[Note from Pumpkin Person, Dec 4, 2017: The following is a guest article and does NOT necessarily reflect the views of Pumpkin Person. Out of respect for the author, please try to keep all comments on-topic. I realize conversations naturally evolve, but at least start on-topic]
Introduction
Usually within the HBD community, discussions regarding the main mechanism(s) that drove the expressions of particular phenotypes is centered around natural selection or ecological(in the strictest, most traditional sense) factors. Sexual selection is unfairly sidelined, even though sex is the base of all multicellular evolution. The point of this article is to provide a logical argument for Sexual selections tremendous involvement, and to provide examples of how these pressures have shaped neolithic and modern Homo sapiens. I excluded Australoids but for good reason. Even though the population does have sexual selected traits, like blonde and curly hair, they are an incredibly diverse group and with the amount of pocket isolation I don’t think it’s fair without breaking this group into more categories. I kept this paper short, because it’s my first one and I wanted to use this as a “prototype” for future posts. Again all criticism is more than welcome because I myself am still learning about this topic.
First, it is important to note that traits which evolved from sexual selection are not the same thing as traits that serve reproductive purposes. Reproductive organs are usually the product of sexual selection, but sexual selection does not always act upon genitalia. Sexual selection favors any trait that allows an organism to attract the opposite mate more effectively, competitively or not.
The general trend
Before I explain the respective pressures and phenotypes between subpopulations of the neolithic, it is essential to begin with a summary of the temporal trend that persisted before the aforementioned groups. This begins with a breakdown of definitions and the repair of misconceptions. Human development is extremely complicated, so this explanation will have oversimplifications for the sake of efficiency. Any questions or discussions on the matter are more than welcome. If you don’t know anything about heterochronies I suggest you read this
Paedomorphosis=/= Neoteny. Neoteny is a heterochronic process, paedomorphism is a type of heterochrony. One of the largest or most noticeable differences between Homo sapiens and Chimpanzees is the increase in paedomorphic and peramorphic traits of the former. All heterochronic mechanisms affect the developmental outcome of homo sapiens this is mostly to do with developmental trade offs and creates a mosaic pattern of our evolution. Humans have accelerated brain growth which reaches full size before most of the other limbs and organs are finished, even though this is achieved through peramorphic heterochronies it coincides with the deceleration of the body which actually produces a more paedomorphic appearance in the population. This acceleration ends(progenesis) and is subsequently followed by a strong deceleration(neoteny) of the skulls growth (Penin, 2002). Neoteny and acceleration define growth rate, but the actual duration of the growth period is hypermorphic, meaning the duration of Human growth is delayed or extended so that our legs and brains can continue to grow. Even though the brain is not paedomorphic it still enlarged to retain its childlike plasticity.These processes underlie the “direction” of our evolution, and while a lot of important traits are a result of peramorphic processes, it would be foolish to disregard the obviously paedomorphic traits we exhibit. It doesn’t take long to see how sexual selection can favor peramorphic or paedomorphic traits. Peramorphosis tends to create exaggerated features(think Irish Elk, Peacocks or the human brain) while paedomorphosis tends to appeal to sexual selection by producing “fragile” traits associated with infants of the species, in theory members of the opposite sex should associate these traits with “cuteness” and possibly even better parental skills.
Macro races
Most don’t realize, but all races have undergone sexual selection. Each race has its own unique combination of peramorphic and paedomorphic traits as well as superficial ones that don’t relate to heterochrony. I will briefly go over each race and describe the varying degrees of pressures and the resulting phenotypes.
Caucasoids
Caucasoids have the largest concentration of hypermorphic traits. They are the tallest race, and have the most color variation, this heavily implies sexual selection is involved. While height only has a small correlation with IQ, taller specimens will generally have larger brains, because they also have larger bodies. It also been documented that taller individuals tend to be seen as more attractive. Blue eyes are disproportionately present in the scientific community and they are a recessive trait, it’s speculative but very possible that blue eyes coincides with increased intelligence. Peter frost already did most of the work for me, you can read his piece on European sexual selection here. Mate competition becomes the obvious reason for these phenotypic expressions.
Negroids
Unfortunately there isn’t much data on penis size, as a result this description will be lackluster. Which is usually the go to trait that HBDers look for when defining the sexuality of Africans. Things like Breast and buttocks size are ill defined, and studies on them are rifled with misconceptions. What we do know though, is that blacks are around the same height as Europeans but the majority of groups tend to have smaller brain sizes. It is interesting to point out that Africans display more paedomorphic facial features(except for prognathism). This makes a lot of sense, Africans are more r selected than Caucasoids, so it is expected that they display more paedomorphic traits. Because of a lack of data, I can’t make a reasonable assessment on the pressures that could of caused these expressions, however I do not think it would be far fetched to assume that is also mate competiton
Capoids/Pygmies
Pygmies, are a result of what Shea 1984 calls “rate hypomorphosis” Essentially it is a truncation of allometric scaling. Pygmies should therefore be one of the least intelligent and most r selected races. Their body and brain size decreased from the ancestral one, and they are almost entirely paedomorphic. More than likely their body size has to do with their adaptation to fewer resources. Capoids can confuse a lot of people. At first I thought they must be intelligent because of their paedomorphosis, but their brains are only a measly 1270cc and according to the Shea and Penin studies(cited earlier) a lot of traits considered to be paedomorphic(flat nose, reduced prognathism) are actually just the result of functional innovations and are independent of developmental growth. Specimen like Homo sapien Idaltu then begin to make more sense. The pressure involved here is more than likely an increased need of childcare(or at least a decrease in aggression) but not necessarily and increased need of Intellectual faculties.
