[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 
[redacted by pp, dec 4, 2017]
To determine the influence of chronic ethanol intake and nutritional status on cerebellar shrinkage in alcoholism, we studied 12 undernourished patients with acute Wernicke’s encephalopathy (WE), 12 undernourished and 24 well‐nourished asymptomatic chronic alcoholics, and 24 age‐matched well‐nourished controls, using morphometric analysis of MRI scans with volumetry of the cerebellum. Alcoholics reported a mean daily intake of ethanol of 177±8 g over a period of 27±1 years. Most undernourished alcoholics and half of the well‐nourished alcoholics, compared to one‐tenth of the controls, showed a significant reduction in cerebellar volume (p≤0.01, both). Alcoholics with cerebellar shrinkage (n=33) were older (p=0.05) and tended to report greater daily ethanol intake than alcoholics without cerebellar shrinkage (n=15), although not significantly so (p=0.09).
177+/-8f per day is about 3/4s of a bottle of hard liquor.
so the bottom line is probably that even in the well-nourished the cause of cerebellar atrophy was mediated by thiamine and folate deficiency or liver damage, because 50% showed no atrophy.
500 ml of brandy for 27 years and the odds are only 50% of any brain damage!
[redacted by pp, dec 4, 2017]
Well researched and well written article, even though I’m not convinced sexual selection had much to do with the evolution of human intellect. Sexual selection has generally been invoked to explain things that have no clear survival value like a peacock’s feathers. With intelligence, the survival value is extremely obvious so sexual selection theories always seemed kind of redundant to me.
“Well researched and well written article, even though I’m not convinced sexual selection had much to do with the evolution of human intellect.”
Read Geoffrey Miller. Though I am skeptical of these explanations due to a few large meta analyses I’ve seen. I’ll link them later.
“Sexual selection has generally been invoked to explain things that have no clear survival value like a peacock’s feathers.”
Well some actually believe the peacocks tail can actually be used to ward off predators too. As I said in the introductory paragraph, Sexual selection is pressure on a trait that boosts sexual fitness. Sex is apart of survival and if you can’t attract the opposite mate if you do not pass on your genes.
Sex is apart of survival and if you can’t attract the opposite mate if you do not pass on your genes.
Person A lives to 20 and fathers 5 kids
Person B lives to 60 and fathers 5 kids
Both pass on the same amount of genes, but person A does it through sexual success (lots of women in a short span of time) while person B does it through survival success (a long life makes up for slow sex life). I suspect the latter is more correlated with IQ and was more selected in Eurasia.
“I suspect the latter is more correlated with IQ and was more selected in Eurasia.”
Well yes life expectancy has a big correlation with IQ. But your model assumes the latter individual is even getting the chance to have kids, and it also assumes that former individual is using something other than IQ to get women. I’m sure this could evolve into another conversation about personality vs intelligence but i think you’d be hard pressed to say that intelligent people are not usually equipped with intelligent and charismatic personalities. I don’t think it’s fair to narrow the definition of intelligence to not include traits like theory of mind which governs empathy. Empathy allows the right words to be produced which can form good humor, romantic statements, or just high aptitude in general communication.
Well yes life expectancy has a big correlation with IQ. But your model assumes the latter individual is even getting the chance to have kids, and it also assumes that former individual is using something other than IQ to get women. I’m sure this could evolve into another conversation about personality vs intelligence
Well someone with an extraverted temperament is likely to get more women, as is someone with a high sex drive, aggressive attitude, and tall, good looking, muscular appearance. Most of these traits are only weakly correlated with IQ, and sometimes negatively. There’s a reason why Hollywood portrays high IQ people as nerdy virgins and low IQ people as sexually active. This stereotype is wildly exaggerated for comic effect, but a lot of truth is said in jest.
but i think you’d be hard pressed to say that intelligent people are not usually equipped with intelligent and charismatic personalities. I don’t think it’s fair to narrow the definition of intelligence to not include traits like theory of mind which governs empathy. Empathy allows the right words to be produced which can form good humor, romantic statements, or just high aptitude in general communication.
I think caeteris paribus, high IQ guys are better at getting women than low IQ guys, but just because one’s smart overall, doesn’t mean they’re going to be smart in all areas. If there was an evolutionary trade-off between intelligence and reproductive output (as Rushton & life history theory imply), then a lot of smart people might not be sexually successful, either for cognitive, motivational, hormonal, physical, or anatomical reasons. To quote Rushton “more brains or more penis. You can’t have everything”
In bees, the queen bee has an extremely tiny brain precisely because her only function is reproduction. The worker bees who don’t reproduce need much bigger brains.
“…but i think you’d be hard pressed to say that intelligent people are not usually equipped with intelligent and charismatic personalities.”
There are at least two main, discrete groups from where a person of high above intelligence can emerge (with physiological differences in the brain between the two kinds): http://www.intelligentpeopleforum.com/threads/musical-improvisation-doesnt-require-high-intelligence.50/#post-358
I think the former group—the one with high scientific creativity—produces what we call geniuses more often, but the latter group of high artistic creativity can still churn the odd one out every now and then, and they will be the ones with what we might call a “charismatic personality”, although most probably not near as extraverted as individuals of average intelligence within the same group.
Great, thought provoking post, meLo.
Ruryse,
“with physiological differences in the brain between the two kinds”
Is it just correlations? The Nature link in that thread doesn’t work.
Pumpkin
“as is someone with a high sex drive, aggressive attitude, and tall, good looking, muscular appearance. Most of these traits are only weakly correlated with IQ”
But as I demonstrated these traits don’t cluster within races. Each race has it’s own combination of traits. East asians and Capoid women obviously found Paedomorphism more attractive at some point in their History. IQ is less important to me than brain size and actual physical representations of intelligence.
“This stereotype is wildly exaggerated for comic effect, but a lot of truth is said in jest.”
But that’s not true, nerds are actually less happy with life outcomes, and happiness has a huge correlation with IQ.
“If there was an evolutionary trade-off between intelligence and reproductive output”
But there isn’t. It all really depends on the heterochronies acting upon the Organism. Humans achieve large brain size, long lives, large size because of mostly Hypermorphosis. Cephalopods dont achieve large brains this way, instead they use primarily acceleration, which as a result they only live up to 2 years and breed by the thousands.
“To quote Rushton “more brains or more penis. You can’t have everything””
But rushton has been scientifically proven to be a dumbass. Penis size has nothing to do with sexual reproduction, testes size does, Chimps have larger testes but smaller dicks.
“In bees, the queen bee has an extremely tiny brain precisely because her only function is reproduction. The worker bees who don’t reproduce need much bigger brains.”
Actually:
“Again, group size is not the issue in either case, but rather social skills. Bee and wasp species in which the queens are social (several queens share a nest) have larger mushroom bodies (the part of the brain that handles social behaviour) than species that nest solitarily, and within these social species queens have larger mushroom bodies than workers. ”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5498304/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049053/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3084094/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2880158/
But as I demonstrated these traits don’t cluster within races. Each race has it’s own combination of traits.
But Negroids are more athletic on average than Caucasoids who are more athletic on average than Mongoloids. Look at most of the athletes women find attractive, from runners, to basketball players, to football players, to boxers, to body builders, and Negroids are the most overrepresented at the elite level, Mongoloids are the most underrepresented, with Caucasoids being intermediate.
Rushton and the pop culture also claim a parallel pattern for sexual anatomy though high quality data is lacking.
East asians and Capoid women obviously found Paedomorphism more attractive at some point in their History.
How do you know they were selected through sexual selection and not natural selection proper? Or they may have simply been genetic drift, with no selection at all.
But that’s not true, nerds are actually less happy with life outcomes, and happiness has a huge correlation with IQ.
Citation needed
“If there was an evolutionary trade-off between intelligence and reproductive output”
But there isn’t.
Of course there is:
It all really depends on the heterochronies acting upon the Organism. Humans achieve large brain size, long lives, large size because of mostly Hypermorphosis. Cephalopods dont achieve large brains this way, instead they use primarily acceleration, which as a result they only live up to 2 years and breed by the thousands.
The exception that proves the rule. Most big brained life are not big breeders and most big breeders are not big brained. Even cephalopods are only big brained relative to invertebrates.
But rushton has been scientifically proven to be a dumbass.
In what parallel universe did this occur?
Chimps have larger testes but smaller dicks.
Rushton just used penis size as a proxy for genitalia size which doesn’t work too well on chimps. But the OVERALL genitalia size of Chimps is greater than humans and even their dicks are bigger than you think:
“Again, group size is not the issue in either case, but rather social skills. Bee and wasp species in which the queens are social (several queens share a nest) have larger mushroom bodies (the part of the brain that handles social behaviour) than species that nest solitarily, and within these social species queens have larger mushroom bodies than workers. ”
Mushroom bodies != overall brain size: The queen bee has a smaller brain than a worker bee.
Ruryse and RR
“I think the former group—the one with high scientific creativity—produces what we call geniuses more often, but the latter group of high artistic creativity can still churn the odd one out every now and then, and they will be the ones with what we might call a “charismatic personality”, although most probably not near as extraverted as individuals of average intelligence within the same group.”
“Is it just correlations? ”
Yes it’s just correlations, this does not debunk g. It is simply VBM patterns Both parts of the brain still function through synaptic plasticity.
“Yes it’s just correlations, this does not debunk g.”
I know it doesn’t. Post hoc, causation, directionality, etc etc.
“It is simply VBM patterns Both parts of the brain still function through synaptic plasticity.”
Go on.
Seems mental stability is a very good predictor of life expectancy and it’s tends to correlate with higher general cognitive skills. But because mental instability tend to correlates with addictive behavior and suicide, the better way to analyse this possible causation would be isolating all external or indirect factors which reduce life expectancy to see if higher cognitive skills, regardless personality traits, will be ”more” causal to increase/d life ”size”…
[or not]
that’s john holmes the chimp.
Humans are often claimed to have the largest penises among primates. This is true for penile girth, but not for length given that chimpanzee and bonobo erect penis length is comparable to that of humans (erect length 14 – 17 cm).
so i guess chimps are growers and not showers, but they have needle dicks.
Pumpkin
“But Negroids are more athletic on average than Caucasoids who are more athletic on average than Mongoloids.”
No they are not. Negroids only outperform Whites in sports that have to do with running, jumping, or being aggressive. Whites are the most athletically dominate race. Whites are also the most over-represented in body building.
“How do you know they were selected through sexual selection and not natural selection proper?”
As I explained to Philosopher, Pygmies and Mongoloids both are paedmorphic just in different ways, pygmies are paedmorphic almost entirely in size, and have more masculine faces than East asians. Even their limbs proportions are less paedomorphic which implies that resource allocation was a larger pressure in pygmies.
“Citation needed”
Click to access NEEPS-Program-2017_Full-Version_FINAL_6_14-1.pdf
Click to access correlation-between-the-fivefactor-model-of-personalityhappiness-and-the-academic-achievement-of-physical-education-students.pdf
Click to access ESCS-RepMar08.pdf
“Of course there is:”
No, that’s a cherry picking of random organisms.
“The exception that proves the rule. Most big brained life are not big breeders and most big breeders are not big brained. Even cephalopods are only big brained relative to invertebrates.”
LOL no, East asians had the highest fertility. There are plenty of exceptions to this “rule” which is why it is no longer in popular use. Even then this supposed trade off isn’t between intelligence and offspring number it is: “a trade-off between maximizing body size and maximizing lifespan, and between maximizing offspring size and maximizing offspring number.”
“In what parallel universe did this occur?”
It happened in this universe, when the majority of the scientific community called Rushton out for his flawed methodology and ideologic conclusions, not only that but RR and I have already debunked his garbage multiple times.
“But the OVERALL genitalia size of Chimps is greater than humans and even their dicks are bigger than you think”
Humans have much wider variation in dick size, and that still doesn’t address the issue.
“Mushroom bodies != overall brain size:”
Mushrom bodies= the most important part of bee brains. Equivalent to our PFC.
Whites are the most athletically dominate race.
Forbes publishes a list of the highest paid athletes in the World. I looked at just the top 20 who were U.S. citizens and found Blacks are 75% of America’s highest paid athletes, despite being only 13% of America. Whites are only 25% of America’s highest paid athletes despite being 72% of America. Seems blacks are way more athletically dominant per capita.
Whites are also the most over-represented in body building.
I know you meant power lifting, but for the record, blacks are only 13% of America, but 78% of the top body builders in American history
LOL no, East asians had the highest fertility.
Birth rates are culturally sensitive and change dramatically over the centuries, but in recent times, Japan has had the lowest birth rate.
There are plenty of exceptions to this “rule” which is why it is no longer in popular use.
Given that there are millions of species in the World, it’s not hard to find many exceptions to almost any evolutionary trend, but the trend itself is well documented.
A few relevant quotes:
“This strategy of fewer, larger offspring correlating with increased encephalization remains intact even after independent changes in encephalization allometries in the evolutionary history of this clade.”
If a population evolves a larger brain, the metabolic costs of doing so must be paid for by either an increased energy turnover (direct metabolicconstraint) or by a trade-off with other energetically expensive costs of body maintenance, locomotion, or reproduction…
“Species with larger brains tend to have delayed development, reach reproductive maturity later than small-brained species, have fewer offspring, and typically have longer life spans.”
In a Swedish lab, Alexander Kotrschal has deliberately moulded the intelligence of small fish called guppies. From a starting population, he picked individuals with either unusually large or small brains for their bodies, and bred them together…After just two generations, Kotrschal had one lineage of guppies with brains that were 9 percent bigger than the other. And these individuals proved to be smarter—they outclassed their peers at a simple learning task…Their boosted smarts came at a price—the big-brained fish developed smaller guts and produced fewer offspring.
It happened in this universe, when the majority of the scientific community called Rushton out for his flawed methodology
It was not the majority, just a few people with very loud voices. And yet despite all the controversy, peer reviewed journals continued to publish Rushton’s findings.
RR
“Go on.”
What do you mean? That’s it.
Melo,
“Whites are also the most over-represented in body building.” *
This is a lie. Are you talking about the Golden Age of bodybuilding or today? I follow bodybuilding, for the record.
Citation needed for your claim.
Also thanks for citing me.
I meant like strong man competitions. Not who can make themselves look* the strongest. Pumpkin has also cited evidence that women do not like large muscles they just like a little definition.
“I meant like strong man competitions”
So not bodybuilding.
I agree with this and have argued this until my fingers are blue.
“Pumpkin has also cited evidence that women do not like large muscles they just like a little definition.”
I have too. Women like mesomorphs the most. Mesos are more likely to be bodybuilders. Endomorphs are more likely to be weightlifters (whites and Asians skew endo, blacks skew meso).
Also refresh my memory on that cite from PP.
Pumpkin,
“Forbes publishes a list of the highest paid athletes in the World. ”
That’s only in reference to Sports that pay a lot of money, like basketball or football. In reality Whites still play, and are better at more sports than blacks.
Still it becomes easy to see that the cause of this attraction is status, not their physical abilities.
“Birth rates are culturally sensitive and change dramatically over the centuries”
East asians have always had high fertility when unchecked.
“A few relevant quotes”
I get that. I’m not saying Organsims don’t sometimes trade between fertility and intelligence, I’m just saying that’s not the actual trade off taking place. Evolution doesn’t care about IQ it cares about body size and life span. Sometimes intelligence is a byproduct, other times it isn’t. And there’s multiple ways to achieve large brains, with humans show casing a mosaic of paedmoorphic and peramorphic traits. Humans are both r and K selected, the dominance is dependent on which race you think should be considered the average human.
“It was not the majority, just a few people with very loud voices. And yet despite all the controversy, peer reviewed journals continued to publish Rushton’s findings.”
Nobody takes Rushton seriously.
That’s only in reference to Sports that pay a lot of money, like basketball or football. In reality Whites still play, and are better at more sports than blacks.
But the sports that pay a lot of money are the ones people actually care about and the ones that attract the top talent. And it’s not just the most lucrative sports where blacks excel, but also those honored by the Olympics. Of America’s 25 top Olympic athletes, blacks are 36% (nearly triple their 13% of the U.S. population). By contrast whites are 72% of America, but only 60% of the top U.S. Olympians.
East asians have always had high fertility when unchecked.
If you divide the World into the 3 major races Rushton used, you find that total fertility rate fits Rushton’s model, averaging highest in Negroid regions and lowest in Mongoloid regions:
Negroid regions:
Sub-Saharan Africa 5.0
Mean: 5.0
Caucasoid regions:
Arab world 3.4
Middle East and North Africa 2.8
South Asia 2.6
Europe and Central Asia 1.7
Central Europe and the Baltics 1.4
North America 1.8
Mean 2.28
Mongoloid regions:
East Asia and Pacific 1.8
Mean: 1.8
Mixed race regions:
Latin America and Caribbean 2.1
Mean: 2.1
Also fitting Rushton’s theory was a 1985 analysis of 594 U.S. youths that found that Orientals were least sexually active and lost virginity latest and blacks were the most sexually active and lost virginity earliest, with whites and Hispanics intermediate.
I get that. I’m not saying Organsims don’t sometimes trade between fertility and intelligence, I’m just saying that’s not the actual trade off taking place. Evolution doesn’t care about IQ it cares about body size and life span. Sometimes intelligence is a byproduct, other times it isn’t.
In the r/K model, the actual trade-off taking place is offspring quantity vs offspring quality, which is really just common sense. An organism has a finite amount of resources and they can generally be spent either producing a few expensive offspring (K strategy) or a lot of cheap ones (r strategy). Intelligence, body size, and life span, are all K traits, because they’re all expensive, but intelligence is really K because a unit of brain tissue requires over 22 times as much metabolic energy as an equal unit of muscle tissue.
Nobody takes Rushton seriously.
He was taken seriously by the likes of E.O. Wilson, Herrnstein and Murray, Arthur Jensen, Richard Lynn, and the many peer reviewed journals that bravely published his work.
“So not bodybuilding.”
Sure whatever, semantics either way.
“Women like mesomorphs the most.”
A white mesomorph is probably going to get more pussy than a black one, of course though it depends. It should be noted I’m not trying to say women prefer one race or one look over another. In fact one of the main points of this article was to show that this isn’t the case and any modern preferences are just a result of globalization and media bias.
“Sure whatever, semantics either way.”
…. It’s not semantics. Bodybuilding and powerlifting have two different end goals in mind. Bodybuilders look different than powerlifters and its due to the type of training done. It’s literally not ‘semantics’.
“A white mesomorph is probably going to get more pussy than a black one, of course though it depends”
Source?
“just a result of globalization and media bias.”
Of course. Bigger women used to be seen as more attractive one hundred years ago. Now it’s different due to the media. Larger people were seen as more attractive in the middle ages because it was associated with wealth. Now thinness is associated with wealth while obesity is associated with poverty (of course this is very broad due to how our obesogenic environments facilitate the disease of diabesity).
“In reality Whites still play, and are better at more sports than blacks.”
Examples?
“It’s not semantics”
Yawn*, sounds like more semantics to me.
“Source?”
What are you talking about? Of course that happens.
“Examples?”
Literally any sport besides running, basketball, and football.
“Yawn*, sounds like more semantics to me.”
It’s literally not. Bodybuilders look different from powerlifters. Why is that? The type of training is the cause. It’s not semantics my friend. There are two different end goals in mind for each sport.
“What are you talking about? Of course that happens.”
It happens, but you made a positive claim: “A white mesomorph is probably going to get more pussy than a black one, of course though it depends”, depends on what? Of course it depends. Is there empirical data for this claim? Yea I realize you said “probably”.
“Literally any sport besides running, basketball, and football.”
Please be more specific.
“It’s literally not.”
They are both “building” their bodies. If you knew what i meant, why are you being so pedantic?
“depends on what?”
Somatype is not the only indicator of attraction, Whites have more hypermorphic/masculine faces than blacks do. Also don’t america blacks have higher levels of obesity?
“Is there empirical data for this claim? Yea I realize you said “probably”.”
Ok, so if you realize I said “probably” and you also realize somatype isn’t the only factor, why are you asking for empirical evidence? You seriously need a citation to realize that women dont absolutely and always prefer Black guys? Didn’t we have a big discussion already about the difference between forming an educated guess and forming scientific consensus? Why is every reply you make always a repetition of the first, you don’t attempt to understand peoples side of the arguments you just repeat ad nauseam and frustrate yourself.
“Also refresh my memory on that cite from PP.”
It was the post he made with the social experiment involving a skinny white kid and a muscular black guy, search the comments.
“They are both “building” their bodies. If you knew what i meant, why are you being so pedantic?”
Yea but bodybuilders actually strive to ‘build their bodies’ whereas powerlifters don’t really try to ‘build their bodies (hence the endo somatype, along with more body fat which also entails the endo soma).
