless fungi are also descended from two splits, the correlation is only moderate: +0.5.
Correlation between number of splits and encephalization among four major animal groups: +0.9
Now among animals, in the below tree, worms are descended from one split, fish are descended from two, and birds and mammals are descended from three.
Because mammals have an average encephalization quotient (EQ) of 1.0, birds average EQs of 0.75, fish have EQs of 0.05, and worms have unknown EQs, but probably about 0.01, the correlation between EQ and number of splits among major animal groups in the above tree is an astonishing +0.9!
Correlation between brain size and number of splits among five major higher primates
Just from looking at the below two images, it should be obvious that there’s a positive correlation between primate brain size and number of splits on the hominoidea evolutionary tree.
As shown below, the correlation between a primate group’s brain size and its branching on the evolutionary tree is +0.67.
Correlation between brain size and number of splits among four species in the genus homo
Wikipedia states that Homo habilis (descended from one split in the below tree) had a brain size of 610 cm3 , Homo erectus (descended from two splits) had a brain size of 1093 cm3 and that modern humans and Neanderthals (both descended from three splits) have brain sizes of 1497 cm3 and 1427 cm3 respectively.
This results in an astonishing +0.995 correlation between brain size and number of splits:
Correlation between brain size and number of splits among nine modern human populations: +0.71
Lastly, I decided to explore the correlation between brain size and number of splits among nine modern human populations using brain size data from Richard Lynn, which he adapted from Smith and Beals (1990).
Plotting the average brain size of each “race” as a function of number of splits before it branched off of Cavalli-Sforza’s tree gives a potent +0.71 correlation, suggesting that ancient splitting-off dates explain 50% of the variation in racial brain size.
Interpreting the results
The above correlation between brain size/encephalization and number of splits on the evolutionary tree, are all positive, and in some cases, extremely strong, suggesting 1) evolution is progressive, 2) some extant organisms are more evolved than others, 3) organisms that branch off the evolutionary tree prematurely, and don’t do anymore branching, tend to resemble the common ancestor of said tree.
Although the preliminary evidence I document here is strong, more research is needed because the choice of trees I decided to analyze was not random and one can imagine how a different set of trees might not produce such high correlations. While I tried to find trees that compared taxa of relatively equal rank (i.e. comparing species with species within the same genus, or comparing race with race within the same species) many of the groupings are arbitrary, and the decision to lump or split various groups can result in fewer or more splits in the evolutionary trees and thus it’s crucial that these decisions are made based on objective criteria.
Nonetheless the fact that trees made by other people, who made them without considering the brains of the taxa, still correlated so consistently with brain size/encephalization, is compelling.
Explaining the trend
But if evolution is progressive, the question is why? Stephen Jay Gould claimed that any trend towards complexity is merely an artifact of the fact that life started extremely simple, and had nowhere to go but up, so random variation in all directions will be progressive merely because there’s a floor on how simple life can get. And yet there’s no floor on how small a brain can get, but I have yet to find a single phylogenetic tree where encephalization is negatively correlated with number of splits, and while such trees undoubtedly exist, they are conspicuously rare. Thus an additional explanation for evolutionary progress is that because intelligence allows organisms to adapt behaviorally instead of genetically, it’s more efficient than evolving new traits every time the environment changes, and thus it tends to be highly favoured by natural selection.
An ancient tradition
Although the notion of evolutionary progress is today often dismissed as pseudoscience, it has a rich intellectual history that predates even the theory of evolution itself by over two millennia.
As J.P. Rushton noted, Aristotle suggested a scala naturae in which animals > plants > inanimate objects. One of the most important ideas in Western thought, Aristotle viewed higher ranked organisms as more perfect, God-like and rational. The great Greek philosopher stated:
Now some simply like plants accomplish their reproduction according to the seasons; others take trouble as well to complete the nourishing of their young, but once accomplished they separate from them and have no further association; but those that have the understanding and possess some memory continue the association, and have a more social relationship with their offspring.
Over 2000 years later this would be roughly known as the r/K scale where K selected organisms have lower reproduction rates, but higher survival rates, investing in more parenting than reproducing, while r selected organisms do the opposite.
Although r/K theory (and its applications to humans) has been severely criticised, it remains undeniable that regardless of its selective agents, there is an evolutionary trade-off between high quantity and high quality offspring and different organisms fall at different points on this continuum.
Modern theories of evolutionary progress
E.O. Wilson, the co-father of the r/K scale believed evolution was progressive dividing life’s history into four major stages:
(1) the emergence of life itself in the form of primitive prokaryotes with no nucleus
(2) the emergence of eukaryotes with nucleus and mitochondria
(3) the evolution of large multicellular organisms that have complex organs like eyes and brains
(4) the emergence of the human mind
Princeton biology professor John Bonner noted that there’s been an evolution from primitive bacteria billions of years ago to complex life forms today, and the newer animals have bigger brains than older animals and that it’s perfectly natural to say that older life forms are lower than newer life forms, because their fossils are literally found in lower strata. Even plants can be ranked he argued; angiosperm > slime molds.
Paleontologist Dale Russel noted that the mean encephalization of mammals had tripled in the last 65 million years and that the mean encephalization of dinosaurs steadily increased for over 140 million years. Extrapolating from the latter trend, Russel argued that had dinosaurs not gone extinct 65 million years ago, they would have eventually evolved into big-brained bipeds.
While the specific humanoid form Russell imagined was highly speculative, the increase in encephalization seems quite plausible.
Inspired by such thinkers, in 1989 J.P. Rushton argued that archaic forms of the three main races (Negroids, Caucasoids, and Mongoloids) differed in antiquity, with newer races being more K selected than older races, though Rushton’s model has excited enormous criticism.
Pumpkin Person 
My comment above was full of errors.
This is the proofread comment.
Please don’t approve the comment above because of its errors.
My brother told me today (that I did not know) that he hears voices that tell him to do things. And thinks everyone around him in public places like Wal-mart are observing him so as to get him if he does something bad. He smokes marijuana every day.
When I talked to my doctor he told me my shots were for my emotional problem. Emotional problems are the cause of my low processing speed.
Gene causes the neurons to grow in shapes and mediate signal transfers. They regulate stimulus reactions. Intelligence would be from the emotional control which is determined by shapes of neurons to transfer signal to each other. Poor regulation would lead to low intelligence in different areas of the brain because information transfer is not coordinated to a high degree. The distribution of good wire shapes is off.
Genes shape the coordination of the different brain regions affected by the gene causing neuron shapes and metabolic energy use. As brains get larger they would organize by genes to be high or low intelligence. Emotional regulation and intelligence come from the distribution of neuron shapes in the brain.
Those with self-control and high intelligence would have brains organized by the genes they possess. A good distribution of neuron shapes and metabolic efficiency everywhere in the brain, not just some areas.
High energy people have less emotional problems and can do more. Motivation is highly dependent on having a good dopamine system. Serotonin problems can negate this by negative emotion stopping you from doing activities.
Gene distribution in the brain is highly important for effective coordinated of brain function. I am hardly able to function because of my emotional problem.
I am schizoaffective and philosopher said he is wrong half the time so definitely he is wrong about me. My brother is a paranoid schizophrenic. And I do not have problems understanding social things like an autist does. I am not deadpan in expression. I feel scared talking to people because of social anxiety. Most people have personality defects and I do not like engaging with people that are stuck in a point of view that is rigid and egotistic. The baggage people hold makes them biases in discussing certain topics that make they view you as the one who has problems when it is them that has problems.
I am very acute at knowing who is and is not a nonjudgmental individual. I have made tremendous progress getting my brother to deal with his anger issues. Rember that my verbal IQ is 132 so I can understand the psychology behind the people I talk to. I can tell when what I am doing is not working and use different language to lead the discussion where I want it to go. I keep a distance between me and egoism people who show me who they are by my observing them. Because they have some emotional control but not extreme emotional control. People hold onto things that they really should be letting go of.
Parts of my brain are highly efficient. Others are not. I am dysregulated because of it. I find it hard to be motivated because I get waves of emotions that tell me I won’t succeed. It is learned helplessness. And I cannot seem to get past it. It is a blockage that wears me down. Because I felt such bad emotions when I failed at something, or simply got stuck at being unable to think up any ideas. I feel all cramped inside. I was told I need to learn relaxation techniques. Because I am dysregulated it must not affect my language and spatial skills. But in working memory and processing speed I am unable to make plans and follow steps. I can not handle human amounts of information. That means I cannot create complex things in my mind. And that is why I get depressed I am not creative more often.
People that can handle huge amounts of information can make complex computer programs. More people in computing have excellent vision skills. I have poor vision skills. It could be because I do not look at things more often and it could be I have poor genes in the visual areas of my brain. I am just not capable of handling huge amounts of information. I have a hard time looking at things because it’s uncomfortable to look. I get bad emotions when I try to look at objects in the real world.
I hope that one day my emotional dysregulation will get better someday.
Pumpkin, you once told a commenter that there is a reason for the problems in my errors in my comments.
Pumpkin, what it the problem I have that makes me produce so many errors in my comments?
Plotting the average brain size of each “race” as a function of number of splits before it branched off of Cavalli-Sforza’s tree gives a potent +0.71 correlation, suggesting that ancient splitting-off dates explain 50% of the variation in racial brain size.
it only suggests that you need to take a course in statistics. you obviously are incapable of teaching yourself.
What was wrong with what I wrote? Squaring the correlation to explain percent of the variance is done all the time:
r may also be considered as being:
r2 = explained variation / total variation
where variation is calculated as the Sum of the Squares, SS
In other words, it is the proportion of variation that can be explained. A high explained proportion is good, and a value of one is perfect correlation. For example an r of 0.8 explains 64% of the variance.
When calculated from a population, Pearson’s coefficient is denoted with the Greek letter ‘rho’ (ρ). When calculated from a sample, it is denoted with ‘r’.
The Coefficient of Determination is calculated as r2.
Maybe you think I’m confusing individual level variation with group level variation, but I specified “racial” brain size.
because it only works for a bivariate normal distribution.
all multivariate normal distributions have normal marginal distributions, but there are an infinity of non-normal multivariate distributions with normal marginal distributions.
how is number of splits a normal variable peepee?
plus the tree structure is arbitrary. for example, the single branch for black africa could have lots of branches. then by your theory some tribe in africa is just advanced as koreans.
how is number of splits a normal variable peepee?
That’s a fair criticism.
plus the tree structure is arbitrary. for example, the single branch for black africa could have lots of branches. then by your theory some tribe in africa is just advanced as koreans.
I acknowledged that in the article:
While I tried to find trees that compared taxa of relatively equal rank (i.e. comparing species with species within the same genus, or comparing race with race within the same species) many of the groupings are arbitrary, and the decision to lump or split various groups can result in fewer or more splits in the evolutionary trees and thus it’s crucial that these decisions are made based on objective criteria.
Nonetheless the fact that trees made by other people, who made them without considering the brains of the taxa, still correlated so consistently with brain size/encephalization, is compelling.