Mongoloids
Along with pygmies they are the most Paedomorphic race, and one of the most r selected. East asians have proportionally short limbs, very baby like faces, and the largest brains of any race. More than likely this is due to shape retardation following neoteny(deceleration of growth). It is necessary to define why Capoids and Mongoloids share similar facial traits yet do not share the same body proportions or absolute brain size. In this situation it is reasonable to assume that both populations had similar pressures for childcare and decreased aggression the main difference is hypothesized to lie in the varying survival pressures each group faced, I believe the ecological factors in East asia were more cognitively demanding than in Southern Africa, not in the sense that Africa is an easier place to survive but that Eurasia had a higher demand for Neuroplasticity. This is for two main reasons 1) in a novel environment there is more that you are required to learn and 2) The founder effect makes recessive genes easier to be expressed.
In Summary
Intelligence can arise from a multitude of factors and no factor is completely necessary. Caucasoids seem to have developed their intellect from mate competition and K selection. Negroids are similar but to a lesser degree. Mongoloids seem to have evolved their cranial capacity for primarily for docility and cooperation. All are forms of sexual selection, just for different preferences in attraction. Europeans and Africans tend to gravitate to more masculine features while capoids, and Mongoloids are more for feminine ones.
Pumpkin Person 
RR talks a lot of nonsense.
But at least its honest nonsense.
99 percent of what I say is correct.
Is problem is he have reading comprehension issues and absolutely wants people to agree with him and have the last word.
When you say things like that he can’t just ignore you and let people make their own conclusions. He need to justify himself with unverifiable statements like :”99 percent of what I say is correct.”
You need to justify thatt my claim is wrong. I left the one percent off for error. Don’t point to testosterone though because I took you to school there
I’ll just refute myself there: about 20 percent of the articles on my blog are wrong. Most of the r/K nd testosterone and race ones.
You’ve yet to prove anything. You only showed ‘the link’ while I showed direction and causality. Maybe your reading comprehension isn’t too high so you my understand that.
You just have some weird grudge out for me. Go to my blog and comment on the testosterone articles, quote what is wrong, show how and why it’s wrong, explain your reasoning, and provide citations. It’s that simple. You don’t know what you’re talking about so you rest on ‘I never claimed to show causality, only a relationship’, no shit. Now it’s: which way does the directionality run and is testosterone causal on crime and aggression and criminal behavior? Mountains of evidence show that testosterone doesn’t cause crime nor aggression.
That’s crazy how you are so easily triggered.
“You need to justify thatt my claim is wrong”
The burden of proof is on you.
“You just have some weird grudge out for me.”
You need to prove this assertion.
From my humble perspective you are the one getting emotional here, I think everyone can see it.
it’s not honest. he’s a southern italian.
http://sandrarose.com/2016/05/did-oprah-dump-gayle-king-for-ava-duvernay/
That’s nonsense. Gayle was there long before Oprah was famous & she’ll be there long after. They’re sisters for life.
“The burden of proof is on you.”
I just rebutted myself.
“You need to prove this assertion.”
It’s obvious, especially with your ad hominem attacks. (And me calling you a clown isn’t an ad hominem, it’s not a fallacy. It’s an insult. You talking about my ‘IQ’ in regard to my writing is an ad hominem attack. Learn to logical fallacy.)
“From my humble perspective you are the one getting emotional here, I think everyone can see it.”
Nope.
sisters?
“Nope.”
Yes RR. It has little to do with how right you are about anything, it’s just your inability to differentiate between a debate and an open end discussion. You have very poor reading comprehension and because of this you can’t accurately gauge someone else’s opinions or how to properly engage them. The one fallacy you commit the most is Ad nauseam. What Gypsyman said about Philo kind of applies to you too. I’m saying all of this as your friend.
” it’s just your inability to differentiate between a debate and an open end discussion.”
I can differentiate. I’d just rather debate than discuss.
“You have very poor reading comprehension”
No I don’t.
“because of this you can’t accurately gauge someone else’s opinions or how to properly engage them.”
Example please.
“‘The one fallacy you commit the most is Ad nauseam.”
“Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam)”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
People repeat the same things I’ve rebutted months ago on my blog. If anything, they commit the fallacy much more than I do. Re testosterone and crime, aggression, etc. I do admit that I do repeat things a lot and it’s only because people repeat the same garbage arguments I’ve rebutted countless times.
“What Gypsyman said about Philo kind of applies to you too.”
“You’re overconfrontational”
I agree. It’s part of my personality. I’m over-confrontational in life too, it helps in my work to be honest.
“people will believe you if you leave a breadcrumb trail and allow them to construct the arguments themselves, coming to believe that they came up with the ideas themselves.”
I don’t leave breadcrumbs, I state and argue my position outright.
“Persuasion is about reconciling your argument and their self-image. If you define them in opposition to one another people will reject them, at least at first while they consider alternatives.”
Arguments do oppose and contrast though. Is one argument right over another? Is one assertion? Is there any real ‘truth’?
“I’m saying all of this as your friend.”
Thank you. I’m getting old. I’ve been commenting here for over two years. How time flys.
“I can differentiate. I’d just rather debate than discuss.”
Ok but can you realize that not everyone else is looking for a debate? And when you approach each discussion like this it comes off as annoying?
“No I don’t.”
I beg to differ. I didn’t mean for you to address every point of gypsyman, because I said the words “kind of” meaning his description does not fit you perfectly but it is similar.
“Example please.”
Your entire argument with lyrion.
“People repeat the same things I’ve rebutted months ago on my blog.”
I’m not talking about other people, I’m talking about you. And i’m not talking about the validity of your beliefs but how you argue them when confronted with criticism on a deeper level.
“And when you approach each discussion like this it comes off as annoying?”