“Somatype is not the only indicator of attraction”
I know but all else held equal, women will go for the meso soma more often than not. Women prefer mesos, ectos and finally endos:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19139985
In Study 1, women in both countries rated mesomorphic (muscular) and average male somatotypes as most attractive, followed by ectomorphic (slim) and endomorphic (heavily built) figures.
“Also don’t america blacks have higher levels of obesity?”
Yea.
But black American men with more African ancestry are less likely to be obese.
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fgene.2016.00089/full
You should also know that just because someone is obese/overweight doesn’t mean they’re automatically endo, as soma is predicated on more than just weight and weight distribution.
Average differences, of course. So with the average somatypes of the three races (blacks meso, whites endo and asians endo), what does this tell you, on average?
“Why is every reply you make always a repetition of the first, you don’t attempt to understand peoples side of the arguments you just repeat ad nauseam and frustrate yourself.”
Calm down dude. I’m nitpicky and (sometimes) make needless statements sometimes to argue more about things.
“It was the post he made with the social experiment involving a skinny white kid and a muscular black guy, search the comments.”
Can no longer do so.
“I know but all else held equal. So with the average somatypes of the three races (blacks meso, whites endo and asians endo), what does this tell you, on average?”
In regards to racial averages not all is held equal. I outlined this in my post. Also this hierarchy you established is based on American blacks who have mostly West African ancestry. As you claimed in your Somatype post West africans are mesomorphic, not east africans. I wonder what south Africans have? Also you are aware that Somatype measurements are pseudoscience? Interestingly a study on mate preference implied that mesomorph attraction may be a recent phenomena.
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd_legacy/247/
https://alexanderjuanantoniocortes.com/the-made-up-science-of-somatypes/
“Can no longer do so.”
I noticed, unfortunately it’s lost to the internet.
“In regards to racial averages not all is held equal”
Which is why if all is held equal then blacks would be seen as most attractive.
“Also this hierarchy you established is based on American blacks who have mostly West African ancestry.”
I am aware.
“As you claimed in your Somatype post West africans are mesomorphic, not east africans”
East Africans are Ecto-Meso.
“Also you are aware that Somatype measurements are pseudoscience?”
No it isn’t. 1) The origins of somatyping are irrelevant. 2) Somatypes are predicated on height, limb length, body fat, and, I believe, muscle fiber typing as well. Those traits have a high heritability. Height heritability is 80 percent. Muscle fiber heritability is 50 percent if I recall correctly. Heritability of lean mass is 50 percent. Therefore, due to the heritability of traits associated with somatype, somatype exists and helps to partly explain racial differences in sports.
And your first paper talks about somatype preference (will read it later when Sci-Hub goes back up).
Second link is dumb.
Somatotyping in its present usage is for determining morphology regarding muscle building potential and athleticism. It was never intended to be used this way though, and even during Sheldon’s lifetime, its repurposing for physical assessment and development was criticized by the scientific community
Not really ‘muscle building potential’, though it does predict what lifts you will excel at. Take 2 people, one has long arms and a short torso, the other has short arms and a long torso. Who would be the better puller? The better pusher?
Somatotyping was based off a very specific population of Caucasian, untrained males between the ages of 17 and 24 attending Ivy League universities. Sheldon also didn’t like Jews and actually singles them out in his book The Atlas of Men. When its progenitor was a known racist, how does this make the system applicable to trained populations and different ethnicities?
This is, again, irrelevant due to what I explained above about the heritability of somatypic traits.
Are there individuals with slower metabolisms who gain weight readily? Definitely! Are there guys who have to eat their faces off and train and train to build an ounce of muscle? Yep! Are there people who are predisposed to being big and strong? For sure!
This is irrelevant to somatyping (save ‘predisposed to being big and strong’, obviously not ‘predisposed’, but someone with longer limbs and shorter torso will excel on most lifts compared to the opposite).
At times, giving out recommendations based upon perceived somatotype can be pretty useful. I’ve trained endomorphs who did well on low carb diets. I’ve trained ectomorphs who needed an extraordinary number of calories, and I’ve had so called mesomorphics who put on muscle in a near linear fashion. But at the same time, there is so much variance in body type that the general scale of somatotyping really becomes nothing more than a very general guide. Does it really inform what kind of training is best for someone?
Wow, so have I. Again, irrelevant. He’s also talking about (I’m sure he knows), metabolism. In my professional experience, more often than not, ectos are hardgainers, endos are fast gainers and mesos skew fast gainer. Of course there is variance in body type; no one denies that. However, if you know one’s somatype—get this—you can tailor training programs to their somatype by accentuating their strengths and, of course, getting lifts up that are weak due to you bodily proportions.
What’s the point to the somatotypes then? Is it really helping anyone’s training beyond the novice stage? I don’t expect somatotypes to go away overnight, nor do I really want them to. They definitely have their uses, and they provide some semblance of perspective when looking at one’s physique.
Yes, perspective on which lifts the individual would excel at. The broscience myths about ‘haradgainers’ are irrelevant. (Though, of course, this is true to an extent given the 5-10 percent variability in metabolism amongst individuals).
“Which is why if all is held equal then blacks would be seen as most attractive.”
LOL if all else was held equal blacks wouldn’t be black. You’re basically saying ” If blacks were not black they would be the most attractive” Unless you mean by ignoring every other factor that comes into play except for somatype then yes. But at that point you’re just reaching.
“East Africans are Ecto-Meso.”
Can you provide me a citation followed by a quote?
“No it isn’t.”
It is they made an arbitrary classification system based off of random variables and then pigeonholed individuals into these categories. It’s like race but race has much more empirical and logical reasons to be a taxonomic system than somatype does. And no Muscle fiber typing was not a part of the original theory. The entire scientific community considers sheldon a hack and there has never been a consensus on the validity of somatype measurement.
In your post on race and somatype what was the sample size for each population compared?
“Those traits have a high heritability.”
Your point?
“And your first paper talks about somatype preference”
I know it was a citation to my last sentence of the first paragraph in the previous comment.
In regards to the second link, Somatype formula are of course still used in physical education and the such, but the point was that beyond novice stages the categorization will actually hold you back, nobody is a pure meso/ecto/endo and even with the health carter formula I fail to see how you could tailor a training regimen that fits each number algorithm perfectly. Good article below essentially showing that “ectomorphs may be able to lift as well as mesomorphs and endomorphs – with the only difference being that they have a higher metabolic rate ”
https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=90428
“Can you provide me a citation followed by a quote”
They’re actually just ecto, but with other measurements they’re Meso.
https://books.google.com/books?id=pmNwqI0YQOYC&pg=PA352&lpg=PA352&dq=east+African+somatotype&source=bl&ots=V5RXT9GbpD&sig=eKq6i14WjJANQ7DytmQ696XMnWo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj0-JPxtvrXAhXDneAKHeYxCJwQ6AEwAHoECAMQAQ
On my phone. Can’t provide quote. But, of course, their somatype is part of the reason why they excel in distance running.
“It is they made an arbitrary classification system based off of random variables and then pigeonholed individuals into these categories. It’s like race but race has much more empirical and logical reasons to be a taxonomic system than somatype does. And no Muscle fiber typing was not a part of the original theory. The entire scientific community considers sheldon a hack and there has never been a consensus on the validity of somatype measurement.”
I think he’s a hack too. I said ‘I believe’ muscle fiber typing is correlated with somatype, it’s an observation I’ve had, I didn’t say ‘I believe’ because I read it somewhere.
” In your post on race and somatype what was the sample size for each population compared?”
Need to check. I made a table from one of the tables in the paper I cited. Too lazy to check on my phone.
“Your point?”
Since they’re moderate to highly heritable then it shows the usefulness of somatype when it comes to weight lifting and strength training.
” but the point was that beyond novice stages the categorization will actually hold you back, nobody is a pure meso/ecto/endo”
I’m aware which is why there are other values, ecto-meso, etc etc.
“I fail to see how you could tailor a training regimen that fits each number algorithm perfectly.”
I said that people with certain somas will be better in general, like people with longer arms (ecto and Meso) will excel at pulling whole ends would excel at pushing. This is due to bodily proportions. Levers most definitely matter when it comes to strength training. And I use these thing in my work and it works.
“Good article below essentially showing that “ectomorphs may be able to lift as well as mesomorphs and endomorphs – with the only difference being that they have a higher metabolic rate ”
I’m aware. I’m an ectomorph. When talking about somatype you are pretty much talking about body frame, levers and height. These variables affect which lifts, in general, you’d be good at. I have a higher metabolic rate and I have to eat a bit more to gain weight. And ectomorphs ‘may’ be able to lift as well as ectos and mesos, though you don’t see a lot of ectos win powerlifting competitions. They skew endo.
I’ll read that paper and pick it apart here later.
Also read my article on neanderthals/Homo sapiens strength differences and how it ties into racial strength differences.
Somatypic differences help explain why East Africans and West Africans excel in running competitions. If they had endomorphic somatypes, would they still excel in those sports?
Of course it comes down to other physiological factors, however, the somatype is extremely important here to elucidate racial differences in sports.
Also can you give other sports whites excel in in comparison to blacks?
RR,
“They’re actually just ecto, but with other measurements they’re Meso.”
What other measurements? You realize in the health carter formula, each somatype has a completely different equation defining it’s number?
“And I use these thing in my work and it works.”
But it’s still redundant at a certain point. Individual tailoring will actually make your work much more accurate.
“Also can you give other sports whites excel in in comparison to blacks?”
Swimming, hockey, nascar, golf, any extreme sport, any sport in the snow etc. i could probably go on if I actually attempted to research it.
Pumpkin
“But the sports that pay a lot of money are the ones people actually care about and the ones that attract the top talent.”
Activities that demand for hand eye coordination, endurance, strength, speed, etc in a competitive setting are sports. Popular opinion does not, and never will, dictate what objectively qualifies as a sport or which sport “matters” in relevance to another.
“And it’s not just the most lucrative sports where blacks excel, but also those honored by the Olympics.”
The only advantages some Africans have over other races is somatype and muscle fibers. The only group that actually surpasses Whites in Endurance Running is Kenyans which are more or less just an Outlier due to the enormous genetic diversity in Africa. Steve sailer wrote about both of these topics. Most blacks simply rank high in Strength(except powerlifitng) and speed. These are not the only traits that matter in sports but the ones with the most emphasis on these traits, black obviously excel at.
“594 U.S. youths that found that Orientals were least sexually active and lost virginity latest and blacks were the most sexually active and lost virginity earliest”
All of those studies were performed after the one child rule was in place. Sexual desire is not an indicator of fertility, you can’t have sex with a women who is pregnant and get her “more pregnant” East asians could possibly have physical factors that make them more likely to become pregnant during sex. As I demonstrated in this post East asians have the most concentrations of paedomorphic features and paedomorphic organsims are almost always r selected. Peramorphism is usually associated with K selection because of larger sizes. In fact the only real peramorphic trait on East asians is their large brain.
“In the r/K model, the actual trade-off taking place is offspring quantity vs offspring quality,”
In the r/k model*******
Which is no longer used, as I stated they have realized the trade off isn’t between quality and quantity of offspring it’s body size and life span. heterochrony is one of the mechanisms that replaced r/k selection in defining organism development and life history. Specifically regarding metabolic trade offs all humans are K selected. r/k loses its application outside of orders especially considering the human species because races don’t fit the hierarchical model at all.
Activities that demand for hand eye coordination, endurance, strength, speed, etc in a competitive setting are sports. Popular opinion does not, and never will, dictate what objectively qualifies as a sport or which sport “matters” in relevance to another.
There’s an infinite number of potential activities that fit your definition of “sports”, so the only way to make this discussion scientific is to look at an actual sample of said activities. One such sample are lucrative sports (Forbes list) and another such sample is sports honored by the Olympics. In both samples blacks outperform whites by wide margins. If blacks are better at the sports society actually values, there’s no reason to doubt they’d be better at non-valued sports too.
All of those studies were performed after the one child rule was in place.
China’s only one Mongoloid country and the data would hardly change if they were removed from the sample. How do you explain the low fertility of the East Asian countries that don’t have that rule?
Sexual desire is not an indicator of fertility, you can’t have sex with a women who is pregnant and get her “more pregnant”
But the more often you have sex, the more often a pregnancy is likely to occur, so sexual desire is very much an indicator of evolved reproductive potency, an r trait.
East asians could possibly have physical factors that make them more likely to become pregnant during sex.
That’s speculation on your part. What we know is they have biological factors that make them less likely to produce a large litter size. Rushton cited a book claiming the frequency of dizygotic twins per 1000 births was below 4 in Mongoloids, 8 in Caucasoids, and 16+ in Negroids.
As I demonstrated in this post East asians have the most concentrations of paedomorphic features and paedomorphic organsims are almost always r selected.
Almost always != always. Chimps are considered more r selected than humans, yet less paedomorphic:
Perhaps r selected organisms are more paedomorphic because they’re smaller on average, but less paedomorphic when body size is controlled.
In the r/k model*******
Which is no longer used,
You used in your article
as I stated they have realized the trade off isn’t between quality and quantity of offspring it’s body size and life span.
Who realized it and when? Here’s a paper from 2015, still talking about quality vs quanity, but using body size as one measure of quality:
Here, we demonstrate an offspring quality–quantity trade-off in wild chimpanzees. Chimpanzees whose younger siblings were born after a relatively short period had lower lean body mass markers, suggesting mothers experience a trade-off between reproductive rate and offspring quality.
And although body size is an excellent predictor of life history speed, Life History Variables cluster together independently of body size according to this source: It has been well established across a broad array of species that the timing of major life events tends to be correlated, even when the effects of body size are removed
Specifically regarding metabolic trade offs all humans are K selected
But races with higher fertility & faster life history have smaller brains on average
“What other measurements? You realize in the health carter formula, each somatype has a completely different equation defining it’s number?”
Yes I do.
Here’s the manual to determine somatypes.
Click to access Heath-CarterManual.pdf
Kenyans would be ectomorphic-mesomorphs since mesomorphy is greater than endomorphy (while their dominant somatype is ectomorphy).
I, personally, don’t need to do these calculations and can tell by looking at someone which lifts they’d excel at.
“But it’s still redundant at a certain point. Individual tailoring will actually make your work much more accurate.”
I’m very aware, I don’t need you to tell me this. It is prevalent in elite competitions. But the somatype is a good guide map; I have long arms, I’m kind of a bad pusher but due to my long arms I excel at pulling, it’s just naturally easier for me due to my bodily proportions.
“Swimming, hockey, nascar, golf, any extreme sport, any sport in the snow etc. i could probably go on if I actually attempted to research it.”
Right. I was waiting to see if you’d say baseball to be honest.
“Kenyans would be ectomorphic-mesomorphs since mesomorphy is greater than endomorphy (while their dominant somatype is ectomorphy).”
What im saying is that there is no other way to measure somatype other than the health carter formula, So I fail to see how on one test they are ecto and on another they’re meso. It would make more sense if you were just trying to say Kenyans are mostly ecto morph and then meso second.
“I, personally, don’t need to do these calculations and can tell by looking at someone which lifts they’d excel at.”
it’s almost exactly like race and disease.
“Right. I was waiting to see if you’d say baseball to be honest.”
Do blacks dominate baseball? There’s people like Barry bonds but If I recall it’s mostly a white sport. Also have you noticed that there’s proportionately more white quarterbacks then black?
“What im saying is that there is no other way to measure somatype other than the health carter formula, So I fail to see how on one test they are ecto and on another they’re meso. It would make more sense if you were just trying to say Kenyans are mostly ecto morph and then meso second.”
Which is the point of saying “ectomorphic mesomorph”. It’s not about how on one test they’re ecto and the other meso, no one is a pure soma as we agree. They are ecto first then meso second.
“it’s almost exactly like race and disease.”
Right. I agree. But the difference is is that while race can give a good pinpoint of certain disease acquisition, in regard to somatype, it can tell you a lot more about one individual than race and disease would. You’ve yet to respond to my point on pulling/pushing and arm/torso length etc. This matters. Somatype is in this.
“Do blacks dominate baseball? There’s people like Barry bonds but If I recall it’s mostly a white sport.”
It is mostly a white sport but blacks dominate. I argued the opposite until I read Jon Entine’s book. Some quotes:
“The results were astonishing,” James wrote. The black players:
* went on to have better major-league careers in 44 out of 54 cases
* played 48 percent more games
* had 66 percent more major league hits
* hit 93 percent more triples
* hit 66 percent more home runs
* scored 69 percent more runs
* stole 400 more bases (Entine, 2000: 22-23)
In an attempt to correct for possible bias, James compared players with comparable speed statistics such as the number of doubles, triples, and stolen bases. He ran a study focused on players who had little speed. He analyzed for “position bias” and made sure that players in the same eras were being compared. Yet every time he crunched the numbers, the results broke down across racial lines. When comparing home runs, runs scored, RBIs or stolen bases, black players held an advantage a startling 80 percent of the time. “And I could identify absolutely no bias to help explain why this should happen,” James said in disbelief.
James also compared white Hispanic rookies whom he assumed faced an uphill battle similar to that for blacks, with comparable groups of white and black players. The blacks dominated the white Latinos by even more than they did white North Americans, besting them in 19 of the 26 comparisons. Blacks played 62 percent more games, hit 192 more home runs, drove in 125 percent more runs, and stole 30 percent more bases.
I’m going to do a similar analysis looking at the years between 1997 and 2017. Should be fun.
“Also have you noticed that there’s proportionately more white quarterbacks then black?”
Yup and most black QBs are runners. Somatype, fiber type, etc.
“They are ecto first then meso second.”
Agreed.
“You’ve yet to respond to my point on pulling/pushing and arm/torso length etc. This matters. Somatype is in this.”
It actually doesn’t matter, that’s why i didn’t respond. I feel as though I have elaborated enough onto as why.
“It actually doesn’t matter, that’s why i didn’t respond. I feel as though I have elaborated enough onto as why.”
I have personal experience—both on myself and working with others—that it does matter. I have long arms compared to my torso. Therefore i am a better puller and I’m bad at pushing (though since I have strong shoulders my overhead press is high but my benchpress isn’t, relative to other lifts). While someone with shorter arms would be a better pusher and worse, relative to himself and others who had the opposite anthropometry.
I know exactly what you’re saying, the individual matters more and I agree whole heartedly with you. Though, and I’m sure we both agree here, assessing someone’s movements and seeing where they excel and why will correlate strongly with their body”s levers and overall body frame. Do you agree?
“I have personal experience—both on myself and working with others—that it does matter. I have long arms compared to my torso. ”
I’m saying it was irrelevant to my point not to perceived physical limitations.
“Do you agree?”
I 100% agree.
Pumpkin,
“There’s an infinite number of potential activities that fit your definition of “sports””
Actually, I felt that my definition was pretty concise. In a more fluent way you could say that a sport is simply kinesthetic application of open skills within a competitive environment. Sure it’s broad but it’s still still relatively specific and accurate. Games like Chess couldn’t really be considered a sport under this definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinesthetic_learning
https://www.brianmac.co.uk/continuum.htm
“If blacks are better at the sports society actually values, there’s no reason to doubt they’d be better at non-valued sports too.”
As mentioned in my previous replies, West Africans are specifically high in pure physical strength and lean body mass, most other African populations lag behind whites in athletic competitions. Secondly, taking my definition into consideration it can be pretty obvious how whites will outrank blacks in certain positions and sports. RR and I already discussed how Whites make better Quarterbacks because they have superior abilities in hand eye coordination and mental abstraction. These traits are important in broad variety of sports, including team sports that have leadership roles.
http://www.unz.com/isteve/fastest-running-times-by-distance-by-race/
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pms.1992.74.2.399
“China’s only one Mongoloid country and the data would hardly change if they were removed from the sample.”
I wouldn’t be so sure. China has a larger population than the entirety of Africa and at one point had an even larger fertility rate. They are the main stereotype one thinks of when visualizing the Mongoloid Phenotype.
“How do you explain the low fertility of the East Asian countries that don’t have that rule?”
I don’t. See, the reproductive patterns of homo sapiens is susceptible to a large amount of variables, a lot of which are not directly caused by the physiology that results from genetics. Humans have a very predictable reproductive strategy, usually having anywhere from 1 to 27 children a lifetime(overlapping with chimps who range 4-9) depending on what the environment demands. In reality both species are highly k selected. Remember when you stated those that invented agriculture probably more intelligent than those who didn’t? Well agriculture induces high fertility but is arguably more cognitively demanding, the resulting decrease in brain size is almost entirely from malnutrition.
http://www.savethechimps.org/about-us/chimp-facts/
http://www.oaklandzoo.org/animal/chimpanzee-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_the_most_children
“But the more often you have sex, the more often a pregnancy is likely to occur,”
Actually, White women hit menopause later than African american and Hispanic women. So really they have more time to get pregnant.
https://www.webmd.com/menopause/features/menopause-age-prediction#1
“What we know is they have biological factors that make them less likely to produce a large litter size.”