Making a non-arbitrary tree would require non-arbitrary taxonomy. Any ideas one how you could non-arbitrarily sub-divide a population (i.e. humans) into a specific number of sub-populations? There is computer software called STRUCTURE which is used to divide the human gene pool into clusters, but you have to tell it how many clusters you want, so if you say five, I think it divides humans into Africans, East Asians, Native Americans, Oceanians, Caucasoids . What is needed is one that not only divides but also determines the number. Jensen used principal component analysis to conclude that there were six races from an original list of 26 populations.
as you say above this is one of the confusing things about h^2. despite the “^2” and that it means “fraction of variance eliminated”, it’s a correlation (not squared) between MZTs raised “apart”. while at the same time (h^2)^2 is the fraction of variance explained in twin 2’s score by the score of twin 1.
And the reason the genotype-phenotype correlation (among people in random environments) is the square root of the identical twin-apart correlation is that your identical twin is not your genotype. He’s just another phenotype that shares your genotype, and since you’re not your phenotype either, the twin-apart correlation is this imperfect correlation squared.
An identical phenomenon occurs with test-retest reliability. The correlation between scores on a test taken twice is the square of the correlation between the test taken once and the true score.
those are just words peepee. the exact relationship requires certain assumptions.
it only holds when one assumes the models: P = aG + bE and T = true score + random error.
that is, one must assume E doesn’t vary with G and that error doesn’t vary with true score and that the relationship is additive.
that is, one must assume E doesn’t vary with G
Which is the point of correlating phenotype in identical twins raised apart, where they presumably grow up in random environments, not environments correlated with genotype (excluding prenatal).
Of course the genotype still shapes its environment but everyone accepts that as a given
So not sure what assumption you’re specifically referring to
I think my emotional problems increased error on the test I took.
I did almost faint on the last fifth of the wais 4
My mental phenotype is kind of mest up from stress.
why else would I be seeing a mental doctor?
My mom seems to have a deficit in social ability.
It’s like she is retarded or something.
She was the fifth child and her mom was 41 when she had her.
I think the age of her mom at birth affected her.
She was not smart enough to know my dad was a horrible guy to marry.
my comment concerning vanuatu was hearsay. here’s the CDC’s map.
as can be seen the jigaboos just can’t defeat the mosquito. there’s no hope for them.
sad!
note that kyrgyzstan has half the gdp per capita ppp of nigeria yet it has no malaria.
try again afro the hack.
but good for peepee she gets that, for example, although it is technically incorrect to say, “dogs evolved from wolves”, it could be that the wolf today is much more like the common ancestor of wolves and dogs or even identical to the common ancestor at genetic level. the ceolacanth is an example of a species which hasn’t changed for 400 million years. in mumbo jumbo this means it has reached the top of a steep peak in its fitness landscape and this landscape itself has also been unchanged for 400 million years. that is, any deviation from the ceolacanth’s normal variation results in a steep drop in fitness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth
That’s actually a misconception.
And here about living fossil in general.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil
According to genetic analysis of current species, the divergence of coelacanths, lungfish and tetrapods is thought to have occurred about 390 million years ago. Coelacanths were thought to have undergone extinction 66 million years ago during the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event; but since several Cenozoic taxa have been recovered.[41] The first recorded coelacanth fossil, found in Australia, was of a jaw that dated back 360 million years.
there are two extant species of ceolacanth known. so say “order” rather than species. but it’s obvious ceolacanths are more similar in shape to one another than the members of the much more recent order primates. why aren’t ceolacanths a genus? or a genus and and a family and an order?
To Ian, I was referring to the one on the variety of shapes to Ceolacanth.
If they are they’re in their own order, the automatically have their own families and genus.
afro was half right. usually he’s 0% right.
In contrast to the Fed, the ECB normally does not buy bonds outright.[61] The normal procedure used by the ECB for manipulating the money supply has been via the so-called refinancing facilities. In these facilities, bonds are not purchased but used in reverse transactions: repurchase agreements, or collateralised loans. These two transactions are similar, i.e. bonds are used as collaterals for loans, the difference being of legal nature. In the repos the ownership of the collateral changes to the ECB until the loan is repaid.
This changed with the recent sovereign-debt crisis.
the ECB has added more than 1t in base money.
now afro must explain how repos increase the money supply.
The banks in effect borrow cash and must pay it back; the short durations allow interest rates to be adjusted continually. When the repo notes come due the participating banks bid again. An increase in the quantity of notes offered at auction allows an increase in liquidity in the economy. A decrease has the contrary effect. The contracts are carried on the asset side of the European Central Bank’s balance sheet and the resulting deposits in member banks are carried as a liability. In layman terms, the liability of the central bank is money, and an increase in deposits in member banks, carried as a liability by the central bank, means that more money has been put into the economy.
but the ecb needs to offer repos + interest (if any) every time in order to keep the supply of mb the same.
this has the same effect as a n korean counterfeitor making a time deposit at a euro-area bank. mb has increased by the amount the n korean has counterfeited. but if the repo isn’t “rolled over”, then the north korean takes his principal and interest in cash and burns it in front of the teller yelling, “white capitalist swine!” MB is destroyed.
now as the money supply increases due to all these n koreans making deposits how do the banks keep up their capital requirements? they lend the new MB and now they have the loan as an asset and the repo as a liability. their balance sheet has grown. their equity has not.
In addition to capital subscriptions, the NCBs of the member states participating in the euro area provided the ECB with foreign reserve assets equivalent to around €40 billion. The contributions of each NCB is in proportion to its share in the ECB’s subscribed capital, while in return each NCB is credited by the ECB with a claim in euro equivalent to its contribution. 15% of the contributions was made in gold, and the remaining 85% in US dollars and Japanese yen.
must bank’s maintain reserves with the ECB or the appropriate NCB? the ECB has a negative deposit rate. doesn’t this deposit refer to the MB (excluding) vault cash that banks hold with the ECB?
in the US MB = physical currency in circulation + vault cash + reserves held at the federal reserve bank
there has been talk given the negative depot rate as to whether banks would hoard cash.
i want to know how much euro MB has increased since the crisis. can’t find the info. you tell me afro.
i only took one course is financial accounting. made the high score on the final but because homework only made a B+. so i excuse my possible ignorance.
looking at BNP paribas’s balance sheet at year end 2016 and accompanying notes, it appears that “Cash and amounts due from central banks” does not include deposits with other commercial banks. i expected this was the case, but JPM’s balance sheet shows it has 1% of its assets in this category, whereas BNP has 7.8%.
furthermore BNP’s “On demand deposits with credit institutions” is much smaller than its “Cash and amounts due from central banks” whereas the opposite is the case for JPM. or that’s the way it looks to me.
reminded of Campbell’s theory as reported by Land here: https://oldnicksite.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/the-dark-enlightenment-part-4final/
basically new species find a world full and with very little niches open, so they need more intelligence to simply get by.
Before the Cambrian explosion occured, there was much more diversity in body plans. After that, only a few organisms survived. They then diversified to fill the niches of Earth.
There is a problem however. I have a citation (I will provide it later) that species that evolved good enough defense mechanisms don’t need intelligence. This canard that a species needs to be intelligent makes no sense. Even then, we need to change our definition of intelligence due to what bacteria can do, which signifies that they can communicate with each other and react to their environment.
This “progress” to evolution canard makes no sense. Evolution through natural selection is local change, not “Progress”. (though a distinction needs to be made between biological progress and cultural progress which I will write about for this blog soon.)
well, species that had time to develop good enough defense mechanisms probably came earlier and didn’t have to cope with a crowed world.
but yeah, I don’t think intelligence necessarily depends on cephalization.
Not really. EQ decreases as defense mechanisms get more elaborate.
Click to access 10.1098%40rspb.2016.1857.pdf
This is because the brain is metabolically expensive tissue as are these elaborate defense mechanisms, so clearly these organisms don’t need to be intelligent to survive.
“but yeah, I don’t think intelligence necessarily depends on cephalization.”
Me neither.
Birds are dinosaurs, they are biped yet not big brained.
mammals evolved from reptiles.
does that make mammals reptiles?
Google says
Mammals evolved from a group of reptiles called the synapsids. These reptiles arose during the Pennsylvanian Period (310 to 275 million years ago). A branch of the synapsids called the therapsids appeared by the middle of the Permian Period (275 to 225 million years ago).
In the brain when pathways fold back into themselves then that is how thinking occurs. It is like I said with some people being able to handle huge amounts of information. If the pathways loop into themselves then signals can for recursively generate new information. The Manga Naruto has over 76 volumes. The author had to create an entire universe history with dozens of characters and also to draw them. Such creativity is internal feedback. The more signals that can be directed the smarter you are. Mental manipulation happens because of directing signals into a work space keeping track of multiple items. It is like juggling. Many objects are tracked at the same time. So this means loops keep everything in mind. Refreshing the memory to store the information. Getting the information to be directed to the right areas of the brain so as different areas work together, the information is transformed simply by sending the signals received from perception into association areas to know what will happen if items are manipulated in certain ways. Much like Ram in computer stores data, rearranges it, then produces a result. The brain does this by pathways. And learning is simply changing the direction of those pathways. The pathways determine creativity (internal folding feedback) and how much information can be manipulated, almost like a powerful computer. The complexity of the wires directing the signals determines intelligence. Your intelligence is determined by how information flows in your brain and your ability to learn by changings the direction of how it flows.
I guess this is right thread for me to let you know that I m not gonna leave to Ibiza on Monday
FFFFFFFFF.
PP, can you show the work in your first example to show how you got your correlation of 0.5?
I just used a stats program
Well what variables did you used from your graph?
For each of the three kingdoms, the variables used were number of splits on the tree before they branched off, and encephalization quotient.
For plants, EQ = 0, splits = 1
For animals, EQ = 0.5, splits = 2
For fungi, EQ = 0, splits = 2
http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v12/n10/fig_tab/nmeth.3587_F3.html
Regarding the basic effect of sample sizes on *r.
Also, another problem is with your sample size organization for your organisms groups.
For Starters, The animal groups you use for example uses a very small group of the major classes of animals, when even the Phyla are more numerous.
http://www.earthlife.net/inverts/an-phyla.html
And you splits with vertebrates are misleading are misleading as not only does it exclude reptiles, amphibians, etc, the tree is misleading because true birds arrived much later than true mammals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal#First_mammals
and this Phylogram hardly investigates the complex splits regarding the two’s evolution.
Where did you get the average of 0.5 for all animals?
That was very approximate. By definition all living mammals have an average EQ of 1.0, but some living non-mammal animals have EQs of roughly zero. Thus a rough estimate for the average EQ of all living animals is about 0.5.
What program did you use
Some stats program we have on the computers at my work which allowed correlations using only three data points. It’s the weekend so I don’t have access to the name, but common sense should tell you there’d be a positive correlation because the AVERAGE EQ of the two 2-split groups (animals = 0.5, fungi = 0; average 0.25) was higher than the one split group (plants = 0). Also the slope of the regression line was positive. You could also try calculating the correlation by hand since there only three data points.
Regarding the basic effect of sample sizes on *r.
Well obviously bigger samples are more meaningful than smaller samples because in small samples you can easily luck into a positive correlation. But since I found at least moderate positive correlations in five different samples it’s probably not luck.
Also, another problem is with your sample size organization for your organisms groups.