I’m aware. It’s ‘in my genes, it’s genetic’. =^)
Seriously though, I know where you’re coming from. I try hard to not let my personaltiy go through my writing but it’s hard. Surely you understand.
“I beg to differ. I didn’t mean for you to address every point of gypsyman, because I said the words “kind of” meaning his description does not fit you perfectly but it is similar.”
I agree it is similar (the parts I agreed with), but not overall.
“Your entire argument with lyrion.”
No. I know his ‘position’ (which is not a position at all). he says ‘testosterone is related to environment’, and he also says that he ‘doesn’t talk about causation, only shows the relationship’, well I’ve shown both causation and directionality and have rebutted the tired, old testosterone garbage numerous times.
“I’m not talking about other people, I’m talking about you. And i’m not talking about the validity of your beliefs but how you argue them when confronted with criticism on a deeper level.”
I will admit this when I discuss with you, and sometimes PP because you two challenge my beliefs well and I respect you two for that. However, most other people. like Lyrion, ‘only make associations’, they don’t have any arguments. Well I do. Lyrion has not confronted my testosterone arguments with ‘criticism on a deeper level’, he’s literally just making elementary statements that are easily disproved.
“It’s ‘in my genes, it’s genetic’.”
I’m sure it is.
“No. I know his ‘position’”
I think you took his position too seriously, created a strawman and then preceded to pester him.
“he’s literally just making elementary statements that are easily disproved.”
Right well if you feel that way, then I’m not sure why you even engage him to begin with. I mean I wont pretend that i don’t go on troll rampages every now and then firing up Mugabe and Philo in the process, but I don’t waste the energy on people I know wont change.
Have you ever called someone a piece of shit and then they suddenly agreed with you, shook your hand, and exclaimed they were turning over a new leaf starting right then and there? It doesn’t happen like that, some people will never change.
meLo is such a piece of shit.
for rr’s supposed stupidity it’s clear he actually knows more about this stuff than anyone else. it’s some kind of fetish he has. have you seen how long his articles are? and all with footnotes.
i think maybe it’s an elaborate cover for his real occupation, bag man for the bananno crime family.
i’m just a used furniture dealer.
if he posts a picture of himself in a velvet track suit you’ll know for sure.
“I think you took his position too seriously, created a strawman and then preceded to pester him.”
Yes. He keeps saying my position is “T causes crime and aggression” . Which is not true.
I don’t really have a position or whatever. I’m simply pointing out he is wrong saying T have nothing to do with aggression.
Your T levels rise when you are getting into a fight. The most violent prisoners have more T than less violent ones. My argument is that T have something to do with aggression in some conditions, when violence is the only way to assert dominance I would say.
MeLo, you are analysis of RR’s behaviour is very insightful.
” I’m simply pointing out he is wrong saying T have nothing to do with aggression.”
And I’m pointing out that you’re wrong.
T doesn’t explain aggression in men, but education does, it may explain aggression for women though.
Age was associated with aggressive behaviors among women, while education was associated with aggressive behaviors among men.
The study also suggested a role of education level on the aggressive behaviors of men. With no testosterone affect. Keep in mind this is in an urban setting and not a lab. I’ve already cited other data on dominance and testosterone in prisoners.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4199296/
This paper isn’t some lab study, it’s a study following people in an urban setting. If testosterone doesn’t explain male aggression and violence then…
“My argument is that T have something to do with aggression in some conditions.”
It’s not an argument it’s an assertion and yes it does matter.
“when violence is the only way to assert dominance I would say.”
Most of the time we don’t assert dominance with violent and aggressive behavior. Read the linked articles.
melo,
“I’m sure it is.”
If only I could identify which SNPs cause this!
“I think you took his position too seriously, created a strawman and then preceded to pester him.”
Meh. Maybe, but as you can see he’s still saying wrong things.
“Right well if you feel that way, then I’m not sure why you even engage him to begin with. I mean I wont pretend that i don’t go on troll rampages every now and then firing up Mugabe and Philo in the process, but I don’t waste the energy on people I know wont change.”
True. It’s always for the audience though.
“Have you ever called someone a piece of shit and then they suddenly agreed with you, shook your hand, and exclaimed they were turning over a new leaf starting right then and there? It doesn’t happen like that, some people will never change.”
Of course not. Debates are always for the audience and not the one you’re discussing with.
God, you are retard.
“And I’m pointing out that you’re wrong.”
I never said T causes aggression in the general population as I already told you a million time. Again you are attacking a straw man. In some condition there is a link between T and violence. When you are getting into a fight your T levels rise. The most violent prisoners have more T than the less violent ones. I don’t see anything wrong in this.
“Most of the time we don’t assert dominance with violent and aggressive behavior. Read the linked articles.”
You profoundly lack reading comprehension skills. I myself said that T appear to be link with violence when violence is the only way to assert dominance which isn’t commonly the case in the general population hence the low correlation between T and violence overall, duh !
I don’t know if the issue with you is mental retardation or a big ego problem who can’t admit he is wrong so keep saying the same thing over and over, attributing to me says that are not mine.
“If only I could identify which SNPs cause this!”
Maybe it’s the same ones that cause Testosterone?
“Meh. Maybe, but as you can see he’s still saying wrong things.”
I think you’re just misinterpreting him. Testosterone affects aggression, this is a fact as you’ve demonstrated before . The relative degree of causation is little more than semantical games, it’s like oxytocin and affection. T is not a creator it’s a catalyst.
“Of course not. Debates are always for the audience and not the one you’re discussing with.”
What audience would find pleasure from you debating with someone obviously below your caliber in knowledge? It’s like watching an NFL team play against toddlers.
“Maybe it’s the same ones that cause Testosterone”
Maybe, I can’t wait to edit my genome.
“Testosterone affects aggression, this is a fact as you’ve demonstrated before”
Have you read my most recent articles.