Twins are rare to begin with and older moms are more likely to have twins. Interestingly, Black women report higher rates of infertility problems.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4735446.stm
Click to access Race%26Reproduction+FS2010.pdf
“Chimps are considered more r selected than humans, yet less paedomorphic:”
Actually humans are more Hypermorphic than Chimps regarding the brain and our limbs, we are more paedomorphic in the face which is actually just a side effect of our brain’s shape retardation. Neanderthals did not have spherical skulls and as a result are more prognathic, however prognathism is actually normal in all of our ancestors and Homo sapiens are the odd ones out in this aspect.
“You used in your article”
As a comparison for scientifically illiterate alt-reichers.
“Who realized it and when? Here’s a paper from 2015, still talking about quality vs quanity, but using body size as one measure of quality:”
Is that not a trade off of body size and lifespan? I’m not saying Quality and Quantity isn’t a valid way to asses life history, but it all intersects and you can unintentionally narrow your ability to novelize.
“It has been well established across a broad array of species that the timing of major life events tends to be correlated, even when the effects of body size are removed”
Well of course Evolution is not restricted to some universal rule, besides the ones that define the mechanisms involved.
“But races with higher fertility & faster life history have smaller brains on average”
The smallest brained races are still more intelligent than any other species on the planet.
As mentioned in my previous replies, West Africans are specifically high in pure physical strength and lean body mass, most other African populations lag behind whites in athletic competition
Blacks are about 15% of the World yet over 50% of the World’s greatest athletes as judged by GQ. It doesn’t matter whether their advantage comes from strength, mass, speed, or all of the above, and it doesn’t matter if it’s only West Africans causing the trend. When all blacks are lumped together in a single race, they are more represented per capita among top athletes than Caucasoids are.
Secondly, taking my definition into consideration it can be pretty obvious how whites will outrank blacks in certain positions and sports. RR and I already discussed how Whites make better Quarterbacks because they have superior abilities in hand eye coordination and mental abstraction. These traits are important in broad variety of sports,
Obviously they’re not important since more than half of the World’s best athletes are black.
I wouldn’t be so sure. China has a larger population than the entirety of Africa and at one point
Population size is not just a function of birth rate, but also death rate
I don’t. See, the reproductive patterns of homo sapiens is susceptible to a large amount of variables, a lot of which are not directly caused by the physiology that results from genetics.
Then why’d you bring up China’s birth rate in the first place?
Actually, White women hit menopause later than African american and Hispanic women. So really they have more time to get pregnant.
They also start puberty later and late menopause shows slow life history (an r trait)
Twins are rare to begin with and older moms are more likely to have twins.
Age can not explain the racial twinning rates.
Interestingly, Black women report higher rates of infertility problems.
Only because of more infant/fetus mortality which is an r trait
Actually humans are more Hypermorphic than Chimps regarding the brain and our limbs, we are more paedomorphic in the face which is actually just a side effect of our brain’s shape retardation.
Encephalization itself is a paedomorphic trait and we have much higher EQs than chimps. Our craniums are round like a baby chimps and our faces are flat. So that’s three traits where we’re more paedomorphic than chimps. You also claim we have more neuroplasticity, so that would be a fourth paedomorphic trait we have over chimps. Humans are largely just oversized baby chimps.
Neanderthals did not have spherical skulls and as a result are more prognathic,
It’s possible to have a spherical cranium but a prognathous face, but it just so happens that our brains got rounder as our faces got smaller, I suspect because a round brain gave us the IQ to exploit fire which reduced the need for big jaws.
As a comparison for scientifically illiterate alt-reichers.
But it’s contradictory to say r organisms are more paedomorphic if you don’t believe the r and K spectrum exists.
I’m not saying Quality and Quantity isn’t a valid way to asses life history, but it all intersects and you can unintentionally narrow your ability to novelize.
By replacing quality with only body size and life span, you’re narrowing your ability to see the same pattern in all the diverse ways quality may occur. But I’m glad you conceded that quality vs quantity is valid because you’ve essentially just endorsed r/K.
The smallest brained races are still more intelligent than any other species on the planet
Humans are super K selected so all races are super K. Doesn’t mean some can’t be more K than others.
“West Africans are specifically high in pure physical strength”
Not compared to whites.
“It doesn’t matter whether their advantage comes from strength, mass, speed, or all of the above, and it doesn’t matter if it’s only West Africans causing the trend.”
It does matter. Arbitrarily deciding a single population constitutes an entire race is intellectually dishonest.
“Obviously they’re not important”
They are important, This isn’t an opinion. I’ve already given enough reason as to why, It’s not my fault if you want to handwave it away. I mean how idiotic are you to think hand eye coordination doesn’t affect sports?
“Population size is not just a function of birth rate, but also death rate”
A child is either dead or alive, there is no inbetween. If the mortality rate was lowered in African countries, China would still have a larger population.
“Then why’d you bring up China’s birth rate in the first place?”
To demonstrate the invalidity of your statements. These patterns have not been long standing ones, and i doubt they will ever be.
“They also start puberty later and late menopause shows slow life history”
I think you mean K selected. Interestingly, early puberty is a paedomorphic trait.
“Age can not explain the racial twinning rates.”
The point being that African women have earlier menopause and older women are more likely to have twins meaning Whites should have a larger propensity to twinning.
“Encephalization itself is a paedomorphic trait and we have much higher EQs than chimps.”
Any trait that is extended relative the ancestral species is usually Peramorphic. All races of man share the same developmental pattern it is mostly characterized by Acceleration and Hypermorphosis, both of which are Peramorphic processes. Our brains have a delayed offset of growth during which the rate is accelerated. Hetereochronies define the development of a trait they don’t define the trait it’self. To species can have large brains and similar intelligence but due to entirely different heterochronic mechnaisms.
“Humans are largely just oversized baby chimps.”
Kinda true kind of not true, but you still understand how a trait can be influenced by peramorphic processes but still appear juvenile right?
“but it just so happens that our brains got rounder as our faces got smaller, I suspect because a round brain gave us the IQ to exploit fire which reduced the need for big jaws.”
Our Faces are flat because our skulls are round. Neanderthals had brains similar in size to ours but had much larger proganthism. IQ and and tooth size do not correlate, but maybe prevalence of fire by cro magnon is what selected for their reduced features. However I prefer sexual selection. Orthognathism is relatively new in our species and is probably independent of intelligence, except for in the instances it correlates with EQ(which can APPEAR juvenile as previously stated).
“But it’s contradictory to say r organisms are more paedomorphic if you don’t believe the r and K spectrum exists.”
Only if you were reading this article for the first time, but I have made my reasons clear to you, so I don’t know why you’re feigning ignorance.
“But I’m glad you conceded that quality vs quantity is valid because you’ve essentially just endorsed r/K.”
In a very warped way sure. If that helps your situation.
It does matter. Arbitrarily deciding a single population constitutes an entire race is intellectually dishonest.
I’m not arbitrarily deciding a single group reflects the whole race, I’m merely reporting the per capita rate of athletic excellence for the entire race, regardless of what subgroup is causing it. If one subgroup is so athletic that they make up for less athletic subgroups, then the aggregate stats for the entire race will be favorable, and the aggregate stats are what’s relevant when comparing macro-races.
They are important, This isn’t an opinion. I’ve already given enough reason as to why, It’s not my fault if you want to handwave it away. I mean how idiotic are you to think hand eye coordination doesn’t affect sports?
How idiotic are you to deny black athletic supremacy when blacks are only about 14% of the species but over half of humanity’s top athletes, despite the fact that blacks are the most malnourished of the three major races.
A child is either dead or alive, there is no inbetween. If the mortality rate was lowered in African countries, China would still have a larger population.
The birth rate in sub-Saharan African has been higher than East Asia for at least the past 60 years:
The point being that African women have earlier menopause and older women are more likely to have twins meaning Whites should have a larger propensity to twinning.
And yet they don’t
Melo,
“a lot of which are not directly caused by the physiology that results from genetics”
Surely you’re aware that out homeodynamic physiological systems respond to the environment which is how they evolved. If it was based just on genetics we literally wouldn’t be here. If it were based just on what was in the ‘genetic plan’, then Homo sapiens would not have evolved.
Pumpkin.
“If one subgroup is so athletic that they make up for less athletic subgroups, then the aggregate stats for the entire race will be favorable, and the aggregate stats are what’s relevant when comparing macro-races.”
The aggregate stats are formed from sampling errors. America is the entertainment capital of the world and has the highest non native population of West Africans. West Africans are not the majority of Africans, they are just the majority of Africans tested. The aggregation still doesn’t change the fact that the Majority of Blacks are less Athletic than whites.
“How idiotic do you have to be to deny black athletic supremacy when blacks are only about 14% of the species”
You’re not breaking down the actual relationships, you’re just taking a statistic at face value.
“The birth rate in sub-Saharan African has been higher than East Asia for at least the past 60 years:”
Wow, two generations! Yawn* China has had a higher standard of living than Africa for a long time but still had a fertility that was almost identical. Literally 1 birth below. It’s known that Urbanization lowers fertility, so this just goes to show how fertile East Asians really are.
“And yet they don’t”
You don’t know that. You provided biological evidence of higher twinning rates, I provided biological evidence of later menopause that counteracts the latter discrepancies. As far as I’m aware you have not produced a study that controls for all confounds like infant mortality, menopause, access to birth control etc. to see who at the end of the day has the highest fertility.
The aggregate stats are formed from sampling errors. America is the entertainment capital of the world and has the highest non native population of West Africans.
Sampling error might explain why blacks are so overrepresented among U.S. top athletes, but it does not explain why blacks are so overrepresented among the World’s top athletes. When doing a U.S. based analysis, I’m comparing the percentage of America’s best athletes who are black to the percentage of Americans who are black, but since almost all American blacks are West African, I agree it’s a biased sample. But when comparing the percentage of the World’s best athletes who are black to the percentage of the World who is black, I’m not sampling from any one country, the reference point is every black on Earth.
West Africans are not the majority of Africans, they are just the majority of Africans tested. The aggregation still doesn’t change the fact that the Majority of Blacks are less Athletic than whites.
Not all Caucasoids are white and you have no evidence that the majority of Negroids worldwide are less athletic than the World’s average Caucasoid. All we can say is that Negroids worldwide produce far more of the World’s top athletes per capita than Caucasoids do. This suggests the worldwide Negroid athletic bell curve is shifted to the right of the Caucasoid bell curve, or that Negroids have more variance, or likely both. It’s possible that blacks who are not West African produce fewer of the World’s top athletes per capita than Caucasoids do, but the West African minority more than makes up for the shortfall.
Wow, two generations! Yawn*
If you have statistics going back further, feel free to share them, otherwise the statistics support Rushton for as far back in time as they’ve been documented.
China has had a higher standard of living than Africa for a long time but still had a fertility that was almost identical. Literally 1 birth below. It’s known that Urbanization lowers fertility, so this just goes to show how fertile East Asians really are.
It has nothing to do with them being genetically fertile. China’s communist government condemned birth control and banned contraceptives because they believed a large population meant more manpower.
You don’t know that. You provided biological evidence of higher twinning rates, I provided biological evidence of later menopause that counteracts the latter discrepancies.
Later menopause adds little if it’s accompanied by later puberty, especially since people had babies young when the racial differences were evolving.
As far as I’m aware you have not produced a study that controls for all confounds like infant mortality, menopause, access to birth control etc. to see who at the end of the day has the highest fertility.
Rushton’s model is a long way from being proven, I just think the totality of available evidence (sexual activity, low quality data on sex organ size, twinning rates, brain size, life span) points to Mongoloids being genetically programmed to produce higher quality and lower quantity offspring, compared to other races.
“despite the fact that blacks are the most malnourished of the three major races.”
Forgot to add:
The blacks performing at the olympics are not malnourished, only some African groups are malnourished and the ones who are, are certainly not playing professional sports..
I’m not against generalizations based on averages, but you have to make sure the generalization makes sense. China can be used for extrapolation because of it’s enormous population, West Africa is not in the same boat.
The blacks performing at the olympics are not malnourished, only some African groups are malnourished and the ones who are, are certainly not playing professional sports..
Which, pray tell, black African groups are not malnourished by First World standards? Even the elites in Third World countries are malnourished compared to Western elites, as seen by the fact that West African heads of state are shorter than elite African Americans.
So how are you two defining the word ‘athletic’?
“… points to Mongoloids being genetically programmed to produce higher quality and lower quantity offspring, compared to other races.”
How do you define “higher quality offspring”? Any empirical data for “higher quality offspring”? Is it just Rushton’s ‘rule’ that you’re gathering this from? If the environment changes, wouldn’t certain traits and physiology change too which would change.
And surely you’re aware that things like lifespan can be explained by diet? Which, also, the brain size IQ correlation can as well. It’s no wonder that IQ correlates with brain size, lower social classes have less access to good food which impedes brain size, etc etc.
How do you define “higher quality offspring”? Any empirical data for “higher quality offspring”? Is it just Rushton’s ‘rule’ that you’re gathering this from?
I define higher quality as more expensive. I view r vs K reproductive strategies as analogous to fast food restaraunts vs expensive restaraunts. The former survives with a lot of cheap customers (analogous to cheap offspring) while the latter invests in a few valuable customers (analogous to valuable offspring).
The empirical data I’m thinking of is racial differences in brain size and life span because big brains are so metabolically expensive & so are long lives
And surely you’re aware that things like lifespan can be explained by diet? Which, also, the brain size IQ correlation can as well. It’s no wonder that IQ correlates with brain size, lower social classes have less access to good food which impedes brain size, etc etc.
I doubt the racial differences can be entirely or even mostly explained by diet. If bad diets were impairing black American brain size, we might expect it to be impairing their height too, & yet they’re virtually the same height as white americans & much taller than the bigger brained East Asian Americans
Re: your r/K arguments, they’ve been given new life, I didn’t come across these papers while researching my Rushton article on r K, or I’d have added the papers and responses in the original article. I’ll tackle them soon. I have 3 articles to discuss, two will be discussed in one article and the other one in a separate article.
Re social class and negative effects: I mean mostly at the individual, not racial, level. And blacks’ bad diets do have an effect.
Diet may have an effect, I just doubt the effect is big enough to explain racial differences in brain size. But if you have evidence to the contrary, I’m more than happy to be proven wrong.
I doubt it too. Though it may explain some of the gap in my opinion. Nutrients are important, of course, especially in early life so if you’re not as nourished then you’d have a smaller brain size then if you were properly nourished.
Are you aware of any analyses on blacks raised in middle class areas with good nutrition and data on brain size?
No I’m not, but if adoption into good families can’t even raise black IQ (except in childhood), i doubt it can raise their adult brain size.
http://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/5/1/1/htm
I’ve been meaning to write a response to that article for a long time.
I’d love to see one. I’ve yet to come across a good rebuttal to it. I think Thomas makes solid arguments, at least against Asian IQ, stating that after correcting for FLynn that they score the same or slightly lower than whites. He states that after corrections for the Minnesota study that the gap is 2.5 points favoring white over blacks.
I’m not too interested in racial IQ differences anymore though. I’m more interested in individual differences and how they relate to social class and other factors that affect test scores.
He states that after corrections for the Minnesota study that the gap is 2.5 points favoring white over blacks.
I haven’t got to the part where he corrects the data, but it looks like he’s misreporting the original data, even before correcting it.
“… it looks like he’s misreporting the original data, even before correcting it.”
I’d like to see your thoughts on what you mean here. I think he makes compelling arguments though. If what Thomas says is true and the gap is 2.5 points and black brain size is around the same as it is now (I’d doubt it, their nutrient deficiencies must cause at least some brain size depression) I think that’d be a huge blow to Rushton, Jensen, Lynn et al.
I’m just in the process of trying to check his sources
Let me know if you have trouble getting access to any of them.
Also speaking of r/K selection PP, I have a few more articles in mind on that. I’ve come across other arguments, but they fall prey to the simplistic notion of Rushton’s theory. I’ll link the papers this afternoon and I’ll probably send you an article on one of them before new years eve.
I’ll link the papers this afternoon and I’ll probably send you an article on one of them before new years eve.
Sounds good. I look forward to more guest articles.
Let’s say Thomas’ reanalysis holds, if they have the same, or similar, brain size but only a 2.5 point difference, what’s that say about one of Rushton’s correlations? Re brain size being one cause of racial IQ differences? What would this mean for his theory as a whole, and all hereditarian racial intelligence theories, for that matter?
If the brain size difference between races is reduced to some trivial amount by adoption, then Rushtonism would be debunked, but I don’t think that would happen.
It’d be interesting to see what brain size looks like in blacks not rise with low SES. I’ll do some digging later. I don’t think any of the analyses from any Minnesota study reported brain size, correct me if I am wrong.
Pumpkin
“I’m not sampling from any one country, the reference point is every black on Earth. Which, pray tell, black African groups are not malnourished by First World standards? Even the elites in Third World countries are malnourished compared to Western elites, as seen by the fact that West African heads of state are shorter than elite African Americans.”
The majority of Black Athletes in the world are West African. This is because mostly West Africans enjoy the benefits of first world nutrition, whether they’re immigrants to america or natives in Africa. Even then you’re only sampling Famous Athletes. Being an Elite is not the same thing as being an athlete you absolutely need good nutrition to be athletically competent.
“Not all Caucasoids are white and you have no evidence that the majority of Negroids worldwide are less athletic than the World’s average Caucasoid. ”
Central asia, MENA and India are hybrid populations, not representative of extreme phenotypes like Europeans. I’ve provided plenty of evidence to White’s Athletic superiority, you just ignored it.
“but the West African minority more than makes up for the shortfall.”
If ten equal sized populations were all given brain size measurements, and 9 of them had a size around 1200ccs but then 1 population had a mean size of 1800cc, could you actually say that that group is intellectually superior to the other ten populations who all share a mean of around 1300?
This goes back to my other point, that you’re taking this at face value, it is an important point, and Im not sure why you ignored it. You’re only technically right, if you actually went to africa you would mostly meet frail ectomorphs.
“If you have statistics going back further, feel free to share them, otherwise the statistics support Rushton for as far back in time as they’ve been documented.”
As far as I’m aware those statistics did not control for any confounds, so it is invalid to extrapolate any long standing evolutionary differences.
“China’s communist government condemned birth control and banned contraceptives because they believed a large population meant more manpower.”
China has always had a large population even before it was communistic, The pope tells Africans they will go to hell if they use condoms, most Africans have no access to birth control and no access to nutrition to know any better.
“Later menopause adds little if it’s accompanied by later puberty, especially since people had babies young when the racial differences were evolving.”
My point being that you don’t actually know who is physically more fertile, because you havent controlled for constraints.
RR, I applied the health carter formula to myself,
5 mesomorph
4 endomorph
2 ectomorph
Im a endomorphic mesomorph, What training regimen do your recommend if I want to bulk up?
“If ten equal sized populations were all given brain size measurements, and 9 of them had a size around 1200ccs but then 1 population had a mean size of 1800cc, could you actually say that that group is intellectually superior to the other ten populations who all share a mean of around 1300? ”
Do you believe all Caucasoids are roughly equals to Whites in term of athleticism ? That’s what your analogy suggest and I think you are wrong.
How is athleticism defined in this discussion?
Melo, long arms or short? Long or short torso? Long legs or short legs? Wide shoulders or narrow?
Lyrion,
“Do you believe all Caucasoids are roughly equals to Whites in term of athleticism ? ”
North Africans are actually really good at long distance running, but have Negroid Admixture. West, central asia, and India all have considerable admixture with neighboring mongoloid populations. Im comparing Bantu Africans who have the most relatively pure negroid phenotype and Europeans who have the most relatively pure Caucasoid phenotype.
East Africans are better in long distance running, correct me if I’m wrong.
What sport competitions MENA and South Asians dominate ?
RR,
“How is athleticism defined in this discussion?”
I guess an aggregation of skills used in sports.
“Melo, long arms or short? Long or short torso? Long legs or short legs? Wide shoulders or narrow?”
I thought you could extrapolate all of that from my Health-carter results? My wing span is about 2 inches longer than my height so I do have longer arms. I couldn’t really get an accurate enough measurement to be confidant about any statement I make on my torso/leg ratio, but if I had to give an educated guess i’d say Im somewhere between long torso/short legs and balanced, My torso is maybe an inch longer than it should be but my hip-line measurement is more than half my height. I definitely have wide shoulders.