Yes, I acknowledged the arbitrary nature of some of the groups in the article, but I’m not the one who organized them, so there’s no reason to think any subjectivity created a bias in favor of the correlations I documented.
For Starters, The animal groups you use for example uses a very small group of the major classes of animals, when even the Phyla are more numerous.
Well I could only use trees that had groupings with available brain size/encephalization data since showing that correlation was the point of my article
And you splits with vertebrates are misleading are misleading as not only does it exclude reptiles, amphibians, etc, the tree is misleading because true birds arrived much later than true mammals.
The tree excluded reptiles because they’re not a monophyletic group and thus can’t be represented as a branch on a phylogenetic tree. And the tree was not meant to show which phenotype arrived earlier or later, but rather how much splitting its ancestors did before diverging from the tree. Both are proxies for how evolved a taxa is but in this particular correlation analysis I used the latter metric.
“That was very approximate. By definition all living mammals have an EQ of 1.0, but some living non-mammal animals have EQs of roughly zero. Thus a rough estimate for the average EQ of all living animals is about 0.5.”
Do you have a source to justify this with in regards to the list of EQs. because I’m fairly sure that would at best cover vertebrates?
” we have on the computers at my work which allowed correlations using only three data points. It’s the weekend so I don’t have access to the name, but common sense should tell you there’d be a positive correlation because the AVERAGE EQ of the two 2-split groups (animals = 0.5, fungi = 0; average 0.25) was a lot higher than the one split group (plants = 0). Also the slope of the regression line was positive. You could also try calculating the correlation by hand since there only three data points.”
Well obviously bigger samples are more meaningful than smaller samples”
And with that acknowledged, you see the general problem at least with some of you comparison by sample size alone.
“Yes, I acknowledged the arbitrary nature of some of the groups in the article, but I’m not the one who organized them, so there’s no reason to think any subjectivity created a bias in favor of the correlations I documented.”
No, I’m not talking about a bias on YOUR end, I’m talking about the general bias of not having a comprehensive sample given the point of you experiment regardless.
“Well I could use trees that had groupings with available brain size/encephalization data since showing that correlation was the point of my article.”
Yet excluding them regardless in comparisons that quote require near whole data of animals or measures accounting for that confounds your conclusions.
“The tree excluded reptiles because they’re not a monophyletic group and thus can’t be represented on a phylogenetic tree. .”
Still could’ve included Diaspids, anapsids, and Amphibians as shown here.
“And the tree was not meant to show which phenotype arrived earlier or later, but rather how much splitting its ancestors did before diverging from the tree. Both are proxies for how evolved a taxa is but in this particular correlation analysis I used the latter.”
I believe that’s already been addressed here.
(Even with commentary by Bonner)
Do you have a source to justify this with in regards to the list of EQs. because I’m fairly sure that would at best cover vertebrates?
It doesn’t matter if the true average EQ of animals is as low as 0.001 or as high as 1000. As long as it’s greater than zero, the correlation with splits will remain 0.5 given that the other 2 kingdoms have EQs of zero
And with that acknowledged, you see the general problem at least with some of you comparison by sample size alone.
The problem with small sample correlations is i could have got positive correlations by being lucky, but would i get lucky five times in a row? Possible, but unlikely.
Yet excluding them regardless in comparisons that quote require near whole data of animals or measures accounting for that confounds your conclusions.
No tree is ever going to be perfect. Classifications are always changing. New life forms (extinct & extant) are always being discovered
Still could’ve included Diaspids, anapsids, and Amphibians as shown here.
Don’t have brain size or encephalization data for those groupings. Nonetheless the correlation looks like it might be positive yet again. Small brained taxa like bony fish & amphibians branched off first. Big brained certartiodactyla are descended from roughly a dozen splits.
I believe that’s already been addressed here.
That source just repeats the same old conventional wisdom I’ve heard all my life: evolution’s not progressive, all life is equally evolved, etc.
My article actually finds an original way to TEST the conventional wisdom with actual data, and at five different levels of taxonomic specificity
That’s how science is supposed to work. You make a hypothesis and then you test it.
*would, not “quote”
“It doesn’t matter if the true average EQ of animals is as low as 0.001 or as high as 1000. As long as it’s greater than zero, the correlation with splits will remain 0.5 given that the other 2 kingdoms have EQs of zero.”
“The problem with small sample correlations is i could have got positive correlations by being lucky, but would i get lucky five times in a row? Possible, but unlikely.”
Uum…yes, it is likely given the unreliability of small sample sizes in calculating *r on top of your limited range of taxa to produce it.
“No tree is ever going to be perfect. Classifications are always changing. New life forms (extinct & extant) are always being discovered”
Trees not being perfect doesn’t automaticall defends the validity of your result being criticized.
“Don’t have brain size or encephalization data for those groupings. Nonetheless the correlation looks like it might be positive yet again. Small brained taxa like bony fish & amphibians branched off first. Big brained certartiodactyla are descended from roughly a dozen splits.”
Yet there is a difference between positive and “strongly positive” in terms of variance being explained and the possible mechanism behind the nature of that correlation, which has been explained multiple times to you by RR.
“That source just repeats the same old conventional wisdom I’ve heard all my life: evolution’s not progressive, all life is equally evolved, etc.
My article actually finds an original way to TEST the conventional wisdom with actual data, and at five different levels of taxonomic specificity
That’s how science is supposed to work. You make a hypothesis and then you test it.”
And the next step is review, criticizing, replicating, etc. Those criticism being-
1. Confounds in calculation not being adequetely accounted for or interpreted,
2. Lack of Knowledge of taxonomy and ability to interpret Phylogeny,
3. Ignoring modern research of the contra without further elaboration as to it’s supposed basic flaws.
The Irony of #3 is that Scala Naturae WAS conventional Wisdom until the idea of braches rather than scales and the rejection of “higher” and “lower” has been re-evaluated by Darwin himself.
And don’t act like I didn’t cite a person who supported your views but revised them using data.
That’s how science works.
Uum…yes, it is likely given the unreliability of small sample sizes in calculating *r on top of your limited range of taxa to produce it.
You realize that unreliability is just as likely to produce spurious negative correlations as spurious positive ones, right? But if you want to believe all the positive correlations are just coincidences then that’s your business.
Trees not being perfect doesn’t automaticall defends the validity of your result being criticized.
Actually the imperfections in the data should have the effect of attenuating correlations by decreasing the signal to noise ratio, so if anything, this suggests the real correlations are even higher than what I reported.
Yet there is a difference between positive and “strongly positive” in terms of variance being explained and the possible mechanism behind the nature of that correlation, which has been explained multiple times to you by RR.
RR hasn’t explained anything to me. RR stated: “In most evolutionary trees, branch length doesn’t indicate anything about amount of evolutionary change.” RR is wrong. In most phylogenetic trees, taxa descended from shorter branches have generally undergone MORE evolutionary change because they are descended from more ancestral splits, and splits are a proxy for evolutionary development. RR was duped by the conventional wisdom that states that since all extant life has been evolving for the same amount of time, all have experienced the same rate of evolution. This is a non sequitur.
1. Confounds in calculation not being adequetely accounted for or interpreted,
Different trees have different confounds, so when you find the same correlation across a wide number of trees, the confounds tend to cancel out.
2. Lack of Knowledge of taxonomy and ability to interpret Phylogeny,
Vague unspecified criticism. And I interpret phylogeny correctly. RR claimed I didn’t because he misunderstood my argument. He incorrectly though I was arguing taxa on the right of the tree was more advanced, but the spatial orientation is irrelevant to my theory. I’m arguing that taxa descended from more splits are more advanced (on average).
3. Ignoring modern research of the contra without further elaboration as to it’s supposed basic flaws.
More vague unspecified criticism.
*evaluated by darwin
“You realize that unreliability is just as likely to produce spurious negative correlations as spurious positive ones, right? But if you want to believe all the positive correlations are just coincidences then that’s your business.”
Except by unreliable, I meant their actual magnitude, not direction as explained later.
“Actually the imperfections is data should have the effect of attenuating correlations by decreasing the signal to noise ratio, so if anything, this suggests the real correlations are even higher than what I reported.”
No, the imperfections, as I stated, makes the sample less representative and causes much more variance within a correlation, not less than predicted.
On Sample Size in the statistical power of an effect (effect size being the statistic equivalent to signal to noise) .
“Statistical power is the probability that your study will find a statistically significant difference between interventions when an actual difference does exist. If statistical power is high, the likelihood of deciding there is an effect, when one does exist, is high. Power is 1-β, where β is the probability of wrongly concluding there is no effect when one actually exists. This type of error is termed Type II error. Like statistical significance, statistical power depends upon effect size and sample size. If the effect size of the intervention is large, it is possible to detect such an effect in smaller sample numbers, *whereas a smaller effect size would require larger sample sizes*. Huge sample sizes may detect differences that are quite small and possibly trivia*.
Methods to increase the power of your study include using more potent interventions that have bigger effects, increasing the size of the sample/subjects, reducing measurement error (use highly valid outcome measures), and raising the α level but only if making a Type I error is highly unlikely.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3444174/
“RR hasn’t explained anything to me. RR stated: “In most evolutionary trees, branch length doesn’t indicate anything about amount of evolutionary change.” RR is wrong. In most phylogenetic trees, taxa descended from shorter branches have generally undergone MORE evolutionary change because they are descended from more ancestral splits, and splits are a proxy for evolutionary development. RR was duped by the conventional wisdom that states that since all extant life has been evolving for the same amount of time, all have experienced the same rate of evolution. This is a non sequitur.”
RR’s continued quote,
-“All though, when branch length is used to depict evolutionary change, branch length is then used. But this doesn’t mean that the organism at the end of that branch is ‘more evolved’ or has ‘progressed’ more than another; it just shows that more selective pressures had species adapt genotypically, which led to phenotypic changes over time to better survive in that environment. That’s it.”
In which he describes how the amount of evolutionary changes tells you how a organism adapted to it environment, and it’s relevance is confined to whatever it’s niche is. This elaborated on in his other comment showing how a single direction through time in terms of trends is unfounded.
-” ‘Because of the frequency of environmental change, the multiplicity of factors underlying fitness, the possibility of frequency-dependent and epistatic interactions among features, and the consequent possibility of nontransitive fitness relations between phenotypes, selection acting within populations frequently, though not inevitably, fails to produce unidirectional trends. The extent to which unidirectional trends dominate, or fail to dominate, the fossil record is therefore not a measure of the adequacy of neo-Darwinian mechanisms as causes of large-scale patterns in evolution.’
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-70831-2_6
Simple enough to grasp. Directly refutes your notion too.
Saying that an organism is more advanced is not quantifiable. Each one is adapted to its environment. You’re the one playing word games to show your crackpot hypothesis, continually quoting pages 292 to 294 of Race, Evolution, and Behavior. But that doesn’t make it true. It’s not true.”
“Different trees have different confounds, so when you find the same correlation across a wide number of trees, the confounds tend to cancel out.”
Again, see my point on magnitude versus direction.
“Vague unspecified criticism. And I interpret phylogeny correctly. RR claimed I didn’t because he misunderstood my argument. He incorrectly though I was arguing taxa on the right of the tree was more advanced, but the spatial orientation is irrelevant to my theory. I’m arguing that taxa descended from more splits are more advanced (on average).”