“T is not a creator it’s a catalyst.”
Not even.
“What audience would find pleasure from you debating with someone obviously below your caliber in knowledge? It’s like watching an NFL team play against toddlers.”
True.
Lyrion,
“In some condition there is a link between T and violence. When you are getting into a fight your T levels rise. The most violent prisoners have more T than the less violent ones. I don’t see anything wrong in this.”
Ehrenkranz et al. (1974) showed that socially dominant but unaggressive prisoners had relatively high T, not significantly different from the T levels of aggressive prisoners (who may have been dominant too). Nearly all primate studies that have been interpreted as linking T to aggression (Dixson 1980) may as easily be interpreted as liking T with dominance (Mazur 1976). Recent reviewers have questioned whether, among humans, T is related to aggressiveness per se (Archer 1991; Albert et al. 1994).
K.
“I don’t know if the issue with you is mental retardation or a big ego problem who can’t admit he is wrong so keep saying the same thing over and over, attributing to me says that are not mine”
I just showed how you’re wrong here again.
“Have you read my most recent articles.”
Yes.
“Not even.”
Your sources suggest otherwise.
“True.”
Not to say Lyrion is stupid. Just that he doesn’t have expertise in this field of knowledge so he is at an obvious disadvantage.
The one on sex differences shows education, not testosterone, mediates aggression. The other in adolescents shows it relates to dominant behavior, while children with low testosterone were more aggressive.
“What audience would find pleasure from you debating with someone obviously below your caliber in knowledge? It’s like watching an NFL team play against toddlers.”
Obviously he knows more than me on the subject. I already told him I’m willing to change my mind. His answers are simply off topic and aren’t satisfying at all.
Look, he quoted this to show I’m wrong but I don’t see where it go against anything I said :
Ehrenkranz et al. (1974) showed that socially dominant but unaggressive prisoners had relatively high T, not significantly different from the T levels of aggressive prisoners (who may have been dominant too). Nearly all primate studies that have been interpreted as linking T to aggression (Dixson 1980) may as easily be interpreted as liking T with dominance (Mazur 1976). Recent reviewers have questioned whether, among humans, T is related to aggressiveness per se (Archer 1991; Albert et al. 1994).
As you correctly stated, I’m not an idiot. Even if I have no expertise on a subject I can easily spot dishonesty and fallacious arguments.
What I say make sense and I haven’t see any evidences against it for now. I’m not even debatting for the audience I simply want to know the truth.
“Look, he quoted this to show I’m wrong but I don’t see where it go against anything I said :”
Literally right here:
Ehrenkranz et al. (1974) showed that socially dominant but unaggressive prisoners had relatively high T, not significantly different from the T levels of aggressive prisoners (who may have been dominant too).
So the socially dominant, but not violent nor aggressive, prisoners had similar levels of T compared to the aggressive prisoners. Goes directly against your assertion.
“What I say make sense and I haven’t see any evidences against it for now”
It may ‘make sense’ but the above quote proves it wrong.
“I simply want to know the truth”
Same, but debates are always for the audience and not who you’re discussing with.
“Look, he quoted this to show I’m wrong but I don’t see where it go against anything I said :”
I’m aware, he’s doing the same thing to me in another comment thread.
“I’m aware, he’s doing the same thing to me in another comment thread.”
… Do you really not see how that goes directly against his contention?
And what am I doing to you in another comment thread? I don’t know how else to put this. That quotation literally refutes his contention. How does it not?
Watching a documentary now and it strikes me that what Langan is proposing has already been done in china.
For example, I bet he would agree that people bred to be high IQ also should be peaceful, cooperative, think about the common good etc.
WELL THE EMPEROR ALREADY DID THAT IN CHINA.
So basically if you want to see what would happen:
1. The iq bump would be in ‘nerdy’ types of IQ.
2. Physical prowess would drop.
3. Creativity would drop.
But maybe Langan can point to Japan as a better example. Or Korea.
Countries that evolved people to be high IQ and evil (‘clannish’):
Israel
Former Khazaria
Italy
Armenia
Countries that bred people that are low IQ and evil
Pakistan
North Africa
Most of Africa
Eygpt
Central America excl mexico
Culturally or maybe instinctively we tend not to view low IQ ‘thugs’ as ‘evil’ per se. Generally speaking you have to be of above average intelligence to be considered evil.
I would say the more desertic/low ressources the climate is the more evil the population is. If you look at the most sociopathic ethnic groups you see they originate in semi-desertic climate.
For black Africans and other tropical population it’s a bit different. When you have a lot of ressources you don’t need to be as cut-throat, cunning, dishonest and manipulative as in a low ressources environment.
Differences in IQ might be explain by exposure to the cold. Central Amerindians live in the same type of environment as Subsaharan Africans hence the similarity in behaviour. But the former where exposed to cold and temperate climate before they arrived there while Africans never leaved their jungle.
Same thing with southern Europeans and MENA who live in a semi-desertic mediterranean climate. Southern Euros where exposed to the cold before they arrived there, not MENA hence the IQ difference. Also MENA are much closer to real deserts and they are clearly more sociopathic than Italians or other southern Europeans. Gulf Arabs are probably the most sociopathic of MENA and they evolved in a real desert.
James Damore has come out as an aspie. Pumpkin made a comment some time ago that aspies are least likely to be politically correct….but most likely to be MORALLY correct pumpkin.
The aspy philosophy: FIRST DO NO EVIL. EVEN AGAINST EVIL. EVERYONE IS INHERENTLY NOT EVIL.
0 evidence that people are not genetically inclined to dark triad traits. In fact its the opposite.