“East Africans are better in long distance running, correct me if I’m wrong.”
They are.
“East Africans are better in long distance running, correct me if I’m wrong.
What sport competitions MENA and South Asians dominate ?”
East Africans are the best long distance runners with Whites second. North Africans are good at long distance like I said, and IDK what south asians are good at
“I guess an aggregation of skills used in sports.”
Kinda broad definition.
Merriam Webster: “the ability to play sports or do physical activities well”, which is also a broad definition. If we use just the basic definition of ‘athleticism’, then West African-descended blacks are more athletic.
“I thought you could extrapolate all of that from my Health-carter results? My wing span is about 2 inches longer than my height so I do have longer arms. I couldn’t really get an accurate enough measurement to be confidant about any statement I make on my torso/leg ratio, but if I had to give an educated guess i’d say Im somewhere between long torso/short legs and balanced, My torso is maybe an inch longer than it should be but my hip-line measurement is more than half my height. I definitely have wide shoulders.”
I can’t extrapolate your anthro measures just from your soma.
You would excel in deadlifting and other pulling exercises and be eh on pushing exercises. That’s how I am and I work my program out for that. Try this program for 3 months and let me know how it works.
Two sets, max intensity. Say you hit 300 on the deadlift for 3 reps. Then multiply 300 and .9 to get 270, do 4 reps at 270. Then you’re done. Simple scheme, this is a minimalist program to get the most out of the strength training and look damn good while getting stronger and spending minimal time in the gym.
Monday: 2 sets of deadlift, then 2 sets of overhead press, then 2 sets of wide-grip pulldown. Tuesday: 2 sets of incline bench press, 2 sets of underhand rows. Friday: 2 sets of squats, 2 sets of chin ups (if you’re able, do weighted) then 2 sets of bench press.
Set your rep range at 5 reps for all exercises, except deadlift which you set 3-5. Meaning, once you hit 3 reps on say deadlift, add 5 pounds the next week. When you hit 5 reps on any exercise, do no more than those 5 reps and on your second set do no more than 6 and stop. To warm up, say you’re working set on deadlifts is 300. Deadlit 95 pounds for 5, rest a minute, then deadlift 135 for 3, then do 3 singles at 185, 225, and 275 then rest for five minutes. After each set, rest for five minutes. Max intensity is needed.
Good luck, let me know what you think of the program, tell me your results in March.
So overall non-white Caucasoids don’t do well in sports. With the exception of North Africans being simply “good” (not the best) at long distance running.
Whites are simply a part of Caucasoids as West Africans are a part of Negroids. If you believe in this classification of human groups.
MeLo, when you say West Africans are the only type of SSA who are particularly athletic what about East Africans who dominate long distance running ? And the other Congoids aren’t that phenotypically different from West Africans.
Lyrion,
“So overall non-white Caucasoids don’t do well in sports. ”
Non white Caucasoids are not fully Caucasoid, so they are not a good sample population.
“Whites are simply a part of Caucasoids as West Africans are a part of Negroids.”
The difference being that West, south, and east Africans are all “pure” negroid.
“when you say West Africans are the only type of SSA who are particularly athletic what about East Africans who dominate long distance running”
When speaking of East African Athletes, people almost always refer to Kenyans which are just one group.
RR,
“Good luck, let me know what you think of the program, tell me your results in March.”
Thank you I will.
“When speaking of East African Athletes, people almost always refer to Kenyans which are just one group.”
Even then it’s a subgroup of Kenyans called the Kalenjin who live at altitude. All groups that excel in marathon running had ancestors that evolved in high altitude areas. The same with a subgroup of Ethiopians. I’ve written at length about this. They’re just adaptations, along with convergent evolution, that cause peoples whose ancestors evolved at latitude to excel in this sport.
From the reading I’ve done, it’s best to be born at latitude and train at a higher latitude then the competition will be on. Phil Heath does altitude training and he’s the best bodybuilder in the world.
“Even then it’s a subgroup of Kenyans called the Kalenjin who live at altitude.”
Exactly, West Africans is 30% of all Sub saharan Africans. So pumpkin is testing a small percentage of Negroids in only a small percentage of sports. The overrepresentation is from sampling bias of outliers not an average.
Are more African countries at higher altitudes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_elevation
Melo, I’m not arguing that West Africans are representative of black people, only that blacks are overrepresented among the World’s elite athletes. The fact that most of the black elite athletes come from one black subgroup doesn’t undermine the point. To make an analogy, if I was arguing that Holland was the World’s tallest country, I could cite the fact that Dutch people were overrepresented among all humans over seven feet tall. But suppose all the seven foot plus Dutch people were grown men. Would you dismiss this evidence on the grounds that adult Dutch males are only 30% of the Dutch population? No, because you’d expect a group with a higher mean height to produce more giants per capita and you’d expect these giants to come disproportionately from whatever subgroup within the group averaged the greatest height.
In theory the black race could produce more elite athletes per capita than Caucasoids despite being less athletic on average, but there’s a very high correlation between a group’s average score on X and the number of people in that group who excel at X per capita.
“if I was arguing that Holland was the World’s tallest country, I could cite the fact that Dutch people were overrepresented among all humans over seven feet tall. But suppose all the seven foot plus Dutch people were grown men. Would you dismiss this evidence on the grounds that adult Dutch males are only 30% of the Dutch population? No, because you’d expect a group with a higher mean height to produce more giants per capita and you’d expect these giants to come disproportionately from whatever subgroup within the group averaged the greatest height.”
You must understand that when you make a statistic you have to set parameters for samples. In your example you are placing each country in rank order so the parameter is countries, not Gender. In our argument each category is a morphological race, so you would be comparing sub saharan Africa with Europe not western Africa with Europe.
Another Issue with your analogy is that there are no “height competitions”. Holland isn’t only counting males in it’s height measurements, they aggregate with the female population just like you would aggregate Sub saharan West Africa With the rest of Sub saharan Africa.
How you define “worlds elite Athletes” is quite strange, the Article almost entirely consisted of Basketball,Football, and baseball players all of which are Americanized sports. American Blacks are west African. It would also excise data on arbitrary grounds like bad behavior off the field. It’s not objective in the slightest.
What this means is that when you count for all Sub saharan Africans and count for all Sports not just popularized ones, on average Caucasoids are biologically more athletic than Negroids.
I’m going to state the chain of reasoning and you tell what steps you disagree with:
1) More athletic groups tend to produce more of the World’s greatest athletes per capita than less athletic groups
2) Negroids produce more of the World’s greatest athletes per capita than Caucasoids do
3) Ergo, Negroids are probably more athletic than Caucasoids
“on average Caucasoids are biologically more athletic than Negroids.”
Evidences for this claim ?
“Evidences for this claim ?”
This entire argument, lyrion.
Make a summary, please.
Pumpkin,
“I’m going to state the chain of reasoning and you tell what steps you disagree with”
I disagree with Line 2. The olympics does not account for all sports, neither does your cited article. It’s sampling bias.
I want you to go to my previous comment and highlight what you disagree with, because I feel like you did not address my points, and I’m not going to continuously repeat myself. There is no height Olympics, there is an artificial filter on the geographic ancestry of African athletes that perform in the most popularized sports, when this filter is widened to include all countries that embody the typical negroid phenotype, Caucasoids produce the most Athletes per capita.
I want you to go to my previous comment and highlight what you disagree with, because I feel like you did not address my points
I would if I thought it would advance the discussion, but I think it’s better to focus on the crux of our disagreement.
I disagree with Line 2. The olympics does not account for all sports, neither does your cited article. It’s sampling bias.
You realize there are over 8000 sports? You’re never going to be able to compare the races on all of them. The best you can do is take a sample which is what the Olympics already does. You can argue the Olympics is a biased sample, but the bias is random, and is unlikely to favour any race in particular, unless you think there’s some conspiracy to pick sports that blacks excel in. Ideally they would put the names of all 8000 sports into a hat and randomly select the ones that would be played at the Olympics, but short of conspiracy theories, there’s no reason to assume better samples would change the racial rankings.
Lyrion,
“Make a summary, please.”
Caucasoids have better hand eye coordination and higher intelligence. Caucasoids are just as large if not larger than Negroids. They have less dense bones but a wider gait which give them more upper body strength, they also have higher levels of type 1 muscle fibers which allow for more Physical feats that rely on endurance(not necessarily running). These are traits that are present in just about every Caucasoid but the same cannot be said for Negroids because of the enormous phenotypic diversity. Excess in Type 2 fibers are prevalent in primarily western Africans, while Type one is found primarily in Kenyans. but the average Negroid is less physically inclined than Caucasoids. My point is that Caucasoids have a lot of the same athletic benefits that Africans do(through different mechanisms) and then some.
“Caucasoids produce the most Athletes per capita.”
Could you provide evidences for this or is that too much to ask ?
“These are traits that are present in just about every Caucasoid but the same cannot be said for Negroids because of the enormous phenotypic diversity.”
This is where I disagree with you. These traits aren’t present in MENA and South Asians who make a huge share of Caucasoids.
Your arguments make sense for Europeans (and may be Central Asians) but not for most of Caucasoids.
“This is where I disagree with you. These traits aren’t present in MENA and South Asians who make a huge share of Caucasoids.”
Now you’re the one starting have reading comprehension difficulties. I already stated that Sub saharan africa and Europe are what represent the two morphological extremes of Negroid and Caucasoid. I am excluding all heavily hybridized populations.
“Could you provide evidences for this or is that too much to ask ?”
I just explained my reasoning but if you’re looking for the studies that vindicate my inferences then here:
Click to access sr03_039.pdf
http://www.unz.com/isteve/fastest-running-times-by-distance-by-race/
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pms.1992.74.2.399
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25739558
Melo,
“Caucasoids have better hand eye coordination and higher intelligence. Caucasoids are just as large if not larger than Negroids. They have less dense bones but a wider gait which give them more upper body strength, they also have higher levels of type 1 muscle fibers which allow for more Physical feats that rely on endurance(not necessarily running). These are traits that are present in just about every Caucasoid but the same cannot be said for Negroids because of the enormous phenotypic diversity. Excess in Type 2 fibers are prevalent in primarily western Africans, while Type one is found primarily in Kenyans. but the average Negroid is less physically inclined than Caucasoids. My point is that Caucasoids have a lot of the same athletic benefits that Africans do(through different mechanisms) and then some.”
I largely agree, but:
“better hand eye coordination”
Citations?
And ‘Caucasoids’ have different morphology than ‘Negroids’, most importantly the somatype where ‘Caucasoids’ are endomorphic whereas most ‘Negroids’ are meso/ecto ecto/meso.
“but the average Negroid is less physically inclined than Caucasoids”
In an American context, yes.
” My point is that Caucasoids have a lot of the same athletic benefits that Africans do(through different mechanisms) and then some.”
Yes but some distinct differences, see my argument on Neanderthals vs Homo sapiens in regards to strength:
Speaking just strictly on the word ‘athletic’, I agree with PP that ‘Negroids’ are more athletic than ‘Caucasoids’,
Also “I disagree with Line 2. The olympics does not account for all sports, neither does your cited article. It’s sampling bias.”
It’s a great measure for the best of the best in those sports though.
“Citations?”
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pms.1992.74.2.399
Also, I assume there are more white video game players than black ones.
“most importantly the somatype where ‘Caucasoids’ are endomorphic whereas most ‘Negroids’ are meso/ecto ecto/meso.”
Somatype is not indicative of skeletal structure, or body frame. You and I have similar body frame but I am endo/meso whereas you are more ectomorphic. YOu can tell by studying the formulas for each equation.
“In an American context, yes.”
Actually it’s the opposite. American blacks are more physically inclined than american whites. If you count all blacks vs all whites than whites have the upper hand.
“It’s a great measure for the best of the best in those sports though.”
Yeah but the point is that it still doesn’t take all or even most sports into consideration
“Now you’re the one starting have reading comprehension difficulties. I already stated that Sub saharan africa and Europe are what represent the two morphological extremes of Negroid and Caucasoid. I am excluding all heavily hybridized populations.”
MENA are specific populations not hybrids of Europeans and Negroids. Some of them have a little black admixture but a North African with no black admixture is not an European.
If MENA and South Asians were simply hybrids of Europeans, Negroids and Mongoloids they would be intermediate of these population but they appear to be below these 3 population in sport competitions.
It’s simple logic and common sense.
“Also, I assume there are more white video game players than black ones.”
Thanks for the cite. I’d assume so too. I’ll look for data. Blacks are better baseball players though. Which is the ultimate hand eye coordination sport, or one of them.
“Somatype is not indicative of skeletal structure, or body frame.”
Yes it is. Do you think I’ll be able to pack on as much muscle as a meso if I remain drug free?
“Actually it’s the opposite. American blacks are more physically inclined than american whites”
Physical inactivity is high among black Americans. It’s why they’re the most obese group, one of the reasons. Combined with their misleading fiber typing this exacerbates the problem along with their high carb, high sugar diet.
“Yeah but the point is that it still doesn’t take all or even most sports into consideration”
True. But the term ‘athletic’ as classically defined blacks are more ‘athletic’.
Pumpkin,
“You can argue the Olympics is a biased sample, but the bias is random, and is unlikely to favour any race in particular, unless you think there’s some conspiracy to pick sports that blacks excel in.”
It does not require any kind of Conspiracy to be biased. Surfing, skateboarding, climbing may all being added to the Olympics which will of course add to the amount of White athletes.
“there’s no reason to assume better samples would change the racial rankings.”
I’ve provided plenty of reasons.
It does not require any kind of Conspiracy to be biased.
But it does require an explanation. If Caucasoids are better than Negroids at most sports, why do the sports selected by the Olympics favour Negroids? It just seems strange that a competition created by whites, designed to measure athletic excellence across the widest possible range of domains, would somehow be biased in favour of blacks and systematically exclude sports than Caucasoids are good at.
Surfing, skateboarding, climbing may all being added to the Olympics which will of course add to the amount of White athletes.
Your argument reminds me of people who say that blacks would score high on IQ tests if only IQ tests included abilities blacks were good at like rap and street smarts. The reason that argument failed is that the subtests included in IQ tests are selected based on the concept of g (general mental ability), so it’s not arbitrary what abilities IQ tests measure, but rather based on g loading. Is there a g factor for athletic ability? Probably, but I don’t know if anyone ever studied it, so we can’t say what sports load more on general athletic ability and thus should be given the most weight. As a result this discussion is non-scientific, because no matter what sports the Olympics pick, someone can always complain that the selection of sports was arbitrary or the sports that they are good at, just haven’t been invented yet.
Lyrion,
“If MENA and South Asians were simply hybrids of Europeans, Negroids and Mongoloids they would be intermediate of these population”
No they wouldn’t be, that’s not how genetics works lmao.
“I’ll look for data. Blacks are better baseball players though. Which is the ultimate hand eye coordination sport, or one of them.”
Maybe black’s speed and strength made up for what they lacked in hand eye coordination. But you could say the opposite for whites. Maybe the black baseball players were just Outliers.
“Yes it is. Do you think I’ll be able to pack on as much muscle as a meso if I remain drug free?”
Meso is correlated to the size of your biceps, calves, and joint bones. Endo is correlated to body fat percentage, and Ecto is simply your HWR. You can’t extrapolate body frame form that, if you could you wouldn’t of had to ask me, when I gave you my Health carter results.
“Physical inactivity is high among black Americans. It’s why they’re the most obese group, one of the reasons. Combined with their misleading fiber typing this exacerbates the problem along with their high carb, high sugar diet.”
Actually as one my sources to Lyrion said, the enhanced strength of black americans is what causes obesity, so I doubt its due to Physical inactivity. American blacks are culturally encouraged to be physically active.
“True. But the term ‘athletic’ as classically defined blacks are more ‘athle”
If you consider Athleticism to be pure strength and speed then West Africans are more Athletic.
“Maybe black’s speed and strength made up for what they lacked in hand eye coordination. But you could say the opposite for whites. Maybe the black baseball players were just Outliers.”
Maybe. And no, they’re not outliers.
James first compared fifty-four white rookies against the same number of black first-year players who had comparable statistics. “The results were astonishing,” James wrote. The black players:
* went on to have better major-league careers in 44 out of 54 cases
* played 48 percent more games
* had 66 percent more major league hits
* hit 93 percent more triples
* hit 66 percent more home runs
* scored 69 percent more runs
* stole 400 more bases (Entine, 2000: 22-23)
…
Flabbergasted at what he found, James ran a second study using forty-nine black/white comparisons. Again, blacks proved more durable, retained their speed longer, and were consistently better hitters. For example, he compared Ernie Banks, a power hitting shortstop for the Chicago Cubs, and Bernie Allen who broke in with Minnesota. They both reached the majors when they were twenty-three years old, were the same height and weight, and were considered equally fast. Over time, Allen bombed and Banks landed in the Hall of Fame. (Entine, 2000: 24)
…
In an attempt to correct for possible bias, James compared players with comparable speed statistics such as the number of doubles, triples, and stolen bases. He ran a study focused on players who had little speed. He analyzed for “position bias” and made sure that players in the same eras were being compared. Yet every time he crunched the numbers, the results broke down across racial lines. When comparing home runs, runs scored, RBIs or stolen bases, black players held an advantage a startling 80 percent of the time. “And I could identify absolutely no bias to help explain why this should happen,” James said in disbelief.
James also compared white Hispanic rookies whom he assumed faced an uphill battle similar to that for blacks, with comparable groups of white and black players. The blacks dominated the white Latinos by even more than they did white North Americans, besting them in 19 of the 26 comparisons. Blacks played 62 percent more games, hit 192 more home runs, drove in 125 percent more runs, and stole 30 percent more bases.
“Meso is correlated to the size of your biceps, calves, and joint bones. Endo is correlated to body fat percentage, and Ecto is simply your HWR. You can’t extrapolate body frame form that, if you could you wouldn’t of had to ask me, when I gave you my Health carter results.”
Ectos have narrow chests. Mesos and endos have wider, more barrel like chests and trunk. Ectos are not as ‘blocky’ as the other Somas. Endo is also related to the shape of the person, more ballish whereas mesos are more wide framed than ectos who has narrow framed. Ectos have the ‘bird chest’, due to narrow morphology in the chest and trunk.
“Actually as one my sources to Lyrion said, the enhanced strength of black americans is what causes obesity, so I doubt its due to Physical inactivity. American blacks are culturally encouraged to be physically active.”
‘enhanced strength’, so you’ve not read any of my articles?
Physical inactivity combined with type 2 fibers exacerbates the problem of obesity and the other metabolic disorders that obesity is correlated with. People with type I fibers have an easier time losing weight than people with type II fibers.
It has also been hypothesized that due to how fast the type II fibers fire that this leads to further metabolic disorders in blacks.
“If you consider Athleticism to be pure strength and speed then West Africans are more Athletic.”
Blacks aren’t stronger than Whites.
“Actually as one my sources to Lyrion said, the enhanced strength of black americans is what causes obesity, so I doubt its due to Physical inactivity. American blacks are culturally encouraged to be physically active.”
Can you elaborate on how their ‘enhanced strength’… ’causes obesity’? You’ve got things mixed up I believe.
Sounds a bit like “nordicist” bullshit what MeLo is saying about Europeans being the purest form of caucasoid and the other being simply Europeans with some non-european admixture.
“Surfing, skateboarding, climbing may all being added to the Olympics which will of course add to the amount of White athletes.”
But how do you know Whites dominate these sports because it’s mostly Whites playing these sports in the first place ?
PP is right this discussion is unscientific if everything is biased to begin with.
But how do you know Whites dominate these sports because it’s mostly Whites playing these sports in the first place ?
This is also why i focus on lucrative sports or sports in the Olympics. Those are the sports most athletic people of every race have had a chance to practice.
“This is also why i focus on lucrative sports or sports in the Olympics. Those are the sports most athletic people of every race have had a chance to practice.”
Agreed.
Pumpkin,
“It just seems strange that a competition created by whites,”
That doesn’t mean anything. Whites play in almost all sports, Blacks are over represented in specific sports.
“designed to measure athletic excellence across the widest possible range of domains,”
And it adds sports just about every year.
“would somehow be biased in favour of blacks and systematically exclude sports than Caucasoids are good at.”
It’s not “systematic” West Africans(and that random Kenyan tribe) are 36% of the subsaharan population and 36% of the top Olympic Athletes, they also happen to be a large portion of immigrant populations in 1st world countries.
“As a result this discussion is non-scientific, because no matter what sports the Olympics pick, someone can always complain that the selection of sports was arbitrary or the sports that they are good at, just haven’t been invented yet.”
For the sake of the argument I stated a definition of sports. Whether the Olympics is a valid proxy for a sample is only minor to my overall point.