3. Ignoring modern research of the contra without further elaboration as to it’s supposed basic flaws.
“More vague unspecified criticism.”
Bonner 2013 for instance.
“Dr. John Bonner, professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University and author of ‘The Evolution of Complexity’ (Princeton University Press), said the newest findings were perfectly in line with the idea that he has continued to press that increases in complexity need not be explained as the result of any drive or force in any particular direction.
‘Bacteria still exist today,’ he said. “There hasn’t been a trend just toward more complex things, there’s been that trend but others have gotten simpler and less complex and smaller. But if things keep getting both more and less complex, the upper limit is going to keep rising.’ ”
According to Dr. McShea, the perception of drives toward complexity may be more a reflection of scientists’ desires to see some sort of progress in evolution rather than a reflection of any biological reality. As Dr. Maynard Smith, explained: “If there’s going to be any change, there will have to be increases in complexity. Moreover, there will also be some decreases. It’s inevitable. There’s a poem by a chap that goes: ‘Nowhere to go but out, Nowhere to come but back.’”
“Different trees have different confounds, so when you find the same correlation across a wide number of trees, the confounds tend to cancel out.”
Twice, Twice so far this was ignored.
And it seems you also ignored my point on how Scala Naturae was once conventional wisdom prior to Darwins own notes of reorganizing the relationship between organisms as noted so far TWICE by RR.
Except by unreliable, I meant their actual magnitude, not direction
Except the point of my article is the consistent direction of the correlations (i.e. positive) not the specific magnitude.
No, the imperfections, as I stated, makes the sample less representative and causes much more variance within a correlation, not less than predicted.
No, unless the imperfections in the data are systematically biased, they are simply random measurement error and the effect of attenuation is to LOWER correlations, which means the true correlations are even higher than what I found if you correct for attenuation.
Like statistical significance, statistical power depends upon effect size and sample size. If the effect size of the intervention is large, it is possible to detect such an effect in smaller sample numbers,
The effect size I reported in my correlations were sometimes large enough to overcome the small sample sizes. In some cases the correlations exceeded +0.9 which means the correlation was statistically significant despite the small n. Again, your entire argument boils down to dismissing the consistent pattern of positive correlations I found as one big coincidence, and “you got lucky” is the retort every loser, whether in science or playing pool.
In which he describes how the amount of evolutionary changes tells you how a organism adapted to it environment, and it’s relevance is confined to whatever it’s niche is.
You’re confusing two different concepts. An organism can experience very little evolutionary change precisely because it’s adapted to its environment.
This elaborated on in his other comment showing how a single direction through time in terms of trends is unfounded.
Except I showed evidence of a single direction change (i.e. more brain size/encephalization) at five different levels of taxonomic specificity and your only rebuttal has been a lame “you got lucky” and Dale Russell also showed evidence of a single directional change in encephalization over 700 million years of earth’s history in both vertebrates and invertebrates alike.
Saying that an organism is more advanced is not quantifiable.
False. Scientists routinely distinguish between advanced and primitive all the time:
What intrigued them about the last skull, called Skull 5, were very primitive characteristics of prehuman ancestors,
The Flores skull shows a mix of primitive and advanced features: a low cranium, and prominent brow ridges, combined with a small & relatively flat face. Interestingly, although this hominin was bipedal, the pelvis is more similar to that of australopithecines than more modern hominins
Again, see my point on magnitude versus direction.
Simply showing the correlations are consistently in a positive direction (regardless of the precise magnititude) debunks RR’s claim that the length of lines on most evolutionary trees indicates nothing about how much evolutionary change occurred. Because at least with respect to brain size and encephalization, taxa descended from shorter branches (and thus more splits) have done more evolving than taxa descended from longer branches (and thus fewer splits), on average.
3. Ignoring modern research of the contra without further elaboration as to it’s supposed basic flaws.
More vague accusations
‘Bacteria still exist today,’ he said. “There hasn’t been a trend just toward more complex things, there’s been that trend but others have gotten simpler and less complex and smaller. But if things keep getting both more and less complex, the upper limit is going to keep rising.’ ”
And if the upper limit keeps rising, while the lower limit remains static, then the mean is going to keep rising, which means that EVOLUTION IS PROGRESSIVE. All you’re quibbling about is the cause of said progress, but the important point is that among extant life forms, those that branched off the evolutionary tree early, and didn’t do anymore branching, show more ancestral (and less progressive) traits on average.
Twice, Twice so far this was ignored.
You need to be more clear and less vague.
And it seems you also ignored my point on how Scala Naturae was once conventional wisdom
I’m talking about conventional wisdom over the last several decades, not Darwin’s time.
Anyways, I’m sure you have lots of great rebuttals but that’s going to have be the last word because I have other stuff to do. Thanks for the interesting discussion.
”Scientists commonly assert that evolution is not progressive and that organisms occupying lower branches on the evolutionary tree are not anymore primitive or ancestral than organism’s occupying higher branches, because all extant life are equivalent cases of time-tested evolutionary success.”
All this discussion, despite appearing to have a scientific basis, was provoked especially for political / ideological reasons. And remembering that it is not always that it will be bad when a scientific debate is directed towards a political / ideological / moral perspective. In this case it is because instead of trying to understand the question, it is sought to confuse it and with ulterior motivations. When the moral principle overlaps the factual principle, rather than completing it, without sacrificing it, there we have a problem.
I think I’ve solved that. In general, adaptive capacity, and from a COLLECTIVE perspective, all living things tend to be very efficient so it seems wrong to say that the human being is superior than a bacteria to keep demographically, to perpetuate the species itself . However, in INDIVIDUAL terms, while each adaptive process of a bacteria requires a very high number of individual mortality, in the case of the human being, individual mortality has been reduced dramatically, and precisely because of its greater intelligence, which is nothing else Than to anticipate the dangers and challenges of the environment and prepare for it before, although that capacity is invariably used and accurate.
To understand this subject must think on multiple perspectives, while many tend to think in a binary way, to be or not to be.
Bacteria, collectively speaking, seem to fit the environments better. Therefore in this sense they are superior to us: Correct
Humans, individually speaking, seem to tend to have low individual mortality if compared to other living things. And this is because of our greater intelligence. Therefore in this sense we are superior to most of them, including bacteria: Correct.
The relativism of evolution helps to encourage arguments for leftists that “there are no salient differences between human races to the point that we can say, this is, on average, superior to the other.”
Although I think it is important to try to rebut a theory to see how much it can hold, by the ” scientific ” value of the discussion.
I have already said [and many others for sure] that the psycho-cognitive superiority of the human being in relation to all other living beings is undeniable, just as the exceptional talents of other living beings, for example, the ants in relation to a series of facets, are undeniable. The physical strength and organization capacity of ants tends to be exceptional. However, that does not mean then, just the ant or any other ” older ” living being, which will be exceptional. Evident that the human being is also superior in something. The almost total domination of the human being on this planet, to the point of becoming a global pest with a real capacity for mass destruction, is only obvious evidence of the superiority of our species in some respects and of the most important such as intelligence.
Moreover, it is a fact that the food chain puts us in the position of; Dependent on other living beings to live, but at the same time Dominant over them, just like the relationship between a owner and a slave, usually the late tend to be more demographically prevalent.
It can be verified that the human being is not TOTALLY superior to the bacteria, but in intellectual terms, this is factually undeniable.
To summarize all this: what was to be a healthy, interesting and enriching discussion became, as always, an entrenched debate in which neither side wants to expand its knowledge or factual understanding on this subject, but to protect its position .
what facebook et al should say is…
fuck you you fucking KRAUTS! you fucking HUNS!
We will continue to do everything we can to ensure safety for the people on our platform,” the company said, noting that it is hiring 3,000 additional staff on top of 4,500 already working to review posts.
this is 1984.
Among other things, it would fine social networking sites up to 50 million euros ($56 million) if they persistently fail to remove illegal content within a week, including defamatory “fake news.”
dear God!
my prediction.
europe will be ruined for the third time in a century by the KRAUTS and their running dogs the FROGS.
facebook has 7,500 people who do nothing but censor?
jesus fucking christ!
you use facebook ? lol
How old are you Steinberg? 12 ?
I have never used Facebook in my life
but that doesn’t mean that i dont do other silly things to pass time
Recently i’ve been getting some sadistic pleasure from chatting to jewish women on dating sites and making them think that there’s a chance that we could be together
one of them recently told me that she had an affair with a married man from work.
She was his boss and he felt pressured into having sex with her. she got off on that power dynamic. what a sick jew !
last night there was this israeli woman who moved to London and i asked her about Israel and she was telling me how wonderful it was. i was like ” oh really? tell me more” lol
My A-Z knowledge of the joos means that i know which buttons to push. Last night i told that israeli woman that the only thing i knew about Israel was that the capital was Tel-aviv
this is how she responded :
LOOOOOL !
she went silent for 30 minutes so i uploaded 2 pics of me on the beach without my shirt on and said i’ll post some more pics later
She responded in less than 10 seconds LOL !
LOL !
Only the mentally disabled HBD cultists believe that jews are the master race
Jewish women know who the master race is
She was willing to forgive my anti-Israel comment after she saw the toned body of a nordic specimen
whats even funnier than that is that i managed to get another jew to say that she didn’t support ” the jew agenda ” – her words ! lol
She was so hot for me that i managed to say that jews control US/UK foreign policy and she was still talking to me
i’ll post screenshots of that one later
There are some chats that are just so dirty that i cant even post them
Jewish women are extremely dirty whores but only for nordic men
my entire life is a complete refutation of the HBD cult mentality
This is too much lmao.
i never said i used facebook retard.
and in fact i have never used facebook or any social networking site.
i have zero online presence, except in blog comments. ZERO. except for the address and telephone lookups and the SoA passing candidates lists.
you’re dumb jimmy.
100% guarantee posts in favor of the annexation of kashmir by pakistan will be the most censored, because indians will be the censors.
IT’S THE STUPIDITY STUPID.
EVEN THE ELITE ARE FUCKING RETARDS.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/freedom-of-speech-country-comparison/
in this respect the US and americans are morally superior to all other countries and their citizens. chomsky agrees.
as rush limbaugh once said, “you don’t have the right not to be offended.”
it’s despicable when people apologize for something they’ve said by saying, “i’m sorry if my words offended or hurt anyone.”
the correct thing to say is, “i only wish i had offended more people. i only wish i had hurt more people’s feelings.”
the EU can only work with fiscal union. fiscal union can only work with political union. but even if the krauts and frogs want this it can’t work. wanting it isn’t enough. the EU will break up. afro will be repatriated.
yes. sarkozy is 100% pure evil.
“But if all extant life forms were truly equally evolved, and if lower branching life forms were in no sense ancestral to higher branching life forms, there should be zero correlation between position on the tree, and “progressive” traits like brain size and encephalization quotient ”
Those two thoughts do not follow together. Intelligence is the ability to adapt, so of course it’s going to increase. How does this mean Evolution is Progressive? Can you just admit that increased EQ is simply a statistical inevitability and stop trying to be a semantical glittering generalist?