The autist 10 commandments:
1. Everyone is just like you.
2. Follow the rules.
3. When in doubt, follow the rules.
4. Always do what a person in authority says e.g. parents, teachers, policemen, judges, emperors.
5. The world would be better if everyone was a robot.
6. Never harm physically.
7. Inanimate objects +1, non-object fetish interests -1.
8. People become rich when they follow rules hard enough.
9. Work Hard.
10. Never lie.
Actually no.10 doesnt make sense because aspies actually neurologically cannot lie. The opposite of aspies in this regard are psychopaths. So badcock needs to flesh out how psychopaths are more direct opposites to aspies than schizos in many respects.
Autism is a very weird phenomenon. And to me its very unnatural. The only way you can think about it is people like Chris Langan were put in public policy positions and created people basically in test tubes to think like this.
Brave New World – Aldous Huxley
I’m number 9 and 10. It is mentally hard for me to lie for whatever reason.
Sounds like a Marine.
the only thing i can lie about is how much i’ve drunk.
#8 is awesome.
#14. never laugh unless everyone else is laughing.
“#14. never laugh unless everyone else is laughing.”
Very true.
Found out the other day my sisters boyfriend went to an AA meeting that Mel Gibson was at. Incredible. St Gibson walks in the body of a man so that we may be cleaned of all our sins.
that was a mel gibson meeting alcoholics went to.
only 55.8% of millenials are non-hispanic white.
The only thing ive learned being a ‘high IQ’ guy with a top 0.0001 or whatever VIQ is that nobody believes anything I say when I get to a certain point in telling them about how I think the world works. They will actually agree with the reasoning and can follow your evidence, but once you say things like ‘racism is mind control tool’ and ‘we’re under occupation by a foreign very high IQ psychopath foreign elite’, they just refuse to believe it.
People in communist russia who said the exact same thing ‘ we are under occupation by a psychopathic foreign elite’ got worst treatment I suppose. The difference in the west today is that it is even more #immoral’ or taboo to say it due to the wonderful work of the priest caste in the media.
I led a smartish guy I know up the mountain trail. I argued US foreign policy is imperialistic. Then I progressed to the idea the US and most of Europe is controlled by neoconservatives. And heres the evidence blah blah blah, but then when I made the ‘reveal’ and said it was a jewish conspiracy he started laughing.
Its conditioning. From a young age gentiles are conditioned not to think races and tribes of man are inherently antagonistic. They are conditioned to accept predators in their midst. Or like robert, may actually be kind of autistic leaning in not having that intuition to ‘feel’ that bad guys are bad because theyre bad.
[redacted by pp, dec 9, 2017]
If I say I believe in god I also think smartish people think Im stupid or crazy. Whereas stupid people think I have a good nature. Actually the truth is my belief is based on reason and I don’t believe in christian morality. So its neither.
Another ‘stupid’ thing I say often is that socialism is good for the economy and redistribution makes everyone better off. Again, people just can’t grasp that taking money from the Caymans Islands earning 1% interest on government paper and giving it to high IQ sons of retarded soldiers and demented housewives is a good idea..
Or another one might be that academia is hardcore brainwashing. And that colleges sort high IQ people to be brainwashed even more than low IQ people who must take their brainwashing from Hollywood and ad agencies. Again, crickets. People think professors would never lie or never be scared to speak their minds in the ‘open’ West. Hahahahaha. Bunch of fuckin retards I’ve had to speak with all my life.
Even on the alt right blogs I see people coming out with cuckold stuff like ‘the miracle of the free market’ and ‘fighting muslim oppression of freedom’. Urgh.
When Robert wrote the other day that ‘X is a racist’, i just realised no matter how many times I explain it, the theory of what Im saying and how the pattern holds historically yadda yadda, if you are leaning A on the spectrum, you won’t emotionally feel it. And if you lean S, you will ‘get it’ with very little beckoning. You won’t need to create a convoluted ‘economic’ rationale for why groups of people do evil things.
Shall I give you a hint:
You’re overconfrontational, people will believe you if you leave a breadcrumb trail and allow them to construct the arguments themselves, coming to believe that they came up with the ideas themselves.
If you insist on your own brilliance at their expense, they will define themselves in opposition to you regardless of your correctness of their intelligence. They take your revealing to them of this theory they never considered as a tacit suggestion of their naivete and this conflicts with their self-image as intelligent, considered adults.
Persuasion is about reconciling your argument and their self-image. If you define them in opposition to one another people will reject them, at least at first while they consider alternatives.
or their intelligence*
*you have seen the skill of a true ninja.
In fact, this is how elites conduct their massive brainwashing campaigns.
If you frame a progamme of self-destruction such as cultural marxism as a plausibly morally righteous activist movement and couple that with a sophistic rationalization, people will, in desiring to reconcile their self-image with a morally righteous programme of activism use the tennants of the sophism to internally rationalize why they ought to become cultural-marxist activists.
In this way elites get ordinary people to take actions against their own best interests by manipulating their good intentions.
Tenents*
who is robert?
he sounds like a moron.
And so we conclude that the truth is not to be reasoned to as such. It is a matter of instinct for most people. This is why jocks understand female nature more than bookish men. And why people with primitive brains understand predators more than people with domesticated brains. Instinct. Aesthetics. There is no need to reason beyond a certain point. You either see it. Or you can;t see it. I can’t tell Bill Gates why he dresses badly. I could keep explaining it to him. But he wouldn’t ‘feel it’.
I am henceforth going to stop talking about the jews. Its a waste of time.
“I can’t tell Bill Gates why he dresses badly.”
you always says schizo/socially smart people know how to dress, like arts, musics, are creative, etc.
do you think it’s social intelligence that make one instinctively know how to dress/being more creative or it’s something else that the master selected “not be” in autistic people (who are result of selection by the master if i properly understood your thesis) ?