Blacks are over represented in specific sports.
Blacks are overrepresented in the sports the whole world plays. White are generally overrepresented in sports that only white people care about or that require a certain social class.
For the sake of the argument I stated a definition of sports. Whether the Olympics is a valid proxy for a sample is only minor to my overall point.
You’ve defined sports but you can’t know Caucasoids are better at most sports unless you’ve looked at a sample of sports and done a side-by-side comparison & when I’ve suggested the most authoritative sample of sports the World actually plays (Olympics), you just dismissed it as biased. Forget sports, just think about basic physical abilities that humans evolved to have & have been active in for as long as our species has existed: Blacks are better at long distance running, sprinting, walking, jumping, punching, tackling, dancing and perhaps kicking. Caucasoids are better at swimming, and maybe climbing, wrestling and lifting.
Lyrion,
“Sounds a bit like “nordicist” bullshit what MeLo is saying about Europeans being the purest form of caucasoid and the other being simply Europeans with some non-european admixture.”
It’s not bullshit it’s well known.
“But how do you know Whites dominate these sports because it’s mostly Whites playing these sports in the first place ?”
Well for skateboarding I am inferring it from this line:
“gymnasts tended to have the best balance ability, followed by soccer players, swimmers, active control subjects and then basketball players”
Whites are biologically better suited for gymnastics and swimming compared to blacks, and they are pretty good at soccer.
Whites have higher fat percentage and less dense bones which allows them to swim easier.
I don’t know about climbing.
RR,
“Maybe.”
Maybe Hand eye coordination is heavily correlated to reaction time.
“Ectos have narrow chests. Mesos and endos have wider, more barrel like chests and trunk. ”
So why did you ask? Do you have any sources for how you are able to infer these supposed correlations?
“so you’ve not read any of my articles?”
Of course I did that’s where I got the source, jackass. I was just saying that when SES is controlled for blacks are probably more physically active than whites(except maybe in running).
“non-Hispanic Black subjects appear to have a lower maximal aerobic capacity and a greater percentage of type II skeletal muscle fibers. Combined with reduced energy expenditure and reduced hemoglobin concentration, non-Hispanic Black subjects may be inherently predisposed to a reduced maximal aerobic capacity compared with non-Hispanic White subjects, thereby increasing the risk for obesity and related metabolic diseases.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25739558
“Blacks aren’t stronger than Whites.”
Blacks have stronger grip strength, except when lean mass is controlled for, then whites have proportionately more grip. Whites have a larger gait and more muscle fibers for endurance, but blacks have muscle 2 fiber typing which is similar to a chimp’s muscle fiber make up, which allows for explosive strength. Blacks also have denser bones. i think Whites could probably lift more than the average black but Blacks have more physical power.
“Maybe Hand eye coordination is heavily correlated to reaction time”
Maybe. I’ll look into if later.
“So why did you ask? Do you have any sources for how you are able to infer these supposed correlations?”
Years in my profession. Am I not able to use my own personal and professional experience to infer this?
“Of course I did that’s where I got the source, jackass. I was just saying that when SES is controlled for blacks are probably more physically active than whites(except maybe in running).”
Maybe. Can you find data?
And thanks for the cite but I wrote about that article by Caesar and Henry 2015 back in the summer of 16. Well aware of the paper. Good read too. Goes in depth on how the fast firing of the type II fibers leads to metabolic diseases. I cited it in my muscle fiber and obesity paper. I’ll link the full paper later if you’d like to discuss it.
“Blacks have stronger grip strength, except when lean mass is controlled for, then whites have proportionately more grip. Whites have a larger gait and more muscle fibers for endurance, but blacks have muscle 2 fiber typing which is similar to a chimp’s muscle fiber make up, which allows for explosive strength. Blacks also have denser bones. i think Whites could probably lift more than the average black but Blacks have more physical power.”
No they don’t. I’ve written at least 12 articles on this matter. Nothing you said is wrong except ‘but blacks have more physical power’, no they don’t. And controlling for lean mass in regards to grip strength Ala Araujo et al 2010 is important, it’s a confound. Whites could lift more than the average black but blacks definitely don’t have more physical power.
“Whites are biologically better suited for gymnastics and swimming compared to blacks,”
This.
And here are my thoughts on that grip strength study.
Table 1 shows the results of the DXA scan, anthropometric data and lean and fat mass. Blacks’ mean lean mass of 124 pounds (mean weight 193 pounds), ‘Hispanics” lean mass was 114 pounds (mean weight 179 pounds) and whites had a mean lean mass of 122 pounds (mean weight 196 pounds). Blacks had a mean grip strength of 89.826 pounds while ‘Hispanics’ had a mean grip strength of 82.698 pounds and whites had a mean grip strength of 88.528 pounds. Blacks had a higher lean mass index than whites by 5 percent, but had a composite physical function score 20 percent lower than whites.
White men had a 25 percent higher average composite physical functioning score, which, when indexed by lean mass and grip, white men had grips 10 percent stronger. White men also scored higher on physical function and lean mass. White men had lower levels of lean muscle mass than blacks and ‘Hispanics’ after controlling for confounding factors, yet whites were still stronger. Since lean mass is related to strength, blacks and ‘Hispanics’ should have had a stronger grip, yet they didn’t. Why?
The authors stated that the reason was unknown since they didn’t test for muscle quality or strength exerted for each unit of muscle. I have proven that whites, on average, are stronger than blacks. If the it were true that blacks were stronger, which is what you see upon first glance viewing table 1 of Araujo et al (2010), then the black population would have lower rates of morbidity and mortality due to higher levels of strength. The black population doesn’t have lower levels of morbidity or mortality. Therefore blacks are not stronger than whites.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933725/
And they also state in the conclusion:
Further exploration of why higher lean mass in non-white subjects do not appear to translate into higher strength and physical function is warranted.
MENA and South Asians are generally shit at sport (except for North Africans who dominate the very specific competition of 1500m, lol)
I agree Whites are as large/muscular as Blacks with difference in morphology and muscle fiber typing. From this we should except similar athletic achievement but in different fields.
May be a slight advantage for Whites because of better coordination, spatial perception… overall higher intelligence.
MeLo, you should stop using “Caucasoids” to define exclusively white people. Every word as a definition even if you disagree with and think it doesn’t make sense.
RR,
“Am I not able to use my own personal and professional experience to infer this?”
It’s not that your expertise are useless, I just expect you provide a mechanistic explanation for such phenomena, either in the form of experimental observations or through mathematical proof. Empiricism>anecdotes.
“Can you find data?”
I didn’t really look I just assumed since west africans are genetically inclined to be athletic that they would also have cultures that reflect this.
“I wrote about that article by Caesar and Henry 2015 back in the summer of 16. Well aware of the paper. Good read too. ”
I know I just said that, again reading comprehension. Or maybe I am erroneously attaching a pretentious tone to your replies? Please correct me.
“And controlling for lean mass in regards to grip strength Ala Araujo et al 2010 is important, it’s a confound. Whites could lift more than the average black but blacks definitely don’t have more physical power.”
There is a difference between power and leverage. Chimps are a little stronger than humans, this is because they have more type 2 muscle fibers, it allows for quick high intensity feats of strength. Europeans have a larger center of gravity because of their skeletal structure,and somatotype. So because the absolute difference in power is tiny between West Africans and Europeans, the leverage advantage produced by Europeans allows them to out compete Africans in Power-lifting. Leaner mass individuals acquire muscle more easily and the studies you cited directly state that West Africans have more grip strength. What is physical function?
I’m not saying blacks are stronger than whites on average, because they aren’t, but West Africans are, and most American Blacks have West African genetic roots.
“MeLo, you should stop using “Caucasoids” to define exclusively white people. Every word as a definition even if you disagree with and think it doesn’t make sense.”
It makes perfect sense. How the hell is it fair to Lump Subsaharan Africans based on Morphology, but not Europeans? White people arent the only caucasoids but Europeans have the most traditional Caucasoid appearance and are not phenotypic Hybrids of any kind. North Africans are mixed with negroid, Central Asians are mixed with mongoloids and South asians are mixed with Australoids and mongoloids. Sub Saharan Africa is relatively pure and so is China,japan and Korea.
I’ve explained this reasoning enough.
“I’ve explained this reasoning enough.”
Some of these populations are not as mixed as you think and a North African with no negroid admixture =/= European.
These populations are adapted to their specific environments and have specific morphologic (and cognitive) adaptions. That’s what you fail to understand.
Lyrion,
“Some of these populations are not as mixed as you think and a North African with no negroid admixture =/= European.”
I’m not sure if Entirely Caucasoid individuals would constitute the majority of the North African population. Either way, North Africans are still pretty Athletic.
“These populations are adapted to their specific environments and have specific morphologic (and cognitive) adaptions. That’s what you fail to understand.”
Human variation in facial morphology is clinal to a degree. But the transitional populations derive these specific traits from hybridization. not environmental pressures. When I write a part two I’ll discuss how certain anatomical differences may be due to sexual selection and genetic drift, not climate.
I’m not sure if Entirely Caucasoid individuals would constitute the majority of the North African population.
There are literally HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of non-white Caucasoids who have no significant non-Caucasoid admixture.
Pumpkin,
“There are literally HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of non-white Caucasoids who have no significant non-Caucasoid admixture.”
MENA’s do in fact h considerable Negroid Admixture. In fact all Dark Caucasoids have some amount of admixture, otherwise they would not be dark. All dark Caucasoids are not purely Caucasoid in the morphological way.
“White are generally overrepresented in sports that only white people care about or that require a certain social class.”
That’s because whites are the most Athletic. Whites play every sport but are not the best at every sport. When it comes to athletic ability, Rushton’s Rule is applicable. Whites have the best Combination of hand eye coordination, mental abstraction, and Physical prowess.
Plus it’s not like over-representation means anything.
“You’ve defined sports but you can’t know Caucasoids are better at most sports unless you’ve looked at a sample of sports and done a side-by-side comparison & ”
Ya and it showed whites were better at more sports. Still doesn’t mean the sample isn’t bias.
“Blacks are better at long distance running, sprinting, walking, jumping, punching, tackling, dancing and perhaps kicking. Caucasoids are better at swimming, and maybe climbing, wrestling and lifting.”
LOL it even turns out the the west african groups that do good in the speed sports are only jamaicans and Black Americans.
“Not a single sprinting medal has been won at the Olympic Games or the World Championships by Mauritania, Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, the Republic of Guinea, Liberia, Ivory Coast, Togo, Niger, Benin, Mali, the Gambia, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Gabon, Senegal, Congo and Angola. Yet these are all West African states.”
Go ahead pumpkin, be autistic and decide that a number no individual actually has, is normative in the population. You’re so wrong that you’re right.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2008.00493.x/full
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/genetic-research-shows-athletic-skill-is-not-a-black-and-white-issue/news-story/794c66e0c667e7db8af44edc852531fa?sv=943ff029425a830d375c6e7ade21644
MENA’s do in fact h considerable Negroid Admixture. In fact all Dark Caucasoids have some amount of admixture, otherwise they would not be dark.
You realize the Middle east has a warmer climate than Europe right? And no they don’t have considerable Negroid admixture, outside the Arabian peninsula they have around 10% on the maternal side, and probably much, much less on the paternal side.
All dark Caucasoids are not purely Caucasoid in the morphological way.
It seems that way to you because you’re equating Caucasoid with European which is ironic because the Caucasus region is largely non-European
That’s because whites are the most Athletic. Whites play every sport but are not the best at every sport.
Anyone can play every sport. It’s winning that’s difficult.
Plus it’s not like over-representation means anything.
Of course over-representation means something. Men are way better athletes than women, and thus are far more overrepresented among the elite of virtually every sport. Overrepresentation is the only stats we have for comparing races athletically because we don’t have representative samples of normal members of each race playing sports, we can only infer the ranking at the mean from the ranking at the top. You don’t seem to understand that average differences are reflected at the extremes: if group A is more athletic than group B on average, then group A will produce more top athletes per capita. Not always, but typically. A tall race will produce more giants per capita than a short race. A smart race will produce more geniuses per capita than a dumb race. A rich race will produce more billionaires per capita than a poor race.
Ya and it showed whites were better at more sports.
Blacks are more overrepresented than Caucasoids among the top Olympians
LOL it even turns out the the west african groups that do good in the speed sports are only jamaicans and Black Americans.
“Not a single sprinting medal has been won at the Olympic Games or the World Championships by Mauritania, Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, the Republic of Guinea, Liberia, Ivory Coast, Togo, Niger, Benin, Mali, the Gambia, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Gabon, Senegal, Congo and Angola. Yet these are all West African states.”
And yet the ten fastest humans of all time are all black. The black race produces more top sprinters per capita than the Caucasoid race, or even just the white race. Of course they’ll be drawn from the most athletic subgroup of blacks (West African) in the better nourished countries (Jamaica and U.S.). That doesn’t change the per capita rate for the Negroid race as a whole, it just means that within Negroids, there are group differences also. Now you could argue that African Americans are such outliers that they tell us nothing about the average Negroid human, but generally speaking, if the top members of group X are better than the top members of group Y, than the average member of group X is better than the average member of group Y. Either you don’t understand this general rule, or you think that Negroids are an exception to it.
To make an analogy, men are better sprinters than woman so we should expect the top sprinters to all be men. Does it matter that these men are African American and Jamaican? Of course not, because the race of the top sprinters doesn’t change the fact that men produce way more top sprinters per capita than women do.
“It’s not that your expertise are useless, I just expect you provide a mechanistic explanation for such phenomena, either in the form of experimental observations or through mathematical proof. Empiricism>anecdotes.”
Got you. Not really able to link good studies. Haven’t been neat my computer for a few days. Though I’ve worked with hundreds of people, etc etc.
“Or maybe I am erroneously attaching a pretentious tone to your replies? Please correct me.”
Yes. Apologies if my tone comes off as pretentious. Can’t help it, it’s “in my genes.” My genes and environment interact to create my personality. =^)
“I didn’t really look I just assumed since west africans are genetically inclined to be athletic that they would also have cultures that reflect this.”
I’ll look later. Physical inactivity is in part a driver for obesity (and other metabolic diseases) in blacks due to their fiber typing.
“There is a difference between power and leverage. Chimps are a little stronger than humans, this is because they have more type 2 muscle fibers, it allows for quick high intensity feats of strength.”
Yup. A new paper came out at the beginning of the year about this. We have relatively as humans (not parsing out races) type I fibers which is one reason why we’re the running ape.
“Europeans have a larger center of gravity because of their skeletal structure,and somatotype. So because the absolute difference in power is tiny between West Africans and Europeans, the leverage advantage produced by Europeans allows them to out compete Africans in Power-lifting. Leaner mass individuals acquire muscle more easily and the studies you cited directly state that West Africans have more grip strength. What is physical function?”
Blacks gave a higher center of gravity due to their long narrow limbs whereas whites and Asians have lower center of gravity due to their longer trunks.
http://pratt.duke.edu/news/speediest-athletes-its-all-center-gravity
I can’t find the paper at the moment so that’s good enough.
The study I cited stated in the conclusion:
Further exploration of why higher lean mass in non-white subjects do not appear to translate into higher strength and physical function is warranted.
Hmmm
Physical function is: Upper extremity (grip) strength was assessed with a hand dynamometer and lower extremity physical function was derived from walk and chair stand tests. Upper extremity strength and lower extremity physical function were also indexed by lean mass and lean mass was indexed by the square of height.
They were similar with a nonsignificant difference. After controls, whites had better grip however they had lower lean mass than blacks and Hispanics. Grip strength has a high correlation with mortality, with men with a higher grip strength living longer. Low grip strength is a warning sign for numerous maladies. So if blacks did have stronger grip, why don’t they live longer? That was a reason for why this study was carried out.
“I’m not saying blacks are stronger than whites on average, because they aren’t, but West Africans are”
Wrong.
Melo,
“http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/genetic-research-shows-athletic-skill-is-not-a-black-and-white-issue/news-story/794c66e0c667e7db8af44edc852531fa?sv=943ff029425a830d375c6e7ade21644”
I can’t access this link. It’s paywalled and I’m not paying to read it. If you are able can you provide the full text in the comments? Thanks.
“LOL it even turns out the the west african groups that do good in the speed sports are only jamaicans and Black Americans.”
And even then, Jamaicans have maternal ancestry to West Africa. ‘Jamaicans’ don’t exist in the biological sense, only he cultural sense.
Quoting myself:
It’s interesting to note that the mtDNA haplotype predicts success in African American sprinters, but not Jamaicans. In regards to mtDNA haplotypes, Jamaican sprinters had statistically similar mtDNA haplotypes, which suggests that the elite sprinters arose from the same source population which indicates that there is no population stratification or isolation on sprint performance. African American sprinters and non-sprinters, on the other hand, had statistically significant differences in mtDNA, which implies that maternal ancestry plays a part in sprinting performance (Deason et al, 2011). Studying both maternal and paternal haplotypes to see where source populations originate is important in these fields, since if we know where their population came from, then we can better understand the hows and whys of elite running performance—especially between race. Though demographic studies on Jamaicans show that elite sprinters come from the same demographic population, so genetics cannot possibly account for Jamaican sprinting success, so their sprinting success may be related to environmental and social factors (Irving et al, 2013). We know little about the genomics of elite sporting performance (Pitsiladis et al, 2013), so the physical correlates (somatype) and physiologic correlates will do for now.
Pumpkin,
You realize the Middle east has a warmer climate than Europe right?”
Your point?
“outside the Arabian peninsula they have around 10%”
10% is a lot of retained admixture.
“because you’re equating Caucasoid with European which is ironic because the Caucasus region is largely non-European”
That’s irrelevant. I’m equating European with Caucasoid because they have the most anatomical similarities to the classical depiction of a Caucasoid Skull. Caucasus regions are the closest to Europe.
“probably much, much less on the paternal side.”
I doubt that, and i’m surprised you don’t.
“Anyone can play every sport. It’s winning that’s difficult.”
And whites win the most sports.
“You don’t seem to understand that average differences are reflected at the extremes”
Not if the distribution isn’t normal.
“And yet the ten fastest humans of all time are all black.”
And yet the ten fastest humans of all time are all West African****
“Either you don’t understand this general rule, or you think that Negroids are an exception to it.”
I choose B.
10% is a lot of retained admixture.
No it’s not. Many white Americans have 10% black admixture and no one can even tell. Indeed in Australia, it was common practice to have part-Aboriginals mate with whites because once you got down to 1/8th Australoid, there was no visible trace and it was considered breeded out:
And it’s 10% on the maternal side, probably closer to 5% overall because during the Arab slave trade black genes would have entered the Arab gene pool though the female line (i.e. concubines, masters raping slaves) with very few cases of black men mating Arab women.
That’s irrelevant. I’m equating European with Caucasoid because they have the most anatomical similarities to the classical depiction of a Caucasoid Skull.
No idea where you’re getting that from
And whites win the most sports.
There are over 8000 sports in existence and unless you’ve taken a random sample and compared who wins by race, you don’t actually know this. Per capita, the worldwide black population wins more Olympic sports than whites do, and those are the sports billions of people actually care about. Some elite sports that only a handful of privileged whites play at some Ivy League fraternity are irrelevant.
“You don’t seem to understand that average differences are reflected at the extremes”
Not if the distribution isn’t normal.
Even if the distribution is very abnormal. Few distributions are less normal than wealth and income, yet we find that groups that produce the most billionaires per capita (Jews) also tend to average more wealth than groups that produce few billionaires per capita (blacks) and lower rates of poverty, so even in non-bell curves, doing well at the top is reflected on a smaller scale in the average and bottom. It’s not about the type of distribution, it’s about the fact that if the best of group A exceeds the best of group B, then the default assumption is that group A exceeds group B overall. Of course there are exceptions. It could be that Negroids produce more Olympic athletes per capita not because they have a high average, but because they have a high variance (and thus produce more outliers at both the high and low extremes, both at the individual level (Michael Jordan) and the sub-group level (West Africans)). So I’m not saying your claims are impossible, what I’m saying is you have no evidence.
RR
“Blacks gave a higher center of gravity due to their long narrow limbs whereas whites and Asians have lower center of gravity due to their longer trunks.”
Really? I Figured sense Europeans and East asians were more endomorphic that they would have larger trunks which would keep them more grounded. This actually undermines your point and it means Blacks have more leverage.
“Blacks gave a higher center of gravity due to their long narrow limbs whereas whites and Asians have lower center of gravity due to their longer trunks.”
But usually constraining factors like lean body mass are not controlled for in a real life setting.
“Really”
Yes. I’ll get the paper in a bit.
“This actually undermines your point and it means Blacks have more leverage.”