Those two thoughts do not follow together. Intelligence is the ability to adapt, so of course it’s going to increase. How does this mean Evolution is Progressive?
How does it NOT mean that? Maybe we’re defining progress differently, but at least you’re conceding that intelligence increases because of its general adaptive value which is a major statement. As others have noted, Stephen Jay Gould argues the opposite: that any long-term trend towards complexity is not because complexity is generally more adaptive, but rather because there’s a limit on how simple life can get, so random evolutionary changes can only accumulate in the direction of complexity:
Although it is difficult to measure complexity, it seems uncontroversial that mammals are more complex than bacteria. Gould (1997) agrees, but claims that this apparent largest-scale trend is a statistical artifact. Bacteria represent a minimum level of complexity for life on Earth today. Gould (1997) argues that there is no selective pressure for higher levels of complexity, but there is selective pressure against complexity below the level of bacteria. This minimum required level of complexity, combined with random mutation, implies that the average level of complexity of life must increase over time. Gould (1997) uses the analogy of a random walk that begins near a wall. Although the walk is random, the walker cannot pass through the wall, so we should expect the walker to move increasingly further from the wall as time passes. This does not imply that the walker is driven away from the wall. The wall is analogous to the complexity level of bacteria. We should expect evolution to wander increasingly further from this level of complexity, but it does not imply that evolution is driven towards increasing complexity.
In response to Gould’s (1997) critique, Turney (2000) presents a computational model in which there is a largest-scale trend towards increasing evolutionary versatility. This trend requires continual change. Although this model shows that largest-scale trends are compatible with evolutionary theory, the model has not yet been empirically confirmed
“that any long-term trend towards complexity is not because complexity is generally more adaptive, but rather because there’s a limit on how simple life can get”
That’s the Issue, Increased intelligence is increased complexity but Intelligence isn’t “more adaptive” it’s a just versatile form of many possible adaptations. Bacteria adapt through rapid genetic change, the lack of which is essentially what intelligence is proposed to compensate for. He’s right it isn’t a better adaptation, but I didn’t think that’s what you or me were arguing.
Bacteria adapt through rapid genetic change, the lack of which is essentially what intelligence is proposed to compensate for. He’s right it isn’t a better adaptation, but I didn’t think that’s what you or me were arguing.
If bacteria can only adapt through genetic change then no particular bacteria species of bacteria is very adaptable. They can only adapt by rapidly evolving into a new species of bacteria which itself is an admission that the first species failed.
To PP,
genetic change =/= speciation.
Are you saying a grey fur mouse and black fur mouse of the same litter having different fitness to their environment with succeeding grey mouses mean they they were different species?
Also, regarding your latest article on HBD’r uncritically accepting the .24 meta analysis, what about the understand of T, Race, and Crime RR demonstrated?
genetic change =/= speciation.
It does if the genetic change exceeds a certain threshold.
Also, regarding your latest article on HBD’r uncritically accepting the .24 meta analysis, what about the understand of T, Race, and Crime RR demonstrated?
LOL, you sound like RR’s publicist. I agree with RR that T is not the primary cause of racial differences in incarceration rates. The Black > white gap is too small given the low correlation between T and aggression.
“If bacteria can only adapt through genetic change”
“They can only adapt by rapidly evolving into a new species of bacteria ”
That is what i was referring to they are essentially the same thing. don’t get confused, Intelligence is an agent of adaptation, not evolution, genetic mutation is both. Homo sapiens can adapt without evolving that is the benefit of increase Cognition to begin with.
“which itself is an admission that the first species failed.”
Evolution doesn’t work like that, Species is just a classification used to make the information more simplistic and methodological, in reality the mutational transition between organisms is not always a concrete or objectively observable one. So because some(actually all but us)Hominins are extinct it means we’re not very adaptable or that our intelligence isn’t a very adaptable trait? I mean wouldn’t you think that some species of bacteria also have higher mutation rates and levels of plasticity than do others? Perhaps RNA editing of Cephalopods is a more appropriate example, because it is essentially an agent of evolution that can select for intelligence more quickly than traditional genetic change.
That is what i was referring to they are essentially the same thing. don’t get confused, Intelligence is an agent of adaptation, not evolution, genetic mutation is both. Homo sapiens can adapt without evolving that is the benefit of increase Cognition to begin with.
Exactly. My point is that it’s a sign of evolutionary progress when you can adapt without having to evolve into a new species. In other words, humans made the quantum leaps from evolving into a new species, to a new species that evolves (metaphorically speaking)
Evolution doesn’t work like that, Species is just a classification used to make the information more simplistic and methodological, in reality the mutational transition between organisms is not always a concrete or objectively observable one.
But speciation is a unit by which we measure evolutionary change, flawed as it may be.
So because some(actually all but us)Hominins are extinct it means we’re not very adaptable or that our intelligence isn’t a very adaptable trait?
No because the only reason those other hominins went extinct was because of competition from other hominins, not because they failed to adapt to the intrinsic demands of new environments (except perhaps for Neanderthals who may have froze to death).
“It does if the genetic change exceeds a certain threshold.”
Yeah, but do you have proof that’s the case with Bacteria.
“LOL, you sound like RR’s publicist. I agree with RR that T is not the primary cause of racial differences in incarceration rates. The Black > white gap is too small given the low correlation between T and aggression.”
In what thread? The latest you and I discussed the correlation of T, self domestication, and “alpha males” suggested otherwise.
Yeah, but do you have proof that’s the case with Bacteria.
Never implied I have proof.
In what thread? The latest you and I discussed the correlation of T, self domestication, and “alpha males” suggested otherwise.
I still think T is ONE of the causes of aggression and that it’s ONE of the causes of racial differences in incarceration, I just don’t think it’s the PRIMARY cause.
“In other words, humans made the quantum leaps from evolving into a new species, to a new species that evolves ”
I see what you’re saying but the medium(tool use) for which we express this ability is not always permanent nor even a long lasting solution. You can make artificial gills or you can evolve gills, Cephalapods can do the latter rather quickly..in theory.
“But speciation is a unit by which we measure evolutionary change, flawed as it may be.”
I know, I’m just saying it may be inappropriate considering the context of the debate. I am concerned you are using the arbitrary classification systems we create as an excuse to be semantic.
“No because the only reason those other hominins went extinct was because of competition from other hominins, not because they failed to adapt to the intrinsic demands of new environments”
They are one in the same, a failure to adapt to the demands of a new environment can be exasperated and even catalyzed by competition from other, possibly similar species. Again, Bacteria may be a bad example but it is still a useful one, Don’t you think that there is competition between species of bacteria? And it’s kind of obvious that it is evident intelligence can be a useless and inefficient adaptation if it is not at a specific threshold, the fact that we are the last species of hominins is a sign that our genus has always been on the brink of extinction. Octopus can edit their dna on a whim and have been a successful lineage for possibly 140 million years.
https://www.tonmo.com/pages/fossil-octopuses/
I already addressed the neanderthal nonsense in your newest post.
I know, I’m just saying it may be inappropriate considering the context of the debate. I am concerned you are using the arbitrary classification systems we create as an excuse to be semantic.
But the reason we relate intelligence to the ability to adapt is because some see humans as the most adaptable species and see intelligence as the most adaptable trait. In order to test that claim, you can’t cite species that only become adaptable by evolving into new species or evolving new traits, because their adaptability is not a trait or an ability of their species, but rather it’s their ability to become a new species and evolve new traits. Now, you may ask “what difference does it make, they’re still adapting”, and that’s true, but it fails to acknowledge what makes humans so unique as a species, and what makes intelligence so unique as a trait. Now you might argue that the species classification is arbitrary, but it’s a unit we use to categorize life until someone comes up with a less arbitrary one.
They are one in the same, a failure to adapt to the demands of a new environment can be exasperated and even catalyzed by competition from other, possibly similar species.
Yes, but the extinction of archaic homo at the hands of modern humans only proves they were RELATIVELY unadaptable, not unadaptable in an absolute sense, because no matter how adaptable you are, you’re always going to struggle to adapt to competition from your own kind which is why competition is such a potent selection force (as you argue). Would it make sense to say NBA teams are no better at basketball than your local high school basketball players because both lose an equal number of games? Of course not! The NBA teams are far superior, but because their competition is other NBA teams, they lose just as much as some random high school team.
Melo, re: species competition. I’ve been reading a bit into the Gould/Dawkins debate. Going to buy a philosophy book on the matter (looks so good!).
So Dawkins believes the genes are the unit of selection. Gould, on the other hand, doesn’t discredit heredity, etc, but says that organisms are what actually compete with each other, not the genes, so it’s really a species-selection. I need to do more reading into this but that does make sense.
Wikipedia actually has a solid synopsis of the book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawkins_vs._Gould
Well isn’t an Organism just a phenotypic reaction from functional genes?
Don’t genes only survive and persist through organisms?
“Exactly. My point is that it’s a sign of evolutionary progress when you can adapt without having to evolve into a new species. In other words, humans made the quantum leaps from evolving into a new species, to a new species that evolves (metaphorically speaking).”
Humans only lived a fraction of the time any other Hominid existed. We certainly had changes within ourselves even if were to mark ourselves as 300 k old.
Even the we didn’t simply use our mines exclusively to re-adapt with adaption genetic change.
If We didn’t, that contradicts your point on Cold winters explain to racial differences.
“No because the only reason those other hominins went extinct was because of competition from other hominins, not because they failed to adapt to the intrinsic demands of new environments (except perhaps for Neanderthals who may have froze to death).”
Those Bacteria died in competition with other Bacteria to adapt. Same in every other case of natural selection when competing for the same Niche. Otherwise it would just be genetic drift.
Also, your article doesn’t suggest they “froze to death”, they said our technology gave us the edge against them so competition isn’t ruled out.
“Never implied I have proof.”
You made the assertion that their adaption methods would make them a “new species”, so that would require evidence in order to justify it.
You made the assertion that their adaption methods would make them a “new species”, so that would require evidence in order to justify it.
It’s common knowledge that bacteria evolve rapidly.
*even then we didn’t adapt merely with our minds alone without genetic change to our bodies.
For instance Northern Eurasian populations are general stockier, say aside for certain European Subgroups that descend from farmers and Nomads, technically originating from lower latitudes/ warmer periods.
Yes, and fast mutation rate doesn’t necessarily mean “speciation”, nor does it mean that a particularly species is non adaptive.
Their mutation rate is simply the nature of their reproduction.
Yes, and fast mutation rate doesn’t necessarily mean “speciation”,
Actually, the bacteria speciation rate is so incredibly rapid, that entire concept of species is controversial for bacteria. So rapid is their evolution that’s it’s the equivalent of evolving from a chimp to a modern human, literally overnight.
“Actually, the bacteria speciation rate is so incredibly rapid, that entire concept of species is controversial for bacteria. So rapid is their evolution that’s it’s the equivalent of evolving from a chimp to a modern human, literally overnight.”
The link discuss “picking up genes”, as in horizontal gene transfer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_taxonomy#Species_concept
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
Not reproduction.
And your point is?
My point being that species is blurry for a reason different from merely having a fast mutation rate, as the horizontal transfer of genes limits genetic diversity.