I guess he would argue that schizophrenic people dress in such a way as to assert themselves in social situations, hyper-aware of how they people around them think/make judgements, the appearance must be contrived towards making a positive impression and in particular an individualistic, “I don’t give a fuck, I’m right and you’re wrong” appearance.
Whereas the aspie is completely unaware of how he looks and unaware of how far he’s being judged for it. So they wear “Nerdy” clothing that appeals to them personally but have no idea how that makes him look stupid to others.
Something like a punk, aggressive look vs a dorky anime shirt with pit-stains.
No dress sense comes from aesthetic taste. I cant explain it but when people tell me I have good fashion sense it not because I imagine what people will think, but because I know what Im wearing is the ‘right’ fit. If you ask blacks why they dress so oddly and that the last thing theyll say is because they were trying to impress people. In my opinion, autists don’t have this aesthetic sense. I’ve always noticed how east asians and nerds I knew had very messy or functional workspaces, bedrooms or houses. There is no decoration.
And generally speaking, people dont kit out their workspaces and bedrooms to impress people.
fashion is gay.
>and that the last thing theyll say is because they were trying to impress people.
Because this is social suicide, to admit that you’re status conscience implies that it’s possible to threaten you with loss of status. Part of “Cool” is not caring that you’re “Cool” and appearing to do it effortlessly.
Aesthetic taste, is, at least in some of its incarnations an outgrowth of our social apparatus.
>I imagine what people will think
No, you imagine what you will think, and unlike an autist that is instinctively coupled with your social apparatus. It’s how, without thinking, you know certain things are stupid in social situations without even stopping to consider how other people would think about it.
i will tend to agree with philosopher.
gypsy, if persons who dress well do it because they are more aware of what people around would like then explain why the people around aren’t able to dress as well if they are supposed to like the way the person who dress well dress himself ?
to simplify my thought, why normies would find someone who dress better than they are to be not as aesthetically pleasing as themselves ? if they were able to see that this person dress better than themselves they would also dress themselves this way.
>why the people around aren’t able to dress as well if they are supposed to like the way the person who dress well dress himself ?
Bell curve.
People with IQ’s of 130 can recognize someone with an IQ of 150.
You’re on an IQ blog. Your mind should immediately jump to one of the most common ideas in the shared semantic field we’re using.
Some contend that all we call reasoning is rationalization after the fact of our preferred worldview.
Bill Gates doesn’t “Get it” because in his worldview, dressing like that shows him to be casual and friendly and in his mind it shouldn’t matter anyway because “People should judge me on my merits!” not realizing for even an instant that this isn’t a question of what people ought to do, it’s a question of what they do, in fact, do.
People rationalize back to what they’d prefer to be the “Is” of this world from what they think the world “Ought” to be. This is why people on the far-left believe what they do.
In a sense, intelligence, as you rightfully point out in different terms, is in most cases and perhaps all the cognitive capacity for rationalization, and even self-delusion.
This is a very good comment. But I would even go further and say there are some objective phenomenon that can be commented on but some people, and maybe they sacrifice these traits in a tradeoff for another cognitive skill, do not have the mental apparatus to ascertain some phenomenon to a high level. A good example is aesthetics e.g. product design, fashion, film making. But more controversial ones would be be things like moral intuition or propositional ‘judgement’. I do think these are provided in different levels to people and without sufficient levels, even basic observations are not possible.
what is called the “left” today either doesn’t exist or is focused on everything except what matters, economic issues.
“from each according to his ability. to each according to his need.”
ENTAILS that…
abilities differ.
duh!
“the left” is either a strawman or a handful of blue-haired lesbians.
Objective phenomenon can be commented on, but in order that we don’t reject it must be possible to reconcile it with our self-image.
For instance you may be able to see certain conspiracies at work that are actually at work because the prospect doesn’t offend you or make you feel naive, it seems a natural conclusion to you. For most people they’ve been trained essentially to think certain things are morally terrifying, to persuade them of the opposite you have to allow them to reconcile their own self-image as a moral, considered, intelligent person with the belief in a more extreme point of view.
Yes. But but I do believe at the bottom of all debates, shared propositional requisites are often there if the cognitive traits are there. It would be a bit like a martial arts instructor with a black belt teaching a blue belt person, rather than teaching a white belt. A simple thing for example is recognising basic logical fallacies.
Sure you will get people that have a certain lean towards throwing more than takedowns, or have a weak left arm or whatever but at certain skill levels you will verge onto shared prerequisite techniques. You won’t need to bend the arm to convince as much because the person is already equipped and the tools will always remark upon the techniques.
My biggest concern about whether you can tell the truth to someone is the idea that some things can only be seen through instinct. For example, some men are naturally better with women or naturally gifted in sports or music. Those things can’t be taught and if you put it into a textbook the reader won’t ‘feel it’ to understand it.
We’re talking about the same thing in different terms, I believe.
You go one further and suggest that the self-image required to observe certain phenomenon (or as you call it, propositional requisites, I believe it’s tethered more in the ego than in someones reasoning because their reasoning is post-hoc justification for their ego/self-image) is cognitive, and I would assume you mean biological, genetic in origin and that therefore your concern is that those without this predetermined set of natural behaviours cannot instinctively apprehend, if I read you.
I would agree with you if we were in a vacuum, but we are not. Through persuasion it is possible to meticulously develop at least some neutral parties self-image and pride in such a way that it will allow it to reconcile with certain truths. Though originally only one party may be possessed of the natural ability to see things a certain way, he may memetically spread his worldview and inculcate it in people who would otherwise believe something more liberal for instance.
Essentially what I’m suggesting is that the matured art of persuasion is the art of leading someone down the primrose path such that their self-esteem allows, and is ultimately dependent on the reasoning you provide.