No it doesn’t and yes they do. I didn’t even need to cite the study to know that blacks have more leverage, it’s painfully obvious from average somatype. Blacks have more leverage than whites on average. Why aren’t blacks stronger? It goes back to muscle fiber typing, body fat etc etc.
“But usually constraining factors like lean body mass are not controlled for in a real life setting.”
Which sports would you be talking abkht here?
” I didn’t even need to cite the study to know that blacks have more leverage, it’s painfully obvious from average somatype.”
How is it obvious? A larger torso should give more center of gravity, Maybe it’s because blacks have larger legs. But that of course means blacks should also have better leverage in lifting.
“Why aren’t blacks stronger? It goes back to muscle fiber typing, body fat etc etc.”
Blacks are stronger than whites, body fat and muscle fiber typing are some of the reasons why.
“Which sports would you be talking abkht here?”
I’m not specifically talking about sports. When a study controls for something it more or less equalizes a trait between comparative subjects. The study was basically saying that if whites had equal lean body mass(among other things) to blacks then they would have stronger grip, Most of the time whites do not have this lean body mass and therefore do not have stronger grips.
“Maybe it’s because blacks have larger legs. But that of course means blacks should also have better leverage in lifting.”
Longer legs. They theoretically have better leverage (I’m currently writing something on whites, blacks and Asians on lifting and the big 3 lifts and overhead press. I’m going to compare just on morphology then add muscle fiber).
“Blacks are stronger than whites, body fat and muscle fiber typing are some of the reasons why.”
Stop saying this. You’re wrong. Where are all of the blacks winning strength competitions? I’m sure people like Kai Greene and Ronnie Coleman would give a few guys a run for their money but other than that there aren’t many blacks that I’d say that would be able to win a strength competition with the elite. Look at Brian Shaw. His deadlift is ridiculous. Obviously it’s not only due to his ethnicity that he’s a world record holding athlete though of course individuals etc etc and race averages etc etc. You know this, you know my arguments, you agreed with me two years ago when I argued with PP about this, what changed? Type II fibers? The chimp comparison? You can’t seriously attempt to use that as a premise. It doesn’t work. One of my favorite examples is Mark Henry. Black WWE wrestler and former Worlds Strongest Man. One of the strongest men ever. And look at his somatype. Hmmm…
“The study was basically saying that if whites had equal lean body mass(among other things) to blacks then they would have stronger grip, Most of the time whites do not have this lean body mass and therefore do not have stronger grips.”
From the conclusion:
Further exploration of why higher lean mass in non-white subjects do not appear to translate into higher strength and physical function is warranted.
Blacks’ mean lean mass of 124 pounds (mean weight 193 pounds), ‘Hispanics” lean mass was 114 pounds (mean weight 179 pounds) and whites had a mean lean mass of 122 pounds (mean weight 196 pounds). I’m too lazy to do the math right now but it looks like uncontrolled, they had a similar difference in weight. And the difference between blacks and whites in grip strength was 1.4 pounds. I’m too lazy to do the math right now because it’s 1 in the morning but I’d bet the difference between body weight/lean mass is similar to an insignificant difference in grip strength between blacks and whites.
“Human variation in facial morphology is clinal to a degree. But the transitional populations derive these specific traits from hybridization. not environmental pressures. When I write a part two I’ll discuss how certain anatomical differences may be due to sexual selection and genetic drift, not climate.”
Off topic, I’m not talking about facial morphology. North Africans don’t have the same body morphology as Europeans and it can’t be explain by the little negroid admixture some of them have.
“In fact all Dark Caucasoids have some amount of admixture, otherwise they would not be dark.”
Completly retarded reasoning. Then why Native Americans from Central America are darker than those from North America ? Negroid admixture ? Did it cross your mind that they could be dark because adapted to more sunny environments ?
RR,
“Stop saying this. You’re wrong.”
I don’t see how.
“Where are all of the blacks winning strength competitions?”
That’s irrelevant, if I can biologically demonstrate the physical superiority of one race over another then any discrepancies that contradict that evidence are due to Environmental/cultural reasons. Plus it’s not like I said Blacks can lift more, they’re just stronger, there is a difference. I’m not entirely sure how you don’t know this.
“Further exploration of why higher lean mass in non-white subjects do not appear to translate into higher strength and physical function is warranted.”
Among other things***** Of course lean mass doesn’t always translate to more muscle, but you’re trying to use another “everything else is equal” argument when nothing is ever equal.
Lyrion,
” it can’t be explain by the little negroid admixture some of them have.”
Yes it can, I’m not sure how you derived that conclusion.
“Completly retarded reasoning. Did it cross your mind that they could be dark because adapted to more sunny environments ?”
It’s actually pretty logical. The fertile crescent is one of the first places that Agriculture popped up. Agriculture causes the lightening of skin, not less sun, “that this could have been because farmers ate less meat than hunter-gatherers, so their vitamin D intake was reduced. People with dark skin would have been able to get less vitamin D from sun exposure, which could have left them deficient.” RR wrote an article about this.
So any dark skin is more likely to due with pulsations of Negroid migration followed by admixture. It’s actually painfully obvious that skin color and the environment are not heavily correlated, the largest skin color diversity exists in Sub Saharan Africa.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11126724
https://www.sciencealert.com/ancient-dna-suggests-agriculture-triggered-changes-linked-to-height-digestion-and-skin-colour
“That’s irrelevant, if I can biologically demonstrate the physical superiority of one race over another then any discrepancies that contradict that evidence are due to Environmental/cultural reasons. Plus it’s not like I said Blacks can lift more, they’re just stronger, there is a difference. I’m not entirely sure how you don’t know this.”
It’s not irrelevant. If blacks were stronger than they’d be more represented in strength competitions. Lift more=stronger. Can you explain what you mean by ‘blacks are stronger’? Review my article on muscle fiber typing and elite sporting competition.
Look at Kenya, the only African country to ever place (with a black man) IN WSM. Higher percentage of type I fibers. Europeans win strength competitions and Asians are pretty good too. Higher proportion of type I fibers. Coincidence?
Endomorphic somatypes are stronger.
Weightlifters and powerlifters have more type I fibers on average with more type II. What’s that tell you?
“Of course lean mass doesn’t always translate to more muscle, but you’re trying to use another “everything else is equal” argument when nothing is ever equal.”
Why do any studies control for anything if nothing is ever equal? The quote stated that when lean mass wasn’t controlled for.
And I’ll do the math when I get home but the raw numbers look like grip strength is even. Hmmm. Also why do blacks perform poorly on physical function compared to whites in thst study?
I’d also like you to elaborate, stronger in which lifts? How and why? I’ll give you the last reply here. I’m currently writing an article on race, strength and the big 4 lifts and I’ll just integrate some of what you’re saying into it. I’ll be done by tomorrow afternoon. Going to send it to PP to publish here.
Sounds good RR, i look forward to publishing it.
“Lift more=stronger.”
No it does not.
“Can you explain what you mean by ‘blacks are stronger’? ”
I just explained this. Type 2 muscle fibers are why Chimps are stronger than humans. West Africans have more muscle type 2 fibers…derp derp derp derp.
“Review my article on muscle fiber typing and elite sporting competition.”
I already told you i read Your article. Do not repeat yourself again, I am in a very bad mood today. Something bothers me about your article
“Type IIa fibers possess more aerobic potential than IIx, therefore, power lifters have a higher proportion of IIa fibers compared to IIx fibers. It should also be noted that powerlifters have the same amount of type I fibers as the general population (Fry et al, 2003a), so knowing this fact, since blacks have a lower proportion of type I muscle fibers as noted in Caeser and Hunter (2015), this explains why there are very few black power lifters: ”
See, you’re using post ad hoc reasoning. You stated the proportional make up of muscle fibers between races but you made this erroneous conclusion that type 1 fibers are responsible, but from what we know about these fiber differences it doesn’t make any sense. More than likely It’s due to higher levels of type 2b fibers. Do whites have more type 2b fibers than West Africans? No.
“Coincidence?”
Probably.
“Endomorphic somatypes are stronger.”
No, they have more leverage in the torso, plus shorter arms which allows for easier weightlifting. West Africans have more power in every action because of their lean bodies, bone density and muscle fibers it’s why they sprint faster, punch harder, tackle harder, jump higher, etc etc.Both groups are incredibly strong, but for different reasons, it just happens that reasons blacks are strong has to actually do with muscle type, not their body shape. Strength is ultimately a result of muscle, not your somatotype.
“The quote stated that when lean mass wasn’t controlled for.”
Which is a quote I had already posted but yet you posted it again because you have the reading ability of a 3 year old. It clearly stated that Blacks have more grip strength when nothing is controlled for.
“Also why do blacks perform poorly on physical function compared to whites in that study?”
Physical function was the formula for the controlled experiment.
“Why do any studies control for anything if nothing is ever equal?”
To test the magnitude of independent variables.
“No it does not.”
Enlighten me.
“Type 2 muscle fibers are why Chimps are stronger than humans.”
Their smaller stature isn’t a reason why too… It’s more than muscle fibers with chimps. They can therefore generate way more power pound for pound.
“Something bothers me about your article”
And it’s more than fiber typing but that’s part of it too. Holism > reductionism
“but from what we know about these fiber differences it doesn’t make any sense. More than likely It’s due to higher levels of type 2b fibers. Do whites have more type 2b fibers than West Africans? No.”
Do blacks on average have the same fiber proportion as elite powerlifters? No. Check my citation there and look at the tables.
“Probably”
So the only reason why blacks dont excel is cultural/environmental? Please be specific: which lifts and why? You just saying ‘blacks are stronger’ is useless if you don’t explain which lifts, biomechanics and why this happens.
“West Africans have more power in every action because of their lean bodies”
People with more body fat are stronger. The bar has less of a path to travel to reach the point.
“Both groups are incredibly strong, but for different reasons, it just happens that reasons blacks are strong has to actually do with muscle type, not their body shape. Strength is ultimately a result of muscle, not your somatype”
So where is the real world proof? Inferring is cool but you’re not proving anything talking about muscle fiber physiology and levers; strongmen have shorter arms, longer torso which means the bar has a shorter path to travel. Africans would excel in pulling exercises but not pushing/squat. You’re being extremely vague here, just saying ‘they’re stronger’ is useless unless you explain which lifts and why this would happen. Keep the inference up, I want to see the conclusion.
You’re only saying ‘they’re incredibly strong’ with literally no proof other then fibers and your shitty chimp comparison.
“Which is a quote I had already posted but yet you posted it again because you have the reading ability of a 3 year old. It clearly stated that Blacks have more grip strength when nothing is controlled for.”
No you, not in this thread. Please retract your sophomoric statement. Thank you.
Look at the average weights of the two groups and grip strength. Do the math and see who’s stronger pound for pound in grip strength. Looks like it’d be similar with an insignificant difference.
“Physical function was the formula for the controlled experiment.”
Provide the quote.
“To test the magnitude of independent variables.”
So when looking at, say, racial comparisons should I accept the non controlled part and disregard the controls?
“Yes it can, I’m not sure how you derived that conclusion.”
A lot of quadroons have white skin and 5% negroid admixture would explain the dark skin of Arabs who btw clearly have caucasoid facial features ?
“It’s actually pretty logical. The fertile crescent is one of the first places that Agriculture popped up. Agriculture causes the lightening of skin, not less sun, “that this could have been because farmers ate less meat than hunter-gatherers, so their vitamin D intake was reduced. People with dark skin would have been able to get less vitamin D from sun exposure, which could have left them deficient.” RR wrote an article about this.”
Put an Irish or a Scandinavian under the sun of Arabia and you will see how retarded this is. I don’t deny the theory of agriculture being a cause of lightening of skin. It’s one of the causes as lower sunlight is another cause, and claiming sunlight have nothing to do with skin color is utterly retarded.
Lyrion,
“A lot of quadroons have white skin and 5% negroid admixture would explain the dark skin of Arabs who btw clearly have caucasoid facial features ?”
I’m sure it contributes to some of it.
“Put an Irish or a Scandinavian under the sun of Arabia and you will see how retarded this is.”
There are light skinned arabs, plenty of them in fact. I didn’t say Agriculture was the only cause, but it does beg the question as to why there is so much intra- racial variation in this trait if it is solely based on climate.
RR,
“Enlighten me.”
I already did.
“Their smaller stature isn’t a reason why too… ”
Explain?
“Holism > reductionism”
Pfffffttt, LMAO no. Reductionism is why Europe had the scientific revolution before China.
“No. Check my citation there and look at the tables.”
So then whites just have outliers at the extremes.
“You just saying ‘blacks are stronger’ is useless if you don’t explain which lifts, biomechanics and why this happens.”
I already explained the biomechanics, i don’t know exactly what lifts but im sure powerlifting is one they wouldn’t be good at.
“People with more body fat are stronger. The bar has less of a path to travel to reach the point.”
How does that make sense?
“Inferring is cool but you’re not proving anything talking about muscle fiber physiology and levers;”
It’s not an inference if I can actually show physiological factors are in play.
“other then fibers and your shitty chimp comparison.”
I’ve provided more than that but those two are enough to demonstrate my point.
“Provide the quote.”
“Upper extremity (grip) strength was assessed with a hand dynamometer and lower extremity physical function was derived from walk and chair stand tests. Upper extremity strength and lower extremity physical function were also indexed by lean mass and lean mass was indexed by the square of height.”
“So when looking at, say, racial comparisons should I accept the non controlled part and disregard the controls?”
Yes.
Pumpkin,
“No it’s not. Many white Americans have 10% black admixture and no one can even tell.”
That’s not how genetics works. Phenotype is not genotype The 10% African admixture in White americans could have no real physical effects, yet 10% admixture in arabs could cause dramatic changes, which it does, it all depends on the selection pressures.
“No idea where you’re getting that from”
I assumed it was common knowledge.
“There are over 8000 sports in existence and unless you’ve taken a random sample and compared who wins by race, you don’t actually know this. Per capita, the worldwide black population wins more Olympic sports than whites do”
Nope, Whites still win the most competitions, Per capita is irrelevant, I’m talking about which race has the most Athletic average phenotype, which is obviously Whites, The Athletic variation between whites is lower than between Africans because of the fact that only 3 populations represent the Black Athletic community, take them out, the over-representation is no longer there…
“So I’m not saying your claims are impossible, what I’m saying is you have no evidence.”
I’ve provided plenty of evidence you’re just being intellectually dishonest(or autistic). It’s not like you’ve actually been inquisitive either on what biological factors make Europeans good at sports, you just seem stuck on this per capita thing, as if theory ever trumped physical reality.
That’s not how genetics works. Phenotype is not genotype The 10% African admixture in White americans could have no real physical effects, yet 10% admixture in arabs could cause dramatic changes, which it does, it all depends on the selection pressures.
Then it’s not the African admixture that made them dark per se, it’s the selection pressure, because the selection pressure could have just as easily acted on indigenous pigment variation (i.e. mutations).
I assumed it was common knowledge.
Or perhaps a common myth.
Nope, Whites still win the most competitions, Per capita is irrelevant, I’m talking about which race has the most Athletic average phenotype, which is obviously Whites, The Athletic variation between whites is lower than between Africans because of the fact that only 3 populations represent the Black Athletic community, take them out, the over-representation is no longer there…
If only 3 populations are pulling up the black average, the average is still pulled up.
I’ve provided plenty of evidence you’re just being intellectually dishonest(or autistic). It’s not like you’ve actually been inquisitive either on what biological factors make Europeans good at sports,
Biological factors that make them good at WHICH sports? The biological factors that make a good football player are different from the biological factors that make a good power lifter which are different from the biological factors that make a good gymnast, sprinter, boxer, figure skater or marathon runner. If you were citing biological factors that made whites better power lifters (as RR argues), I’d say “fine” because with one sport you can set the parameters, but when talking about overall athletic ability, the question become: How is overall athletic ability measured? How many biological factors are involved? What percentage of the variance does each factor contribute? Simply rattling off a handful of physical abilities that whites are good at and thinking you’ve categorically proven white athletic supremacy is silly.
I’ll let you have the last word because the discussion is no longer advancing.
“Then it’s not the African admixture that made them dark per se, it’s the selection pressure, because the selection pressure could have just as easily acted on indigenous pigment variation”
Hmm, Aren’t you the one who stated that the resurgence of traits is more likely to be due to retained ancestry than convergent evolution? I mean, that’s what you said in our argument on whether Australoids should be grouped with Negroids.
“Or perhaps a common myth.”
…….well go on?
“If only 3 populations are pulling up the black average, the average is still pulled up.”
The 3 populations don’t pull the average past the Caucasoid one. Per capita is not the same as on average, you literally just admitted this. Over representation could be due to sampling bias and abnormal phenotypic distributions. You also stated this.
“Simply rattling off a handful of physical abilities that whites are good at and thinking you’ve categorically proven white athletic supremacy is silly.”
You’re right, even though creating a General Athletic ability has been attempted I don’t think it’s ever been applied to multiple races.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23267224.1928.10652072?journalCode=uzjr20
But it’s actually pretty easy to see who has higher general ability by seeing who’s best at the most sports, which happens to be whites, who make up the majority of Olympic winners.
“1. Pick an arbitrary athletic contest: 100m dash, bench press, obstacle course, marathon, whatever.
2. You pick a member of the population at random.
3. I pick a member of the German national football team at random.
4. If Joe Schmoe wins, I pay you a dollar. If Dieter Schmieter wins, you pay me a dollar.
5. Repeat until convinced.
Who do you think will win more money in the long run? Will the Germans tend to win because of their high general fitness, or will it be a toss-up because the Germans merely have “high soccer fitness” which does not help (or perhaps even disadvantages) them at non-soccer tasks?”
More than likely it’s due to shared ability and not a game of chance. Interestingly, “Soccer is the sport played most consistently around the world. It’s not sectioned off or dominated by one particular country.” It makes up about 4 percent of the world population.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/14/soccer-worlds-best-sport_n_5248061.html
Click to access emaga_9384_10704.pdf
And it just so happens that soccer is dominated by whites even though it is a relatively unbiased sample.
http://www.diversityinc.com/news/measure-diversity-one-u-s-pro-sport-meets/
http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2014/07/a-different-measure-of-diversity-in-pro-sports/
“I’ll let you have the last word because the discussion is no longer advancing.”
Oh, it can advance, you just need to ask the right questions, instead of repeating yourself, otherwise I will give ad nauseam back. It’s fine If you no longer wish to discuss this I feel as though I’ve proven my point anyway.
Hmm, Aren’t you the one who stated that the resurgence of traits is more likely to be due to retained ancestry than convergent evolution?
And that’s consistent with what I’m arguing because all humans were originally dark skinned so the simplest explanation for why Arabs are darker than Europeans, is Arabs never left a sunny environment, and thus preserved more of the ancestral dark skin than Europeans did. There’s no reason to posit recent African admixture to explain it, especially when the recent admixture is so small.
…….well go on?
I’ve never heard it, and you don’t seem to know where you heard it, so maybe myth.
The 3 populations don’t pull the average past the Caucasoid one. Per capita is not the same as on average, you literally just admitted this. Over representation could be due to sampling bias and abnormal phenotypic distributions. You also stated this.
I admitted that a race with a lower average could overperform at the extremes IF it has a greater variance, but that’s the exception, not the rule. In most cases, races that do better at the top also do better on average, and since Negroids do better at the top, my default assumption is that they do better on the average, until I see evidence to the contrary.
You’re right, even though creating a General Athletic ability has been attempted I don’t think it’s ever been applied to multiple races.
And that’s precisely the kind of data you would need: A representative sample of all Negroids vs a representative sample of all Caucasoids compared on a diverse battery of physical tests designed to measure general athletic ability. In the absence of direct measures of general population averages, people tend to look at the extremes as an indirect proxy for which group has a higher average (though this can sometimes be misleading as I agree)
But it’s actually pretty easy to see who has higher general ability by seeing who’s best at the most sports, which happens to be whites, who make up the majority of Olympic winners.
Caucasoids win slightly more Olympic sports than Negroids because Caucasoids outnumber Negroids and well-nourished Caucasoids greatly outnumber well-nourished Negroids. If well-nourished women greatly outnumbered well-nourished men, women would win most sports too, but it wouldn’t mean the average healthy woman is more athletic than the average healthy man, which is why the per capita rates of winning are better proxies for average difference than absolute number of winners, but even the former is an imperfect proxy as I’ve agreed, because Olympic winners are outliers.
I feel as though I’ve proven my point anyway.
You can feel however you want. Reality feels differently. Try it sometime 🙂
The first comment I posted on accident. You should just leave it in moderation
“There’s no reason to posit recent African admixture to explain it, especially when the recent admixture is so small.”