*distance
Pumpkin,
“but it fails to acknowledge what makes humans so unique as a species, and what makes intelligence so unique as a trait.”
But I’m not looking for the uniqueness of a trait, im looking for it’s effectiveness. While I think Intelligence is effective, that doesn’t mean something else wouldn’t be equivalent in that aspect.
RR,
“Don’t genes only survive and persist through organisms?”
But aren’t Organisms literally just their genes?
Melo,
To use a Dawkins analogy, can the passengers (the genes) persist without the vehicle (the organism)?
What I’m asking is why the dichotomy? You are an expression of your genes. They are not passengers, they’re parts.
Dawkins made the dichotomy. Have you read The Selfish Gene? He makes a distinction between the ‘vehicles’ and ‘passengers’ to drive the point home that the ‘vehicle’ is only for the ‘passengers’. Gould says that the ‘vehicle’ cannot be undermined in favor of the ‘passengers’ since the ‘vehicles’ directly compete with each other.
The dichotomy is due to the debate between Gould and Dawkins.
I have the emotional intelligence to tell that Hillary is fake and deceptive yet I am still called Aspergers. (sad emoticon)
It doesn’t take much social intelligence to tell Hillary’s fake. It’s pretty obvious which is why she lost
Many college liberals around IQ 115 were duped.
So IQ may not always help your social intelligence.
If both work together (social and IQ) that is a powerful ability to have.
You have 22 more points than me pumpkin, you have a higher perspective.
You can handle way more information and review it faster.
The gap somewhat limits communication.
I have emotional problems, not Aspergers.
And my IQ is lower than most people here.
When I see the faces of aspie people I think, that just ain’t me.
Just because I am a nerd does not make me aspie.
I am highly empathetic and that means I understand people.
I do not like it that people her refer to me as and aspie when I have seen enough aspies to know I am different from them.
My empathy is not just an emotional reaction, I truly see why a person feels they way they do and can relate to their situation.
People here think I cannot relate to others situations so they call me aspie.
I do not like how I am treated that way.
People here have generalized aspie to be far more that what the medical community deems as the condition.
The core definition is that aspies relate poorly to others.
They have a hard time seeing others perspectives.
People here should not call me an aspie because those two things are not my problem.
I am just a nerd, not an aspie.
And I have emotional problems and problems with perception.
It is not any problems with seeing the perspectives of others.
Cat, the terrifying philosopher finds you autistic for 2 reasons:
1) he hates nerds with passion. I look up to nerds so i can’t relate to philosopher’s attitude
2) he feels jews control everything so when you claim the CIA or high IQ liberals have their own agenda & motives, philosopher feels you lack the social IQ to realize all those people are just useful idiots controlled by Jews
but she is authentically fake.
that is, it’s not that she has one politics and claims to have another. there’s nothing behind the mask in that sense.
she has no convictions. she only has the ambition to be president. if she could win as a republican she’s run as a republican and spout the republican jive.
Philosopher believes in agency yet all High IQ Liberals and CIA officials have none.
How bizarre.
IQ is relative. Liberal elites & CIA elites have high IQs compared to average americans but low IQs compared to Jewish elites, so philosopher probably thinks they’ve been brainwashed & those that haven’t been still serve jews as a way of advancing their career.
Philosopher would probably argue that liberalism itself is an example of brainwashing. He thinks jews took over the universities and media where high IQ people are socialized and brainwashed them to be liberals. If the WASP elite still ran media/academia those same high IQ whites would have been socialized to be more conservative is how philosopher probably sees it
”Philosopher would probably argue that liberalism itself is an example of brainwashing. He thinks jews took over the universities and media where high IQ people are socialized and brainwashed them to be liberals. If the WASP elite still ran media/academia those same high IQ whites would have been socialized to be more conservative is how philosopher probably sees it”
And what do you think*
He’s not completely wrong, indeed he’s predominantly right, what i don’t get is that ”brainwashing” stuff. Little magic thinking here. I believe ”high iq” people namely in des-humanities departments already have that trends, i myself have that moral/psychological trends but i’m odd, so i’m not a generalizable example anyway.
STEM seems more conservative-leaning than humanities. In the end, ”philosophy”, social sciences, geopolitics and history are in humanities, where politics and culture has been done.
”IQ is relative. Liberal elites & CIA elites have high IQs compared to average americans but low IQs compared to Jewish elites, so philosopher probably thinks they’ve been brainwashed & those that haven’t been still serve jews as a way of advancing their career.”
Any evidence* Specially because ashkenazis tend’s to have a assymmetrical profile.
I think many of jewish illiberal elites are in the true conservatives in the skin of liberal. Jews need true-believers or at least true-Practitioners among themselves because the best lie is that one you believe.
”Cat, the terrifying philosopher finds you autistic for 2 reasons:
1) he hates nerds with passion. I look up to nerds so i can’t relate to philosopher’s attitude
2) he feels jews control everything so when you claim the CIA or high IQ liberals have their own agenda & motives, philosopher feels you lack the social IQ to realize all those people are just useful idiots controlled by Jews”
Appear to be a strawman.
Jews or any other group don’t need to control EVERYTHING, because as ”our” societies are hierarchized, so they need to control only and fundamentally the most important key-political positions.
I also no have the best feelings about nerds even many people may say i’m one.
A mature man who are extremely obsessed with Star Wars or video games AND NOT about very important things, in my view, is not virtuous.
Indeed, nerds tend to be super-enthusiastics about technological advancement, IluminattiCat here is one of them.
At priori, in the perfect or ideal world, we no have many reasons to become worry about technological advancement or whatever, A.I. But the problem is that we don’t live in this ideal world, and so-called elites are strongly responsible for that, so what’s up*
The same extremely hypocritical/cynical elite’s that push every dangerous agendas against real people is the same who are betting high on technology.
And our white knights on the nerdoland, on very avg, are absolutely happier about that promissed glorious future… no way.
”High IQ ‘liberals’ ”, aka totalitarian-globalists are already a product of jewish intellectual machinations.
Jews don’t invented feminists, but they organized and turned them into white [regular] man’s enemies.
Jews don’t invented egalitarian feelings or people who are more prone to be like that, but they organized them in new ideologies and use them to advance their causes.
”You have 22 more points than me pumpkin, you have a higher perspective.”
Don’t say shit Cat. You’re truly literalizing at the maximum levels IQ scores differences. It’s a dumb thing to do.
”You can handle way more information and review it faster.”
What’s matter for the reasoning is to arrive to the right answer. A great capacity sometimes or often don’t equates to the better capacity.
”The gap somewhat limits communication.”
Maybe by others reasons…
”I have emotional problems, not Aspergers.
And my IQ is lower than most people here.”
I doubt you SCORES higher than me in IQ tests, in general ways.
”When I see the faces of aspie people I think, that just ain’t me.”
But you was diagnosed*
”Just because I am a nerd does not make me aspie.”
Yes, there is a spectrum TO the autistic spectrum.
”I am highly empathetic and that means I understand people.”
But many aspergers also can be highly empathetic, we are talking about AVG’s, and to be frank seems many of this studies about autistic and neurotypical behavioral differences seems poorly designed.
Based on ”autistic literature”, autistics lacks on COGNITIVE but not on AFFECTIVE empathy.
”I do not like it that people her refer to me as and aspie when I have seen enough aspies to know I am different from them.”
Ok. But if you’re really aspie what’s the problem*
If pill offend you because he believe to be autistic is the worst sin human can commit so it’s his problem not your. In the end, he no have a very good factual understanding about autism, anyway. It’s just like a religious person talking about homossexuality.
”My empathy is not just an emotional reaction, I truly see why a person feels they way they do and can relate to their situation.”
But in terms of cognitive empathy you appear to be avg or not ”truly brilliant”. And cognitive empathy also requires some [instinctive/non-verbal or verbalized] general knowledge, namely on psychological vertent.
”People here think I cannot relate to others situations so they call me aspie.”
Autistic become a common derrogatory nickname here on hbd & alt right-sphere. Don’t worry. Even they are not completely wrong about it, in the end of day, they are, because its incompletude to really understand this matter and to behave better.
”I do not like how I am treated that way.”
But you will not be sparing here, [redacted by pp, july 3, 2017] Learn to be more defensive.
”The core definition is that aspies relate poorly to others.”
So many non-real aspies would be aspies* I don’t think so, the core definition of aspies is not a single one feature.
”They have a hard time seeing others perspectives.”
As well you have a hard time seeing their perspectives.
”I am just a nerd, not an aspie.”
Ok, the next popular derrogatory nickname is: nerd.
”And I have emotional problems and problems with perception.
It is not any problems with seeing the perspectives of others.”
‘derstand not.
Examples*
Difficulty to related with others starts from emotional and perceptual problems.
Folks, if intelligence is also, in its practical way, the capacity to adapt… namely during the changes & challenges, so….
by now, the I.Q of white people has been quite low…
Philosopher keeps mentioning how 50% of commercials in Britain are about blacks well 5 percent of Britain is black. Philosopher must be British. And that makes him European and the Europeans are way different than Americans in how they view politics. In America, Liberalism is definitely a real personality type. Saying people are brainwashed into being liberal is like saying women are brainwashed into being women. It’s ridiculous because being liberal is a biological reality in America. The high IQ Jews are completely dwarfed in number by the High IQ liberals. And the conservatives in the job domain in America completely do different tasks. In Hollywood only 5 percent are conservative. Similar numbers appear in academia and broadcasting. Conservatives are into business and engineering and military. Philosopher just does not get it because he is British. America is split by the fields liberals and conservatives take.
Jews just so happen to be more liberal than conservative but it is dumb to say that in fields where 96 percent of the people are white liberals that 4 percent can control that groups biological personality is completely retarded. I do not care how high the super elite Jews IQ is. Liberalism is biological, not operant conditioning. Being conservative is biological also because liberals and conservatives oppose each other all the time. Liberals are good at error detection and that is why they are mostly atheist and interested in fact checking because they have an active anterior cingulate cortex, the brain region used in self-evaluation. Conservatives are interested in stability and certainty. That is why they value religion, productive jobs, and noninterfering government.
Philosopher just does not see (because he is British, not American like me) why liberal in America control the media and Hollywood and the intelligence agencies. It is because they critic accepted ways of doing things. Liberals are the least like the conservatives in that they are OK with instability. This is why movies in Hollywood are not “leave it to beaver” type movies. The intelligence agencies analyze data, they need to evaluate it for what it may mean, the Pentagon is different, they make plans and contingency plans so they know exactly what to do in a war. They intelligence agencies are simply analysts and don’t make plans.
So that is the difference, liberal reanalyse and evaluate everything, nothing is subject to change, well conservatives need to know exactly what to do, they plan out everything.
Liberals are said to be wishy-washy because they will change their minds at any moment. They are highly critical of factual claims and will decide that something is false because it had errors in it. (the anterior cingulate is error detection). If liberals decide that blacks are poor because they have been oppressed it has nothing to do with brainwashing. It simply follows from how they did not want to be drafted into the way in Vietnam. It follows that the Iraq war was for oil and so what the conservatives do is always in error. The liberal may get it wrong and not see the correct error but once hey see one they want to fix it. In order to be brainwashed, you need to be told lies about the way the world is. But the problem is not that because people will just find out what they were told were lies if they are smart enough. What makes the liberal in control of the fields they are in is that they change their minds all they time, thus can adapt to what they need to do in them. Because in their fields everything is changing. Conservatives have to have certainty and that is why they take jobs when they know what to do.