In other words, manufacturing in the minds of others the seeds of instinct through rhetoric.
To create in them certain emotional responses.
Bear in mind this isn’t possible for all parties.
Bear in mind this isn’t possible for all parties.
It’s not possible when one is too invested in a certain idea or when one’s economic or ethnic genetic interests prevent them from changing their mind.
No not really PP.
Both of those can be moulded because they’re complex ideas that’re part of the rationalization process rather than the instinct itself, they’re fragile and so long as someone can persuade you of a plausible logical reason to disagree that doesn’t immediately offend your instincts, they can distort your ideological frame of reference.
Phil is quite right when he talks about instinct, most women will never “Get” or it’s better to say “Want to get” sports in the same way a man will, the motivation and instinct is just not there.
But so long as you’re motivated to think along certain lines and I can load you with enough plausible complex information to defeat your defenses and provide you with good reason to treat me as an authority that’s not in conflict with your self-image as an intelligent considered adult i.e. I don’t make you feel inferior or stupid, I can probably persuade you of any number of worldviews.
You failed to pursuade Afro that blacks have genetically lower IQs.
You’re implying I was using this selfsame persuasive strategy. I wasn’t.
It’s possible for someone to be in the process of developing ever more advanced theories on persuasion.
Also using Afro as the sole representative example is faulty when this blog has managed to attract a lot of people that’re apparently making concessions that’re against their EGI’s.
Never mistake a candid discussion of ideas as he and I had for a systematic attempt at persuasion.
A candid discussion of ideas is for personal edification and the development of your own ideas, if you’re using the strategy of candid conversation for persuasion you’re only kidding yourself.
gypsy is one of those oxford philosophy fools who can never see anything because he’s always polishing his spectacles.
it’s a lot more than “self-image” gay-psy.
being a bad person, stupid person, gross person, etc. is only ONE fear people have.
they also fear pain and suffering, poverty, death, loneliness, boredom, etc.
I must have borrowed some strange glasses, because you look green to me.
Envy is never a good look, Robert.
envious of whom?
your reading comprehension is as good as your ability to think.
I get an Oxford interview and you make a barbed remark about Oxford, sure looks like envy to me.
Both are better than literally any skill you’ve ever displayed. I won’t even bother explaining why you’ve missed the point so completely, or why you don’t understand my idea let alone have the right to criticise it.
Phil’s got it.
idiot! how would i know that?
“oxford philosophy” is a synonym for “analytic linguistic philosophy” or “anglo-american philosophy”.
it’s the stupidity stupid.
sad!
Beyond retarded.
Most of the significant analytic thinkers in the UK were Cambridge-based, most notably Russell and Wittgenstein, who themselves were a part of the Cambridge Apostles, Wittgensteins thinking having its origin in the Vienna circle itself related to Russell through Godel.
Also, because I wrote about it.
gay-psy is what happens when master selects and selects and…then an idiot.
i’m sure gay-psy will thrive when he analyzes all concepts to death EXCEPT “leftists”/”the left”.
the british are such unbelievable FUCKTARDS.
very sad for his family. they aren’t british.
but he can always join the bonanno crime family as an associate.
…
cambridge, oxford, mushy peas college london, etc.
DISTINCTIONS WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE.
but autists can’t tell the difference between words and things. so it happens.
OBEY ANDRE THE GIANT!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary_language_philosophy
READ IT!
jesus fucking christ!
i am so fucking sick and tired of stupid people.
>i am so fucking sick and tired of stupid people.
You must live in a house of mirrors, and better Mushy peas than Mushy brains.
Also consider the following:
You’re the kind of ass that reads widely about subjects unrelated to his degree choice just so they’re not caught out in conversation. I’d rather read the blurb and spend the rest of my day actually living life.
I’d tell you to take a long walk off a short pier Mugabe, but since that’d involve leaving your house and you’re already busy drinking yourself to death maybe it’s in everybody’s best interest if you stay inside.
You fucking sissy.
That poodle has more bite than you.
“On the other hand, maybe Obama really knew nothing: he sent his daughter to intern under Harvey. You might think that if you are President, you’d have access to a lot of information. But Obama generally gave the impression he didn’t want to know. Look at how he played his 333 rounds of golf with absolute nobodies like his ski bum body man Marvin Nicholson. And he played dozens of rounds with, hilariously, Marvin’s brother.”
Obama was a good man. I think my judgement of him is correct and the alt righties are wrong. But I’ve been right about Trump as well consistently and nobody listens.
http://www.unz.com/isteve/jean-claude-juncker-at-it-again/
I couldnt stop laughing at this.
Especially the last comment from Steve Sailor.
This journalist really is out of his fucking mind. Those questions hahahaha. Its like they hired me to take the piss.
“And do you find immigrants as sexually attractive as I do?”
“Why are we spending money on Europeans….MOTHER AFRICA AWAITS AYYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYYI!”
Its starting to get to a point where I cant satirise these people anymore.
I looked at these multibillion valuations of tech companies and think: QE. What the fuck do these companies do. Facebook is a website. Amazon is a online mail order catalogue. Google is a search algorithm that makes money in advertising.
Investors are buying these companies because theyre trendy. Its the 99 boom all over again but at least there is some revenue there rather the just the ‘potential’.
Chicago ‘economists’ deserve to be walked off the plank.
Buffet is 100% right about tech companies. Avoid them like the plague. In the book, Alice Schroeder mentions he did a presentation to all the Silicon Valley CEOs in 1997 saying all their business models were fake news and people called him a dinosaur.
I’m 100% certain, even talking to Bill Gates, he still thinks most of it is a bunch of crap.
Although to be fair, Elon Musk does a lot of good things….but he is actually more of a traditional industrialist now.