I’m positing that the whole suite of non Caucasoid traits that MENA have is due to admixture, because MENA is the birthplace of the Caucasoid phenotype as well as being the birthplace of farming. In all reality they should have some of the most Caucasoid features, because these traits are mainly due to a farming induced diet but this isn’t the case. The Sahara acts as a natural barrier along with other geographic areas, and that’s how races even formed to begin with, most admixture is very recent.Transitional forms are a product of admixture not latitudinal selection.
“I’ve never heard it, and you don’t seem to know where you heard it, so maybe myth.”
You’ve never heard that Europeans have the most Caucasoid traits? It’s literally because they have the least outside admixture.
“until I see evidence to the contrary.”
I’ve shown you evidence.
“people tend to look at the extremes as an indirect proxy for which group has a higher average (though this can sometimes be misleading as I agree)”
Yeah, but this isn’t one of those classical situations where that line of reasoning works which is what I’ve been trying to tell you this whole time. Your doing a form of ad ignorantiam, IQ is not the best measure of intelligence, but it is the best one we have. So while no such study exists(as far as I’m aware), we have ways of inferring who has the highest Athletic g from representative samples in sports competitions. Which is where the relevance to my soccer argument comes in(the one you conveniently ignored).
If IQ tests didn’t exist but you wanted to know who had the highest level of general intelligence then what would you look at to infer this? Technological development is one, and if hypothetically an IQ test was then given to populations after these measurements, you would probably see a high correlation, which just so happens to be the case in real life. So why can’t we do the same for Athletic ability until a better proxy for measurement is made?
“Caucasoids win slightly more Olympic sports than Negroids because Caucasoids outnumber Negroids and well-nourished Caucasoids greatly outnumber well-nourished Negroids.”
First of all, there is a Quality and Quantity restriction on potential participants in Olympic games. How you didn’t know this is beyond me. So if there is a finite amount of people who can play and only incredibly talented individuals can play to begin with then it doesn’t matter who has most absolute number of Well nourished people, because countries aren’t sending over everyone they can. Even then, Are jamaica, American blacks, and Kenya the only population of Negroids with proper nutrition? Of course not. Quick question, when you brought up that statistic on the percentage of black Olympias, was that for the summer Olympics or the winter ones, or both?
“You can feel however you want. Reality feels differently.”
No, im pretty sure reality agrees with me. It’s not like I’m the one who takes numbers at face value. That’s just a red flag for autism.
I’m positing that the whole suite of non Caucasoid traits that MENA have is due to admixture, because MENA is the birthplace of the Caucasoid phenotype as well as being the birthplace of farming. In all reality they should have some of the most Caucasoid features, because these traits are mainly due to a farming induced diet but this isn’t the case.
But MENAs do have a lot of classically Caucasoid traits like prominent noses, wavy hair, thick beards. They’re darker skinned than whites but white skin was never a major defining trait of Caucasoids. And how do you know farming caused Caucasoid traits. I’ve read that Caucasoid skulls predate agriculture by tens of thousands of years (Mladec 1 31,000 B.P., Czech Republic ) though I can’t find a reliable source to confirm this.
The Sahara acts as a natural barrier along with other geographic areas, and that’s how races even formed to begin with, most admixture is very recent.Transitional forms are a product of admixture not latitudinal selection.
The Northern Caucasoids (Whites) likely had more selection for white skin than Southern Caucasoids (MENAs), but because there were few geographic barriers between them, you find people get very gradually darker as you travel from Northern Europe to Southern Europe to the Middle East, but once you cross the Sahara, you probably get a sudden jump in darkness because you’ve crossed over a geographic barrier to gene flow.
Yeah, but this isn’t one of those classical situations where that line of reasoning works which is what I’ve been trying to tell you this whole time. Your doing a form of ad ignorantiam, IQ is not the best measure of intelligence, but it is the best one we have. So while no such study exists(as far as I’m aware), we have ways of inferring who has the highest Athletic g from representative samples in sports competitions. Which is where the relevance to my soccer argument comes in(the one you conveniently ignored).
But representative samples don’t play competitive soccer, the most athletic 1% play. And why would soccer ability be a good proxy for athletic g? If anything it’s atypical in that it favours short legs.
If IQ tests didn’t exist but you wanted to know who had the highest level of general intelligence then what would you look at to infer this? Technological development is one, and if hypothetically an IQ test was then given to populations after these measurements, you would probably see a high correlation, which just so happens to be the case in real life. So why can’t we do the same for Athletic ability until a better proxy for measurement is made?
If IQ tests didn’t exist people would look at how many Nobel prizes each race produced per capita, which is analogous to me looking at how many Olympic champions each race produces per capita. The assumption is that if the best of group A is better than the best of group B, then the average of group A is better than the average of group B (not always, but generally)
First of all, there is a Quality and Quantity restriction on potential participants in Olympic games. How you didn’t know this is beyond me. So if there is a finite amount of people who can play and only incredibly talented individuals can play to begin with then it doesn’t matter who has most absolute number of Well nourished people, because countries aren’t sending over everyone they can.
Of course it matters because countries are generally sending their best, are they not, or do you think there are millions of people ready to run the 100 meter in under 10 seconds who are just sitting at home eating Pizza?
Forget about nutrition for now and just focus on the raw data: If out of say 1 billion Negroids in the World, the Olympics identifies one (one in a billion) who can run the 100 meter in under 9.6 seconds, and let’s say out of the 3 billion Caucasoids alive, the Olympics identifies 3 (also one per billion) who can run it under 10.3 seconds. This crudely implies that at the top one in a billion level, Negroids are 0.7 seconds faster than Caucasoids. If Negroids are 0.7 seconds faster at the top one in a billion level, then the default assumption is that they’re also 0.7 seconds faster at the average level. That assumption might be wildly wrong, but in the absence of representative samples of the full range of human talent, it’s the best guess we can make. Now apply the same logic to a wider range of Olympic sports and Caucasoid athletic supremacy looks untenable.
Even then, Are jamaica, American blacks, and Kenya the only population of Negroids with proper nutrition? Of course not.
Actually Kenya excels despite malnutrition.
Quick question, when you brought up that statistic on the percentage of black Olympias, was that for the summer Olympics or the winter ones, or both?
I just did a quick google search and found a list of the best Olympians of all time, and found that 40% of the top twenty are Negroid, even though Negroids are only 14% of our species:
20. Pyrros Dimas, Weightlifting, Greece (White Caucasoid)
19. Jim Thorpe, Track and Field, United States (White Caucasoid)
18. Bob Mathias, Decathlon, United States (White Caucasoid)
17. Lasse Viren, Track, Finland (White Caucasoid)
16. Michael Johnson, Track, United States (West African Negroid)
15. Aleksandr Karelin, Greco Roman Wrestling, Russia (White Caucasoid)
14. Alexei Nemov, Gymnastics, Russia (White Caucasoid)
13. Emil Zatopek, Track, Czechoslovakia (White Caucasoid)
12. Wilma Rudolph, Track, United States (West African Negroid)
11. Teofilo Stevenson, Boxing, Cuba (West African Negroid)
10. Florence Griffith-Joyner, Track, United States (West African Negroid)
9. Nadia Comaneci, Gymnastics, Romania (White Caucasoid)
8. Jackie Joyner-Kersee, Track, United States (West African Negroid)
7. Paavo Nurmi, Track, Finland (White Caucasoid)
6. Mark Spitz, Swimming, United States (White Caucasoid)
5. Carl Lewis, Track, United States (West African Negroid)
4. Usain Bolt, Track, Jamaica (West African Negroid)
3. Larisa Latynina, Gymnastics, Soviet Union (White Caucasoid)
2. Michael Phelps, Swimming, United States (White Caucasoid)
1. Jesse Owens, Track, United States (West African Negroid)
No, im pretty sure reality agrees with me. It’s not like I’m the one who takes numbers at face value. That’s just a red flag for autism.
I don’t take them at face value, but just as a rough proxy. I’m saying that to the extent we can identify the World’s best athletes (however crudely) the data favours blacks (at least at the top of the distribution which is all we have to work with). And just because the data is flawed does not mean better data will show the opposite conclusion.
To Melo,
On the topic of non-caucasoid traits in Arabs, in places like Oman it is particually due to admixture due to their interaction with the slave trade, but for Gulf Arabs in generally it’s actually due to having a basal component given them more common ancestry with Africans COMPARED to other Eurasians.
This is the “theoretical” genepool called basal eurasian, the root from which West and east Eurasians spawn from after migrating from Africa.
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003316
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2016/01/11/gr.191478.115.abstract
These traits manifest into Darker skin compared to Levantine genepools, wider features, etc.
I recall Carleton Coon even recorded phenotypes similar to Veddoids in South Asia, though I’m unaware of whether it was the result of admixture or common ancestry.
BTW, while the MENA is the birthplace of Farming, that mainly pertains to the Levantine and Anatolian Area/genepool as opposed to the gulf.
“you probably get a sudden jump in darkness because you’ve crossed over a geographic barrier to gene flow. ”
sahara is the natural barrier between caucasoids and negroids. what is the natural barrier between caucasoids and mongoloids ?
himalayas is probably the caucasoid-mongoloid barrier
” And how do you know farming caused Caucasoid traits. I’ve read that Caucasoid skulls predate agriculture by tens of thousands of years”
A thinner, elongated face is characteristic of adaption to a diet high in Carbs. Cro magnon has the prominent chin but the face is notably more square and robust.
“But representative samples don’t play competitive soccer, the most athletic 1% play. ”
The same logic applies to the Olympics
And why would soccer ability be a good proxy for athletic g?
It’s the most culture fair sport. But you’re right I’m sure shorter legged people would find it easier.
“If IQ tests didn’t exist people would look at how many Nobel prizes each race produced per capita, which is analogous to me looking at how many Olympic champions each race produces per capita. The assumption is that if the best of group A is better than the best of group B, then the average of group A is better than the average of group B (not always, but generally)”
That’s irrelevant to the point of the text you quoted. I’m saying just because we don’t have a perfect measure for Athletic g doesn’t mean we can’t use what resources we have to make a rough estimate. If you agree with me, you can just say so instead of parroting something I’ve addressed too many times.
“Of course it matters because countries are generally sending their best, are they not, or do you think there are millions of people ready to run the 100 meter in under 10 seconds who are just sitting at home eating Pizza?”
The variation of Athletic g is probably small between individuals. Most competitions are decided by milliseconds. It doesn’t matter if Europe has 100 million athletically inclined people while Africa only has 100 thousand, as long as each has at least 11,000 Well nourished participants the samples are unbiased. Africa has more people to begin with anyway.
“Now apply the same logic to a wider range of Olympic sports and Caucasoid athletic supremacy looks untenable.”
Actually, when you apply that to more sports in the Olympics, Caucasoid athletic supremacy is very much the reality. Looking at the raw data ad your example it Implies more whites win these competitions between “1 in a billion” individuals. In reality it’s more like 1 in 700 million versus 1 in 1.1 billion, so blacks actually have the luck advantage. I think you’re just starting to confuse yourself.
“Actually Kenya excels despite malnutrition.”
Exactly so it’s not an excuse.
“and found that 40% of the top twenty are Negroid, even though Negroids are only 14% of our species:”
Ya and Caucasoids are the remaining 60% despite being only 10% of the population.
The same logic applies to the Olympics
Exactly, which is why I don’t look at the Olympics as a representative sample, but rather as a proxy for the best of the best.
The variation of Athletic g is probably small between individuals. Most competitions are decided by milliseconds. It doesn’t matter if Europe has 100 million athletically inclined people while Africa only has 100 thousand, as long as each has at least 11,000 Well nourished participants the samples are unbiased.
But it DOES matter Melo, because Olympic champions are not just the best of the participants, they’re (in theory) the best of the entire populations from which they come. If all races were equally athletic and well nourished, then which ever race had the bigger population would have the most Olympic champions in raw numbers. This should be obvious. And if running the 100 meter in under 10.5 seconds is something that say only one in 500 million well-nourished people are capable of, then ceteris paribus a race with a billion well-nourished people can send more such people to the Olympics than a race of only 50 million well nourished people.
Actually, when you apply that to more sports in the Olympics, Caucasoid athletic supremacy is very much the reality. Looking at the raw data ad your example it Implies more whites win these competitions between “1 in a billion” individuals. In reality it’s more like 1 in 700 million versus 1 in 1.1 billion, so blacks actually have the luck advantage. I think you’re just starting to confuse yourself.
No I’m just using a more inclusive definition of Caucasoid than you, but even if we limited the definition of Caucasoids to just whites (which is silly), there are at least 900 million whites if you add up all the whites in Europe, North America, Australia, etc. If you want to compare just whites to all Negroids, then I agree whites are more athletic, but I don’t think it’s necessarily genetic because whites are WAY better nourished worldwide than the average Negroid.
“Actually Kenya excels despite malnutrition.”
Exactly so it’s not an excuse.
No, because if Kenyans had First World nutrition, they would excel by a much greater margin.
Ya and Caucasoids are the remaining 60% despite being only 10% of the population.
Even just whites are more than 10% of the population, and many experts would include MENAs and even South Asians as Caucasoid since these groups have their largest loadings on the Caucasoid genetic component and the father of population genetics, Cavalli-Sforza, regarded even fully black skinned Southern Indians as Caucasoid.
“Ya and Caucasoids are the remaining 60% despite being only 10% of the population.”
what about india ? they are classified as caucasoids if i believe wikipedia, right ?
i think you miscalculated because it would mean 76% of the human population are mongoloids with some australoids.
this would probably be the case in the future though.
“A thinner, elongated face is characteristic of adaption to a diet high in Carbs. Cro magnon has the prominent chin but the face is notably more square and robust.”
so diet is the explanation of the caucasoid face ? how ?
sounds fascinating i always wondered why caucasians where so different than the rest of humanity.
“what about india ? they are classified as caucasoids if i believe wikipedia, right ?
i think you miscalculated because it would mean 76% of the human population are mongoloids with some australoids.”
I’m only counting Europeans because they are relatively unaffected by any heavy admixture compared to India and MENA. MENA might be an exception but even if I added them they would equal Negroids.
15% negroid
10 percent Caucasoid
22% Mongoloid
The remaining 53% is hybrid and Australoid but Australoids are only comprised of like 300 million people.
“The remaining 53% is hybrid and Australoid but Australoids are only comprised of like 300 million people.”
so most of humanity is mixed race ? one question for you if a population is a mix of population A and population B and they don’t mix with other populations enough time they will become a new population C over time, right ?
i think even european caucasoids are originally a mix of different populations.
what would be interesting about these mixed race population (though pp and lyrion brought some good arguments they might not be that mixed) is what percentage of their gene pool is caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid and australoid to see what race really dominate the human gene pool.
i would guess it’s caucasoid, there are probably the most caucasoid genes out there even if there are not that much “pure caucasoids” individuals for whatever it means scientifically.
“And if running the 100 meter in under 10.5 seconds is something that say only one in 500 million well-nourished people are capable of, then ceteris paribus a race with a billion well-nourished people can send more such people to the Olympics than a race of only 50 million well nourished people.”
10,000 people out of 7 billion is around 1/600,000, This means to bye an Olympian you have to have skills as rare as 1/600,000. As long as Sub saharan African has 600,000 well fed and or Athletic individuals then there is no bias.
“If you want to compare just whites to all Negroids, then I agree whites are more athletic, but I don’t think it’s necessarily genetic because whites are WAY better nourished worldwide than the average Negroid.”
I think Genetically Some African populations are more Athletic than Whites but as a whole I think the variation in between whites is less, and I speculate they have a higher average as well.
“No, because if Kenyans had First World nutrition, they would excel by a much greater margin.”
No, because people playing those sports are not malnourished, and my point was that even a malnourished country can produce healthy Athletes.
“Even just whites are more than 10% of the population,”
Around 13, 15%
“and many experts would include MENAs and even South Asians as Caucasoid since these groups have their largest loadings on the Caucasoid genetic component and the father of population genetics, Cavalli-Sforza, regarded even fully black skinned Southern Indians as Caucasoid.”
MENA and Indians are mostly Caucasoid in appearance and Genetics, i just don’t think it’s fair to categorize them with Europeans, because Sub saharan Africans are relatively unmixed.
10,000 people out of 7 billion is around 1/600,000, This means to bye an Olympian you have to have skills as rare as 1/600,000. As long as Sub saharan African has 600,000 well fed and or Athletic individuals then there is no bias.
But there would be a bias.
Let’s say if all 900 million well-nourished whites on Earth tried to bench press, the average bench press was 135 lbs with a standard deviation (SD) of 157 lbs.
Now let’s say that out of all 50 million well nourished blacks on Earth, the average bench press was 140 lbs with a SD of 157 lbs (I know RR says whites are stronger, but this is just a hypothetical example to make a point)
Now for simplicity, let’s assume bench pressing is normally distributed. The bell curve predicts the best out of 900 million is +6 SD while the best out of 50 million is +5.87 SD. That means the best white bench press in the World should be 135 + 6(157) = 1077 lbs, while the best black bench press in the World should be 140 + 5.87(157) = 1062. So even if the average well-nourished black were 5 lbs stronger than the average well-nourished white, the World’s strongest white would be 15 lbs stronger then the World’s strongest black, simply because whites have a much larger pool of well-nourished talent from which to select their best of the best.
No, because people playing those sports are not malnourished, and my point was that even a malnourished country can produce healthy Athletes.
You’d be surprised by how pervasive malnutrition is in Third World countries, and they have far fewer well-nourished people to choose from.
MENA and Indians are mostly Caucasoid in appearance and Genetics, i just don’t think it’s fair to categorize them with Europeans, because Sub saharan Africans are relatively unmixed.
I doubt the small degree of black admixture in MENA people is affecting their athletic ability in any noticeable way, though the mysterious admixture in South Asians might be dragging them down, considering the South Asian aboriginals were probably very short.
“Let’s say if all 900 million well-nourished whites on Earth Now let’s say that out of all 50 million well nourished blacks on Earth”
First off, where are you getting the idea that there are only 50 million well nourished Africans? Secondly why are you assuming the entire Caucasoid populations is perfectly healthy. If you include MENA there are 1.3 billion Caucasoids on the planet vs the 1 billion Negroids. Only 230 million Africans are malnourished. According to these numbers( which I’m being very generous to your argument), Negroids should be able to produce at least 1,000 athletes who are Olympian material, which is more than enough for the 300 some odd events that take place. the 300 million difference in absolute population will barely make a difference, because of the diminishing returns that occur the higher you go up on the percentile scale.
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx
https://www.worldhunger.org/africa-hunger-poverty-facts/
First off, where are you getting the idea that there are only 50 million well nourished Africans?
Because the vast majority of Africans live in Africa which is malnourished from top to bottom. So it’s mostly just blacks living in the First World who are the well nourished ones. You seem to think that there’s a huge population of well-nourished blacks living in Africa, but there’s no evidence for this.
Secondly why are you assuming the entire Caucasoid populations is perfectly healthy.
I’m assuming that nearly 100% of the Caucasoids who live in the developed world are well nourished and whatever shortfall there might be, would be made up for by the few well-nourished Caucasoids in the Mid-East or South Asia. That’s roughly 900 million people.
If you include MENA there are 1.3 billion Caucasoids on the planet vs the 1 billion Negroids. Only 230 million Africans are malnourished.
Try 1 billion Africans are malnourished. Malnourished doesn’t mean you weigh 90 lbs. Even most white Americans were malnourished in the 1980s by today’s standards which is why average height among white americans increased into the 21st century. And white Americans in the 1980s are better nourished than black Africans today. My definition of malnourished is anyone who is shorter than they would have been had they been born in America. That’s virtually every single person in Africa including the billionaires and heads of state.
“So it’s mostly just blacks living in the First World who are the well nourished ones.”
And that’s mostly who competes anyway.
“You seem to think that there’s a huge population of well-nourished blacks living in Africa, but there’s no evidence for this.”
I provided evidence.
“Try 1 billion Africans are malnourished. Malnourished doesn’t mean you weigh 90 lbs.”
How bout not. That’s completely made up bullshit and weight is not the only proxy for malnutrition used in these statistics.
“My definition of malnourished is anyone who is shorter than they would have been had they been born in America.”
And that’s a fucking stupid definition. The correlation between height and nutrition is not perfect, and you’re ignorantly disregarding any gene/environment interactions.
And that’s mostly who competes anyway.
Yes, generally those who can compete are the ones who do, but there’d be a lot more blacks who could compete were it not for malnutrition. They’d have a much larger pool of developed talent to draw upon. This should be obvious Melo!
“You seem to think that there’s a huge population of well-nourished blacks living in Africa, but there’s no evidence for this.”
I provided evidence.