Conservatives cannot adapt to the jobs where liberals change their minds all the time. Most scientists are liberal and atheist so you cannot say liberals are mostly wishy-washy. They simply are able to adapt to the new information they see in their jobs all the time. Liberals are adapted to change. That is why they act they way they do. They experience change and they create change. Most of this change is something philosopher gets annoyed at. But it is inherent in the psyche of the liberal (constant change). High IQ liberals are masters at changing society. And the small number of Jews cannot control all the change that the fast liberals are making.
Philosopher keeps mentioning how 50% of commercials in Britain are about blacks well 5 percent of Britain is black. Philosopher must be British. And that makes him European and the Europeans are way different than Americans in how they view politics. In America, Liberalism is definitely a real personality type. Saying people are brainwashed into being liberal is like saying women are brainwashed into being women. It’s ridiculous because being liberal is a biological reality in America.
But americans are a lot more culturally liberal now than they were in the 1950s. Obviously something’s changed in the culture
The high IQ Jews are completely dwarfed in number by the High IQ liberals.
No they’re not. At the highest IQ levels Jews are more than 50% of America
And it’s not just about IQ. Some Asian American groups have IQs almost as high as Jews but they have zero impact on the culture because they become doctors, scientists or computer geeks, not artists, social scientists and media moguls. Different ethnic groups dominate different fields, even controlling for IQ
Santo: “But you was diagnosed*”
No, no doctor ever said I was Aspergers.
Santo: “Based on ”autistic literature”, autistics lacks on COGNITIVE but not on AFFECTIVE empathy.”
Santo: “But in terms of cognitive empathy you appear to be avg or not ”truly brilliant”. And cognitive empathy also requires some [instinctive/non-verbal or verbalized] general knowledge, namely on psychological vertent.”
If I am average on cognitive epathy then there is no reason to think I am an Aspie. I am just surpassed by people with higher cognitive empathy (perhaps) that see my average level as a deficit level. Thus Aspie.
Santo: “I doubt you Score higher than me in IQ tests, in general ways.
”When I see the faces of aspie people I think, that just ain’t me.””
my g (general intelligence) by the official tests is 130.
I do not know what that means but it must mean I have some sort of abilities that surpass 98 percent of the general population.
my g (general intelligence) by the official tests is 130.
But your overall IQ was not 130. 130 was just your IQ when working memory & processing speed are excluded
Cat you think the Iraq war was about oil but philosopher thinks it was about Israel
That’s another reason why he thinks you’re autistic. Because he thinks you only see financial imperial motives (greed for oil)but not tribal ethnic motivates. He feels this shows an inability to understand human nature
Yes pumpkin that may be a reason for my average cognitive empathy (FSIQ 113). But depending on what g is it may mean I have a specific ability because of it that is in the top 2nd percentile of that ability. What specific ability would I have with a g at 130?
g does not refer to any specific ability. It’s whatever is common to all cognitive abilities
Figure weights is the most g loaded test, I have read. So the common factor is tied to it in some way. I have read that the partial frontal junction is what neuroscience say is the origin of g – that means the common factor has a neural correlate. I remember on figure eights I had to keep track of multiple items at the same time and place them where they needed to be. I scored 130 on figure eights. That means my spatial awareness is high. The dorsal stream is used for spatial awareness and the frontal lobes keep track of multi-variables. Is this the common factor? It would need to be because any specific task requires many steps and arrangements.
“working memory & processing speed”
I can handle many items at the same time but I cannot do so without an external reference. Working memory would be items of internal reference, I am not got at that. I excel with external references. So I know how to arage items. I cannot do that in my head.
processing speed is just how fast you can locate and recognize objects. It is least correlated with g because you can be fast at recognizing where objects are but unable to arrange a lot of objects. I can arrange many objects but locating them is a pain because I am slow.
Langauge is also highly g loaded. But it is g loaded because I think, it is another way of tracking multiple items. Understanding language you need to know what was said and continue in understanding. So you must track everything said and respond in a way that holds all that previous communication. You must hold multiple relationships in your mind and that is why it is highly g loaded. I scored 132 on Verbal IQ, this must mean I can understand multiple relationships in language at the same time and this adds on to my g loading.
I am not fast and I am poor at internal references. But I understand multiple relationships in language, and I can arrange multiple items spatially.
That is my explanation of g as the common factor, it is about multi relationships in language and tracking multiple items for arrangement in space. I can do this better than 98 percent of people.
My Working memory is 95 and Processing Speed is 86.
By my explanation of what those are, this is why I have most of my problems.
I find it difficult to be alone and just think.
And I cannot play fast video games.
I feel like I need to experiment to be creative but I do not go deep into my mind because I have such a little space to work with.
Pumpkin: “Cat you think the Iraq war was about oil but philosopher thinks it was about Israel”
No it is not what I think. But on tv all the time people said it was for oil. I was connecting this to why liberal is not conservatives. The oil thing was a left wing talking point to get liberal anti-Bush. So well philosopher may hate people that do anything in Israel’s interests he does not understand that the liberals were anti-Iraq war wich would be against the interests of Israel. The people that believed in the oil talking point were lower IQ liberals. But it was the high IQ liberals that produced the anti-war talking point on oil even if it was bogus. Liberal are anti-war even if it is against Israel’s interests. I also connected it to the liberal movements in the 60’s Because of the Vietnam war liberals hated the government. after the war, the draft was dismantled. The liberals will push any propaganda they can to disarm the right because the right does what they stand against. The Russian thing on Trump is an example. It is pushed by liberals because Trump is not like them. Trump is not like Obama. When Obama got into office he got America out of Iraq just as the liberal wanted to happen. Now Trump is seen by many as the next Bush but insane with anger. Liberals hate wars and they don’t want Trump to start more wars. He appears crazy and angry and not diplomatic like Obama. This is not what I think about Trump but The low IQ’s of most liberals and the agenda of high IQ liberals are motivated the same. Conservatives are rigid and authoritarian. Liberal can’t stand that kind of personality. This repulsion to Trump is not brainwashing by the Jews. The jew want Trump to do what he is doing. Hatred for Trump is completely based on the liberal personality. Jews controlling the liberals to hate Trump would be stupid because Jew like Trump. He will advance the Jewish agenda. Philosopher is deluded if he thinks Trump is fighting back against the Jews. Trump is fighting the liberals and the Jews are on Trump’s side. Philosophers thinking is completely backward.
I am smart enough to know Trump is not crazy. He is a businessman and thinks like one. His agenda to rebuild America. He gets support because people know he is genuine is his aspirations to make America a better place. Make America Great again is not an empty phrase to him.
People who voted for Hillary (53 million) did so because she acted like she was a stable person. People hated Trump because he seemed unstable. They thought Hillary would be responsible. But like Mugabe said, she only wanted to be president because it was her life’s career. Nothing was behind the mask. Trump was real because he actually wanted to make things better. To Hillary being president was just another job.
”No, no doctor ever said I was Aspergers.”
If i remember, you said you have ”psychotic crisis”.
Watching your videos and you i think you have some strong ”autistic-like” behaviors: the way, voice tone, even your facial phenotype very resemble if not a autistic guy at least a uber-nerd. Your ”obsessive” interests here and yes, your naivety.
But if you no have over-sensibility to noise, taste or whatever, one of the most important autistic feature; if you no have what Bruno say he have: prosopagnosia, so i believe you’re on broader autistic or autistic-related spectrum.
”If I am average on cognitive epathy then there is no reason to think I am an Aspie. I am just surpassed by people with higher cognitive empathy (perhaps) that see my average level as a deficit level. Thus Aspie.”
You’re literalizing what is average. On avg, autistics, based on ”autistic medical literature”, have normal affective empathy but lower cognitive empathy /read the ”mind” of faces/intentions of other people.
On avg, remember this.
”my g (general intelligence) by the official tests is 130.
I do not know what that means but it must mean I have some sort of abilities that surpass 98 percent of the general population.”
IQ tests usually analyse people skills without real-world scenarios and not only about ”work & school performance”. Seems if you have higher verbal skills just to start so you have a pass to entry to the ”smarter club”, but the most important about intelligence is, at priori: reasoning skills and factual understanding, the rest is important too, but secondary in relevance.
”Philosopher keeps mentioning how 50% of commercials in Britain are about blacks well 5 percent of Britain is black. Philosopher must be British. And that makes him European and the Europeans are way different than Americans in how they view politics. In America, Liberalism is definitely a real personality type. Saying people are brainwashed into being liberal is like saying women are brainwashed into being women. It’s ridiculous because being liberal is a biological reality in America. The high IQ Jews are completely dwarfed in number by the High IQ liberals. And the conservatives in the job domain in America completely do different tasks. In Hollywood only 5 percent are conservative. Similar numbers appear in academia and broadcasting. Conservatives are into business and engineering and military. Philosopher just does not get it because he is British. America is split by the fields liberals and conservatives take.”
hum*
The way americans and europeans view politics is not so different to cause huge differences.
No, Liberalism is not a personality type itself. There are more than one type of liberalism: economic, cultural, social. People who are socially liberal tend not to be economic liberal and at least ~half of people who are economically liberal tend not to be socially liberal at least for themselves.
I don’t believe people are ”brainwashed” exactly, brainwashing maybe real but only via artificial methods. People rationalize their choices and point of views and tends to be very parochial in their understanding of reality. I’m talking about maybe half of population. What Pill call ”brainwashing” i call just ”stupidity + instinct”.
What you call vaguely as liberalism may mean many different things. Illiberalism or leftist dogmatism is a new cultural niche that is being hugely sponsored by media & government. It’s just like pop-christianism.
What happen in labour division between libs and cons also happen in Britain, in Brazil, in South Africa…
What’s matter is not the absolute proportion but relative. Jews don’t need to be demographically bigger to take the power and to change society into a bad path namely for whites.
”Jews just so happen to be more liberal than conservative but it is dumb to say that in fields where 96 percent of the people are white liberals that 4 percent can control that groups biological personality is completely retarded.”
Ok, and your arguments* where are*
Why is retarded*
Do you think 1% of white gentile people who become very rich are basically the same in cognition, psychology and motivations than 99% of white gentile people who don’t become*
Even the factor luck is important, no doubt it’s hard to think luck-alone make people rich.
”I do not care how high the super elite Jews IQ is.”
an*
”Liberalism is biological, not operant conditioning.”
Yessssss.
”Being conservative is biological also because liberals and conservatives oppose each other all the time.”
Yesssssss.
”Liberals are good at error detection and that is why they are mostly atheist and interested in fact checking because they have an active anterior cingulate cortex, the brain region used in self-evaluation.”
If you are autistic, i don’t know what you could be.
You over-literalize and over-use this over-abstract information to explain something more-normies usually use non-scientific narrative to explain the same thing.
You read neuropolitics and now you’re over-literalizing, over-generalizing this findings, many them that are poorly explained or overly biased to so-called liberals.