There is a line in the book where Buffet says he kind of regrets not investing in Intel but is happy in following his general philosophy because he would have lost much more chasing the dragon.
I think it pays to be cynical to be an investor but the academic studies show short selling is not the way to do it. Just avoid the theramos of the world.
i expect the short funds can lose money on average and still attract investors.
or that’s the way it should be. ideally the hedge fund space is populated exclusively by funds in one category. then the investor can mix and match himself.
that is, there are many fund categories, but no fund is in more than one category.
Elizabeth holmes looks autistic. Its the ‘do gooder’ stare in that video that is off putting.
The board of directors looks like it could be from the CFR website. But not quite as jewish.
it’s her voice, not her appearance.
people confuse these so often.
i agree she looks autistic with her large blue eyes.
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fc1.staticflickr.com%2F9%2F8117%2F8748515238_b6e98cc0bb_z.jpg&f=1
Dark triad types even look it. Its instinctive to me. I can’t explain why but they look it.
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fronaldwederfoort.files.wordpress.com%2F2017%2F06%2F114a7-john-podesta-pedo-ring-netflix.jpg&f=1
This man look like [redacted by pp, dec 10, 2017].
Hilarys campaign manager.
I saw James Woods accused Podesta of the rumours that Pumpkin keeps moderating. Woods is I believe the highest tested IQ actor alive. Woods is an interesting guy.
link to the tweet where woods accuses podesta of being a chimo.
it’s the blase look. the way of looking at you who is already knowing you have done something bad. like it know what you have done but doesn’t care.
only socially smart people have this look. autistic leaning people have a more blind look like a child watching his parents or teacher. and who will take everything you say with great seriousness, granting you value.
my english is terrible.
Honest question. Maybe Im too extreme sometimes, If you read Podestas emails he is definitely covering a paedophile ring right? It seems obvious to me. At first I thought the emails were doctored to look bad, but no…they are originals on wikileaks website.
Why would someone ask if the kids are coming to a pool party? Why would someone be so interested? It just makes no sense unless you see the codewords as codes for a paedophile/occult gang.
The one piece of evidence john could mention is that women were involved in the events and women are rarely paedophiles.
But the artwork in his brothers house and the photos on the companies instagram account are damning. Why would someone joke about being a paedophile. Even the guy that shot up the place was listed on IMDB as a failed actor.
The owner of the pizza place building is the head of child trafficking at the DOJ, legally speaking.
To me its a open and shut case.
yeah. something smells really bad with the artwork, with abramovich, with the non-sensical emails.
whether it’s a rotting corpse or a rotting opossum idk.
it’s open and shut that something is wrong. what it is is not clear.
Capitalims, unfettered is a system that selects the best psychopaths. Thats why people like Podesta and Hilary are even in the running for office despite the overwhelming evidence of their personal decrepitude and sickening behaviour – the media and establishment keeps hiding it because they too are psychopathic leeches.
capitalism or any other system has successes and failures, happy and unhappy. the USSR had the highest suicide rate supposedly.
what’s autistic ala steve shoe and psychology profs is the assumption that status, success, achievement, etc. is desirable and enviable irrespective of the system.
that is, autists think of human societies in the same way they think of the laws of physics, as given. they are oblivious to all the ways human societies differ and have differed. they are oblivious to the fact that the societies of men are man-made. it’s like putting a house made of wood in the same category as a tree.
autism is a form of somnambulism.
But in the end, the people choose the system. In a sense they choose their elites too. If the elites are of a certain dark triad minority…they will chose an evil system to reproduce people like themselves. You need a revolution at that point.
aristo- vs kako-cracy
there is no a priori reason that the elite should be the best, but autists identify the two without a thought.
the autist thinks:
all rules should be followed. why? because they are rules.
as kurtz said:
We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won’t allow them to write “fuck” on their airplanes. because? it’s obscene!
This is why technology is not the answer. If anything technology is inordinately placed in the hands of the already rich and powerful. As it was in the latter half of the 20th century to mind control people. The answer is people like Paine, Rousseau, Martin Luther etc. Personal character and integrity.
I used not to like guinness. Now I think its a fantastic rejoinder to spirits. Hop beers and cider doesn’t agree with my stomach these days.
But for me – whisky. Whisky. Whisky.
Guiness has some of the best advertisements over the years.
you haven’t lived until you’ve had a belgian abbey beer.
nothing compares.
and all the best whisky is single malt islay.
Melo are you a nativist, associationist or constructivist?
Nativists assume that natural selection will ensure common genes and especially common functioning. Less strict Nativists argue that cognitive differences result from random genetic mutations. Constructivists assume that individual differences emerge from experience in development. Associationists assume that the mind is composed of elements which are then organized by various associations. Call it ‘continual learning’.
And another view is that organisms are “active in incorporating environmental structures and changing their own structures and functions to accommodate them. This view reflects the extensive evidence that systems have evolved with many buffering mechanisms and ways of varying in adaptive, creative ways. Nearly all individuals will have good enough systems for assimilating structures of experience and actively generating individual differences accordingly. After that, to quote Eric Turkheimer again, “behavior emerges our of a hyper-complex developmental network into which individual genes and individual environmental events are inputs. The systematic causal effects of any of those inputs are lost in the developmental complexity of the network.” (Richardson, 2017: 231)
The only Innate part of intelligence is the mechanisms that code for the organisms cranial development, beyond that Intelligence is experience dependent’. Meaning Genes and what not will tell the organism it needs a brain this large, but if it doesn’t have proper nutrition or even the right amount of sensory play, it will not reach it’s full potential.
If there was a child with no sense of….sense, would it learn anything or even grow any kind of intelligence? I doubt it. How could you possibly manipulate an object or talk about an object if you have never seen it. Originality is a semantic illusion.
If phil was a super hero