”Conservatives are interested in stability and certainty. That is why they value religion, productive jobs, and noninterfering government.”
I’m reading neuropolitics again, but thank you, i already read it.
Everyone who are minimally sane prefer stability and certainty… liberals included, the difference is that they are dumb enough to confuse potential instabilities with stabilities.
”Philosopher just does not see (because he is British, not American like me) why liberal in America control the media and Hollywood and the intelligence agencies.”
If he is british…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10565264/Left-wing-thinking-still-prevails-in-schools.html
”It is because they critic accepted ways of doing things. Liberals are the least like the conservatives in that they are OK with instability.”
”I just read neuropolitics and now I’m repeating what I read” – IlumiCat.
Conscientiousness is the personality trait of being careful, or vigilant. Conscientiousness implies a desire to do a task well, and to take obligations to others seriously. Conscientious people tend to be efficient and organized as opposed to easy-going and disorderly. They exhibit a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; they display planned rather than spontaneous behavior; and they are generally dependable. They have a more functional anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) than the average person. It is manifested in characteristic behaviors such as being neat and systematic; also including such elements as carefulness, thoroughness, and deliberation (the tendency to think carefully before acting.)[1] Conscientiousness is one of the five traits of the Five Factor Model of personality and is an aspect of what has traditionally been referred to as having character. Conscientious individuals are generally hard-working and reliable. They are also likely to be conformists.[2] When taken to an extreme, they may also be “workaholics”, perfectionists, and compulsive in their behavior.[3] People who score low on conscientiousness tend to be laid back, less goal-oriented, and less driven by success; they also are more likely to engage in antisocial and criminal behavior.[4]
via wikipedia. I don’t know how reliable this source is but…
a personality trait or dimension that is more common among cons than among libs.
” This is why movies in Hollywood are not “leave it to beaver” type movies. The intelligence agencies analyze data, they need to evaluate it for what it may mean, the Pentagon is different, they make plans and contingency plans so they know exactly what to do in a war. They intelligence agencies are simply analysts and don’t make plans.”
The fact US government is divided in different sectors, well, don’t mean nothing relevant to prove your point, what your point here in this fragment*
”So that is the difference, liberal reanalyse and evaluate everything, nothing is subject to change, well conservatives need to know exactly what to do, they plan out everything.”
Yesssssssss
[white gentile] Libs are fantastic analysers…
”Liberals are said to be wishy-washy because they will change their minds at any moment.”
Change ”mind” by nothing is a sign of weaknesses, dishonesty and/or cowardice.
”They are highly critical of factual claims and will decide that something is false because it had errors in it. (the anterior cingulate is error detection).”
Really*
They can detect some errors but others, more-”primitive” types are better to detect other type of errors.
Libs may be good, ON AVG, to detect empathetically-receptive errors but absolutely not to detect empathetically-defensive/aggressive errors. Or, they are, cosi cosi, good to self-actualize their behavior BUT not to understand OTHER behaviors.
BUT, as many if not most of them only criticize white people behavior and quasi-never non-white people behavior, it’s mean something…
”If liberals decide that blacks are poor because they have been oppressed it has nothing to do with brainwashing.”
Primary logic, this really make sense in the first view, but as being behavior is the self-reflectance of this intrinsic dispositions in combination with environment so….
It’s to do with leftist dogmatism + intellectual laziness or incapacity to understand more abstract things + stubborness + self-moral entitlement = = = a different type of stupidity.
”In order to be brainwashed, you need to be told lies about the way the world is.”
Ieaaaaaaah…
But not, it’s just act in stupid/naive + stubborn way.
”But the problem is not that because people will just find out what they were told were lies if they are smart enough. What makes the liberal in control of the fields they are in is that they change their minds all they time, thus can adapt to what they need to do in them.”
Neuro
Politics
So tomorrow imbecile uber-privileged ”celebrities” will change their minds again and again and again, and ever and ever, and will become KKK-fashionistas…
”Because in their fields everything is changing. Conservatives have to have certainty and that is why they take jobs when they know what to do.”
”Conservatives cannot adapt to the jobs where liberals change their minds all the time.”
Nope exactly. Libs usually work or they are over-represented in ”soft jobs”, in media, education, arts, probably because they tend [tend] to have ”non-binnary”-like brains.
”Most scientists are liberal and atheist so you cannot say liberals are mostly wishy-washy.”
Of course not, scientists and atheists are —fantastically—- smarter than almost human poblacion.
”They simply are able to adapt to the new information they see in their jobs all the time.”
Yes, they are short-term conformist, but don’t appear to be, on avg: a independent, honest and humble thinkers, what’s most important for wisdom.
”Liberals are adapted to change.”
Thousand repetitions of the same thing.
change = extermination of white people and probably other ”pure”-human breeds in the near future. Babel tower.
Libs are pooddles as cons are hunting-dogs.
”That is why they act they way they do.”
And remember, for you to be brainwashed mean ”be misinformed”.
”They experience change and they create change.”
hum hum.
”Most of this change is something philosopher gets annoyed at.”
Import half og Bagdah [people with lower cognitive skills, with annoyed primitive culture (with some insularized and accidental gems}, higher propension to commit crimes} to the once excellent nations… ”create change”
”adapt to change”
Take refuge in white majority neighborhoods and continue to defend the invasion that made them flee the neighborhood where they lived …
Trully brilliant…
I can’t see liberal movements, too fast… too bright, too anallyptical…
”High IQ liberals are masters at changing society.”
Huhum, white gentile ”high Ikki” liberals…
”And the small number of Jews cannot control all the change that the fast liberals are making.”
Huhum. and now you are trying to convince some people here that you’re not autistic…
Next task for you is to convince us that you’re not dumb…
There are many ”white nationalists” and other types [don’t need to be white nor nationalist] among autistics and adherents. Yes, seems there are over-representation of ”snowflakes” among them, but it’s doesn’t mean that no there autistic sympathizers with ”white geNOcide cause”.
Huhum. and now you are trying to convince some people here that you’re not autistic…
Next task for you is to convince us that you’re not dumb…
Seconded.
Conventional Wisdom<'Reasonableness'<Reason<Instinct and ~ RETARDED INDIVIDUALS MISTAKE THIS AS: IQ=LOOKS.
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT INTELLIGENT.
#ThinklikeThePhilosopher
#PrayforAnimeKittytogetbetter
Any minimally sane people can recognize evilness in the eyes of this lady-bitchlary. So…
Half my comment got deleted.
It should read:
“You can’t reason into reality in a cube Santo. Thats why its called brainwahsing. Its suffocaton of knowledge. Not reason. Nobody likes playing hopskotch on 2 squares. They draw the squares Santo. Nobody wants to be brainwashed. Thats why we infer the term to be predatory and ‘against one’s true will’. They control the information. Not the reasoning.
#Thinklikethephilosopher
”You can’t reason into reality in a cube Santo”
NOOOOOOOOOOO
I have 0 nerd traits and I’m quite sympathetic to the idea that Jews may control the world since the 19th century BUT I’m probably an aspie (46 out of 50 in autism spectrum test, aphantasia, prosopagnosia and no episodic memory). So if philo establishes a logical link between the two, he’s wrong.
Cat looks very nerdy to me but i have no idea if he is an aspie. Most aspies aren’t bothered by the tag and recognize the condition easily once told. So I’d rather believe cat’s denial. It makes me think – mutatis mutandis and without absolutely any offence intented – on very girly types who say they aren’t gay and should be believed when they are genuine (a fortiori when they wouldn’t care of being gay in fact).
http://breedingbetweenthelines.com/
“The oil thing was a left wing talking point to get liberal anti-Bush. ”
you are right about the oil thing being made up but your low IQ prevents you from seeing why it was made up
effective propaganda requires :
1. An official story – this caters to those who trust the government
2. An official alternative story – this caters to those who don’t trust it
Official story = WMD then democracy building
Official alternative story = a war for oil
your points about Trump serving jewish interests is very true .
Phil gets 99% of the agenda but he does a lot of wishful thinking which probably comes from being depressed about the situation
The jewish media is against trump for 3 reasons
1. Trump represents populism which has always been bad news for jews because
every issue that the public are passionate about has a jew behind it
mass immigration = jews
The gay agenda = jews
Criminal bankers = jews
pro-miscegenation agenda = jews
Hollywood degeneracy = jews
and on and on
unlike you the jews know full well that they run all of those things
2. Trump has set the precedent of someone winning the presidency despite 90% of the media being against him.
They must make an example out of Trump or they will never be feared again
Just look at how desperate they are for trump to get impeached
The Comey hearing was covered like it was a spaceship landing from the planet krypton
3. Trump is the only major world leader that has called for banning muslim immigration.
Trumps suggestion, which he never really meant, would be absolutely devastating to the jewish agenda
Anyone with eyes can see that over the last 15-20 years there has been a coordinated effort to flood Europe/Canada/Australia/New Zealand with the worst of the worst from South Asia and the MENA region.
Anyone with even a basic level of intelligence can see that the number 1 beneficiary of such immigration is Israel
All i need to prove that is the fact that in the 90s the far right of Europe was very anti-Zion while today the so called ” far right” is disgustingly Zionist
That major change on the right has occurred in every single country that the jews have flooded with Bangladeshis, Berbers etc
just look at the way Breitbart fired that mcHugh woman because she said something like ” the terrorist attacks in the UK would not have happened if there were no muslims in the UK ”
just ask yourself why on earth would the anti-muslim and radically Zionist Breitbart be so angry with such a statement that they would fire her?
just think about that …..
If Trump were to succeed with his imaginary ban then it would decrease tensions and send a powerful precedent for the western world
if America, the richest and most powerful nation on earth , does it then it cant be called crazy or unrealistic
There are other reasons but those are the 3 main reasons for the jewish media being against Trump
The media is not against trump because they think he’s anti-Israel because they know he’s not crazy. They tap his phones .
The media dont attack Trump because they think he’s anti-jewish. They know full well that he is such a cuck that he gladly accepted two of his daughters being defiled by jews.
They dont attack Trump because they think he will go through with even a single one of his major promises.
They attack Trump because of what he represents
If Trumpism is even slightly successful ( 2 terms) then it will become the new normal in the republican party
if that happens then future republican primaries will be a contest between people like Trump and people like David Duke.
if populism is the new standard then no one can compete with the white nationalists .
This is why Trump must fail and fail badly
the $26 WTI was NOT just the result of “tight oil”.
[redacted by PP, July 4, 2017]
the saudis thought they could bankrupt the US shale oil producers.
so they over-produced, they “let it flow”.
they’re morons.
jimmy has explained the $26 WTI as…
the US government (state department, CIA) told the saudis to let it flow…to punish russia.
this is bs.
as prof shoe has posted…
the saudis are toast.
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2015/12/saudis-toast.html
not good!
cheap oil and north korea…
war is in-evitable.
All i need to prove that is the fact that in the 90s the far right of Europe was very anti-Zion while today the so called ”far right” is disgustingly Zionist…
i agree with “jimmy”.
[redacted by pp, july 4, 2017]
as RC families go my family is absurdly…”high class”.
but RC is low class.
Good article. I absolutely appreciate this site.Thanks!
Thank you!