No you provided evidence that some Africans perform well at sports in spite of malnutrition, you don’t know how much better they would have done if well nourished.
And that’s a fucking stupid definition. The correlation between height and nutrition is not perfect, and you’re ignorantly disregarding any gene/environment interactions.
The point Melo is if West Africans average nearly 1 SD shorter than their genetic counterparts reared in the U.S. (African Americans), then it suggests African malnutrition shaves about 1 SD off of African height on average, and if it shaves 1 SD off height, it probably shaves 1 SD off other physical phenotypes too (like athleticism). Doesn’t mean height and athleticism are perfectly correlated since nutrition affects different people differently, and even with malnutrition, different DNA explains much of the variance in height than in nutrition, but you can still look at the population level distributions of traits like height, weight, athleticism etc, and notice that they’re shifted 1 sigma to the left of what they would have been with First World conditions. A 1 sigma deficit at the mean predicts huge losses at the far right extremes of the bell curve (where Olympians are drawn from). This should be obvious.
As for gene-environment interactions, can you name a single environment that makes blacks more athletic but whites less athletic? Neither can I. Human physical traits tend to fit the Phenotype = genotype + environment model, not the gene-environment interaction model. Men are taller & more athletic than women in EVERY country, but both sexes are way taller & more athletic in First World countries because good environments act as a rising tide that lifts all boats without changing their relative heights.
“They’d have a much larger pool of developed talent to draw upon. This should be obvious Melo!”
But as I previously stated the difference in absolute number of malnourished Blacks vs Whites isn’t that large.
“No you provided evidence that some Africans perform well at sports in spite of malnutrition, you don’t know how much better they would have done if well nourished.”
No, I cited data from the UNFAO about the number of actually malnourished groups in sub saharan Africa.
Click to access a-I7695e.pdf
“then it suggests African malnutrition shaves about 1 SD off of African height on average”
That’s for West Africans not for the whole African population. You missed the point, when using the Olympics you only have to take a look at the number of qualified participants, and the absolute numbers are so large that it creates negligible differences at extremes. Ya you can say on Average Africa is more malnourished but in reality the 22 percent that are undernourished drag the healthy individuals down. All you need are the healthy individuals. Height can also be correlated to absolute size which is a constraint on resource allocation, It has been observed that species will evolve smaller mass to compensate for times of less food abundance, this doesn’t mean their muscle composition deteriorates as well.
“As for gene-environment interactions, can you name a single environment that makes blacks more athletic but whites less athletic? Neither can I.”
I am discussing the phenomena of niche/gene co-evolution, and the feedback loop of developmental biology with external stimuli, It’s far more nuanced than what you just stated.
“Human physical traits tend to fit the Phenotype = genotype + environment model, not the gene-environment interaction model.”
No they don’t. You’d have to be a complete dumbass to think 1+2=3 is an appropriate explanatory model for Human evolution.
That’s for West Africans not for the whole African population. You missed the point, when using the Olympics you only have to take a look at the number of qualified participants, and the absolute numbers are so large that it creates negligible differences at extremes. Ya you can say on Average Africa is more malnourished but in reality the 22 percent that are undernourished drag the healthy individuals down. All you need are the healthy individuals.
You’re misinterpreting malnutrition as a binary variable when it’s actually continuous. When 22% of black Africans are malnourished to such an extreme degree that they meet U.S. definitions of malnourished (bottom 2.5%), it doesn’t mean the remaining 78% of Africans are as healthy as a horse, what it crudely implies is that the entire African nutrition curve is shifted 1.3 standard deviations to the left, and assuming normal distributions and equal variance in both groups, the healthiest 0.00001% of black Africans (African Olympic athletes) should also be 1.3 SD less nourished than the healthiest 0.00001% of white Americans (white U.S. Olympic athletes). Of course real life is always more messy than statistical models predict, but the point is group differences in nutrition do not just affect the nominally malnourished; they’re mirrored among the healthiest of the healthy, as evidenced by the fact that even elites of First World countries are taller than Third World elites.
“Human physical traits tend to fit the Phenotype = genotype + environment model, not the gene-environment interaction model.”
No they don’t. You’d have to be a complete dumbass to think 1+2=3 is an appropriate explanatory model for Human evolution.
Do you even understand what P = G + E means? Because if you understood what you were denying, you never would have claimed whites are more athletic than blacks, you would have instead said whites are more athletic than blacks in environment A but blacks are more athletic in environment B. People who deny P = G + E also deny absolute genetic hierarchies because they deny genetic differences have environment independent effects.
“You’re misinterpreting malnutrition as a binary variable when it’s actually continuous. ”
No you’re just conflating the concept of continuous malnutrition with developmental plasticity. There is a difference. Furthermore, these cut offs apply to all countries not just Africa.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02725
” you never would have claimed whites are more athletic than blacks, you would have instead said whites are more athletic than blacks in environment A but blacks are more athletic in environment B”
I am not exclusively talking about reaction norms. Please try to read my replies carefully. My point is Africans are shorter in general because a lower protein diet, they evolved for this. For example, some species of cetaceans went through an abrupt size change a couple million or billion years ago as a response to ocean cooling which constrained prey populations. They weren’t malnourished their bodies just adapted.
No you’re just conflating the concept of continuous malnutrition with developmental plasticity.
No, my point is what does it mean to say 22% of Africa is malnourished? Typically malnourished is officially defined as being super short (stunted) or super skinny (wasted) when compared to a healthy reference population. When Americans are compared to this same reference population, only about 2.5% are defined as malnourished. When the 22 percentile in group A equals the 2.5 percentile in group B, that normally implies a +1.1 SD gap, and assuming normal distributions with the same SD in each group, that 1.1 SD gap is replicated at the highest and lowest extremes. And while the distribution is probably not completely normal, you’re making the common assumption that it’s bimodal
as if Africa consisted of two bell curves (one for malnourished people who are way below their genetic potential, and another for healthies who have reached their genetic potential). But what the evidence shows is that the effects of malnutrition are much more uniformly distributed across a population than you think.
I am not exclusively talking about reaction norms.
Then don’t dismiss the P = G + E model, because that’s specifically the alternative to reaction norms
My point is Africans are shorter in general because a lower protein diet, they evolved for this. For example, some species of cetaceans went through an abrupt size change a couple million or billion years ago as a response to ocean cooling which constrained prey populations. They weren’t malnourished their bodies just adapted.
But the fact that African Americans are much taller than West Africans implies that at least West Africans are malnourished, and the default assumption is other Africans are too.
“Typically malnourished is officially defined as being super short (stunted) or super skinny (wasted) when compared to a healthy reference population. ”
No, undernourishment is simply defined by a lack of necessary nutrition that is out of the range for pre/post-adapted malleability. Smaller size only occurs sometimes and is only one side effect, malnutrition can actually cause obesity.
http://drhyman.com/blog/2012/02/29/how-malnutrition-causes-obesity/
“But what the evidence shows is that the effects of malnutrition are much more uniformly distributed across a population than you think.”
Where is the specific evidence of this? I’m just going by the logic of FAO links.
“Then don’t dismiss the P = G + E model, because that’s specifically the alternative to reaction norms”
Jesus christ, no Pumpkin. To be fair, all evolutionary path-lines follow a P=G+E model, but it’s such a vague term that when you use it you are not actually saying anything. At the base level P=G+E is how any all evolution works because Genes and the environment are the only two driving forces that interact off of each-other to produce varying phenotypes. Reaction norms follows the same P+G+E formula as well. Specifically it is VP=VG+VE
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/adaptation-and-phenotypic-variance-1132
“But the fact that African Americans are much taller than West Africans implies that at least West Africans are malnourished, and the default assumption is other Africans are too.”
Jamaica is relatively well nourished. Only 7% of the population is malnourished, but they are still 5’7″, 3 inches shorter than the black average in America. Jamaica is also one of the countries that is over-represented in certain Olympic games. American Blacks do have considerable White and Native american admixture. So it is obviously not as simple as you stated.
No, undernourishment is simply defined by a lack of necessary nutrition that is out of the range for pre/post-adapted malleability. Smaller size only occurs sometimes and is only one side effect, malnutrition can actually cause obesity.
I’m not talking about some theoretical definition, I’m talking about how it’s defined for collecting stats on how many people are “malnourished”. Typically stats like that are based on the percentage of the population that’s stunted or wasted. For example:
Chronic malnutrition has been a persistent problem for young children in sub-Saharan Africa. A high percentage of these children fail to reach the normal international standard height for their age; that is, they are “stunted.” The region has now the world’s highest rate of stunting among children—43 percent—and has shown little improvement over the past 15 years.
Where is the specific evidence of this? I’m just going by the logic of FAO links.
As I mentioned, the evidence is the fact that even the elites in malnourished societies are short compared to the elites in well-nourished societies. This implies that whatever malnutrition is causing the underclass to be officially “stunted”, is also stunting the part of the population declared “well nourished”, it’s just not recognized as malnutrition because their heights don’t fall below an arbitrary cut-off. If the population were bimodal, you’d expect the poor to be shorter than American poor, but the rich to be just as tall as U.S. rich, but instead we find the Third World malnutrition has dragged down the whole country.
Jesus christ, no Pumpkin. To be fair, all evolutionary path-lines follow a P=G+E model, but it’s such a vague term that when you use it you are not actually saying anything. At the base level P=G+E is how any all evolution works because Genes and the environment are the only two driving forces that interact off of each-other to produce varying phenotypes. Reaction norms follows the same P+G+E formula as well. Specifically it is VP=VG+VE
Jesus Christ, yes Melo. VP = VG + VE refers to the percentage of the variance adding up to 100% by definition, and yes reaction norms fit that model too, but that has nothing to do with the P = G + E model which reaction norms do not fit. In the latter case, the “+” does not refer to adding up variance, but rather refers to the expected effect of a given G and E on P being ADDITIVE. In other words, regardless of your height genes, growing up in America ADDED three inches to your height compared to what it would have been in Africa. This is different from the reaction normal model which denies that a given environment adds a constant amount to all genomes, but contends that the same environment can add inches to genome A but subtract them from genome B. In statistics this is what is known as an interaction as symbolized by X, so P = G X E means reaction norms, while P = G + E means the opposite.
Jamaica is relatively well nourished. Only 7% of the population is malnourished, but they are still 5’7″, 3 inches shorter than the black average in America.
That height stat is 23 years old and included men in their 70s.
I cosign what Melo says about obesity and malnutrition.
“Where is the specific evidence of this? I’m just going by the logic of FAO links.”
FAO links?
Average sprinter height is 6 feet. Taller people are faster than shorter people. They’re able to cover more ground per stride.
“American Blacks do have considerable White and Native american admixture. So it is obviously not as simple as you stated”
To explain African running success, you MUST look at the whole system. Reducing components down to say isolating only muscle fibers or somatype is stupid. When explaining running mechanics, you must look at the whole system.
You can also have all of the physical gifts in the world. If you don’t have the right mindset you won’t do anything. Jamaican runners have that mindset.
“An advantageous physical genotype is not enough to build a top-class athlete, a champion capable of breaking Olympic records, if endurance elite performances (maximal rate of oxygen uptake, economy of movement, lactate/ventilatory threshold and, potentially, oxygen uptake kinetics) (Williams & Folland, 2008) are not supported by a strong mental background.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2517195/
“but rather refers to the expected effect of a given G and E on P being ADDITIVE.”
Where is the evidence that genes work in an additive manner?
Where is the evidence that genes work in an additive manner?
As you know, the G in P = G + E stands for genotype, not gene, so the model doesn’t need evidence that genes per se are additive; only that genotypes are. The evidence that genotypes are additive is the XY genotype. It adds several inches of height to people living in almost every environment on Earth; from the frozen arctic to the Sahara desert, men are taller than women. Other evidence is the trisomy 21 genotype. It adds dozens of negative IQ points to people everywhere on Earth. Another example is sub-Saharan DNA. It adds dark skin and kinky hair to its carriers, regardless of what part of the world they live in. I’m not saying all genotypes have an additive effect on phenotype, but a great many do.
“I’m not talking about some theoretical definition,”
Neither am I. The definition I stated is exactly how the FAO defined Malnutrition. Not to say height isn’t used as a proxy.
“In statistics this is what is known as an interaction as symbolized by X, so P = G X E means reaction norms, while P = G + E means the opposite.”
Where exactly is this a consensus? HBD would be debunked if genes were additive. You’re still missing the point, individuals vary tremendously in genotype and respective phenotype regardless of environment. This is the evolutionary norm. Ultimately two organisms will utilize completely different genotypic and phenotypic properties to create a solution that’s common. Nutrition is one of these exceptions because it actually governs the extent of physiological development.
Reaction norms was not an actual point of my argument, developmental plasticity and decreases in allometric size to combat lower caloric intake were. The fact that Elite Africans are still short implies this is from short term evolution or even epigenetics.
HBD would be debunked if genes were additive.
Huh?
Reaction norms was not an actual point of my argument,
Yes, you made that clear in your earlier comment; I was just responding to your P = G + E tirade.
developmental plasticity and decreases in allometric size to combat lower caloric intake were. The fact that Elite Africans are still short implies this is from short term evolution or even epigenetics.
But as I mentioned, if Africans had just evolved to be short to deal with reduced calories, and were not actually malnourished relative to Westerners, we would not expect them to get taller in First World countries. Not sure what your developmental plasticity point is.
“Huh?”
HBDers(including you) believe that genes stack in an additive manner to catalyze phenotypic expressions. An example being the assumption that the average mixed race individual should have an IQ that Lies in between the two parent populations. This model and others like it is far from the actual reality:
“”Argentine population genetic structure was examined using a set of 78 ancestry informative markers (AIMs) to assess the contributions of European, Amerindian, and African ancestry in 94 individuals members of this population. Using the Bayesian clustering algorithm STRUCTURE, the mean European contribution was 78%, the Amerindian contribution was 19.4%, and the African contribution was 2.5%. Similar results were found using weighted least mean square method: European, 80.2%; Amerindian, 18.1%; and African, 1.7%. Consistent with previous studies the current results showed very few individuals (four of 94) with greater than 10% African admixture. Notably, when individual admixture was examined, the Amerindian and European admixture showed a very large variance and individual Amerindian contribution ranged from 1.5 to 84.5% in the 94 individual Argentine subjects.
The population of Argentina today does not have a ‘visible’ black African component. However, censuses conducted during most of the 19th century registered up to 30% of individuals of African origin living in Buenos Aires city. What has happened to this African influence? Have all individuals of African origin died, as lay people believe? Or is it possible that admixture with the European immigrants made the African influence “invisible?” We investigated the African contribution to the genetic pool of the population of Buenos Aires, Argentina, typing 12 unlinked autosomal DNA markers in a sample of 90 individuals. The results of this analysis suggest that 2.2% (SEM = 0.9%) of the genetic ancestry of the Buenos Aires population is derived from Africa. Our analysis of individual admixture shows that those alleles that have a high frequency in populations of African origin tend to concentrate among 8 individuals in our sample. Therefore, although the admixture estimate is relatively low, the actual proportion of individuals with at least some African influence is approximately 10%. The evidence we are presenting of African ancestry is consistent with the known historical events that led to the drastic reduction of the Afro-Argentine population during the second half of the 19th century. However, as our results suggest, this reduction did not mean a total disappearance of African genes from the genetic pool of the Buenos Aires population.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20083/abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20534/abstract
“Rushton and Jensen’s Race and IQ: A Theory-Based Review of the Research in Richard Nisbett’s Intelligence and How to Get It report the following “mean ethnic group differences in intelligence test scores: Jewish (mean IQ = 113), East Asian (106), White (100), Hispanic (90), South Asian (87), African American (85), and sub-Saharan African (70).” Chen et al.’s Development of admixture mapping panels for African Americans from commercial high-density SNP arrays yielded, “estimated values of 19% European ancestry and 81% African ancestry.” The average African-American IQ score of 85 is precisely intermediate between the sub-Saharan African score of 70 and the “white” score of 100. Yet, admixture proportions of African-Americans are estimated at 81% African and 19% European, or approximately four fifths African and one fifth European. Yet, tweaking slightly and assuming 20% European admixture for the sake of convenient arithmetic, a commensurate average IQ score would be approximately 76, 20% of the value differential of 30 points between the scores of 70 and 100. ”
Afro has cited studies showing mixed race children having lower IQ’s then full blacks and despite the 20% admixture in American Blacks, it has not affected their phenotype to a notable degree.
“How does the admixed Italian population come to hold an average IQ score identical to that of Austrian, German, and Dutch populations, and above various other European populations? How does the Spanish population hold an average IQ score only one point above the Argentine population, when Argentina was settled by ethnic Castilians (already admixed) who proceeded to reproduce with the Indian population, producing a modern castizo population in Argentina, and on top of that, subject to waves of Italian immigrants in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? How do similarly admixed Uruguay and Portugal come to beat Ireland and Greece? (I’ve not mentioned former Soviet-bloc countries because I know white supremacists will repeat nonsense about them being “Jew Bolshevik controlled.”)
How does Indian Peru best “mestizo” Mexico and Colombia? Why is there such a disparity between Indian Peru and Indian Guatemala (11 points) despite the similar genetic structure of their populations, and the historic technological superiority of Mesoamerican Indians to Andean Indians? “Among self-identified Hispanics, the average NA admixture is 32.7%…(see Table 1), slightly lower than the 34.1% found by Bonilla et al. (2004a) in their southern Colorado sample. Among self-identified NAs, the average NA admixture is 71.8%…, a value significantly larger than observed in Hispanics (P \ 0.001).” Native Americans have more Amerindian admixture than the descendants of Mexicans, and far more than Puerto Ricans and Cubans, so how does it come to pass that their IQ scores are approximately equivalent, measured as slightly higher or lower in different assessments?”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18951390
“But as I mentioned, if Africans had just evolved to be short to deal with reduced calories, and were not actually malnourished relative to Westerners, we would not expect them to get taller in First World countries.”
That’s not necessarily true as I’ve pointed out. -SD height is considered “non stunted” which would be nonsensical if Malnutrition actually was a continuous variable.
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/2209514
Furthermore A large portion of Africans suffer from sickle cell anemia, despite it’s affect on growth the disease correlates with increase fast twitch muscle fibers and affects aerobic capacity. so Obviously Height isn’t entirely indicative of malnutrition. Among Jamaicans with the disease Height usually returns to normal which even then is only around 5’5″ for 18 year old boys
http://adc.bmj.com/content/82/3/204
HBDers(including you) believe that genes stack in an additive manner to catalyze phenotypic expressions. An example being the assumption that the average mixed race individual should have an IQ that Lies in between the two parent populations.
Assuming people who race mix are not selected for IQ in some way and assuming the kids grow up in the same environment as the two parent races. Both variables are seldom controlled, so many mixed populations don’t fit the model, but many do: Coloureds in South Africa, light skinned blacks in the U.S., hybridized Australoids etc. But whether genes add to genes to create genotype is a separate question from whether genotype adds to environment to create phenotype which is specifically what reaction normers deny.
That’s not necessarily true as I’ve pointed out. -SD height is considered “non stunted” which would be nonsensical if Malnutrition actually was a continuous variable.
That like saying since -1 SD IQ is not considered “mental retardation”, that IQ is not a continuous variable. The point is that both malnutrition and retardation are largely diagnosed by falling below -2 SD on a continuous phenotype: height and IQ respectively. In other words height is used as a proxy for nutrition level just like IQ is used as a proxy for intelligence and height and IQ are both continuous.
Furthermore A large portion of Africans suffer from sickle cell anemia, despite it’s affect on growth the disease correlates with increase fast twitch muscle fibers and affects aerobic capacity.
Sickle cell trait (SCT) is not a disease, but having it means that a person has inherited the sickle cell gene from one of his or her parents. People with SCT usually do not have any of the symptoms of sickle cell disease (SCD) and live a normal life.
“That like saying since -1 SD IQ is not considered “mental retardation”, that IQ is not a continuous variable. The point is that both malnutrition and retardation are largely diagnosed by falling below -2 SD on a continuous phenotype: height and IQ respectively.”
Honestly I’ve demonstrated the points I wanted to. At this point I don’t feel your criticisms address the overarching disagreements as before. Secondly, Retardation is separate from low intelligence. You either are retarded or you’re not. Same with malnutrition and height. Short=/= malnourished. Retardation is to malnutrition as low IQ is to low height.
Honestly I’ve demonstrated the points I wanted to. At this point I don’t feel your criticisms address the overarching disagreements as before.
The main disagreement is whether the most athletic Africans would perform better if they had First World living standards. We know the tallest Africans would be taller if they had First World living standard, so by analogy, I’d expect the best African athletes would be more athletic too.
Secondly, Retardation is separate from low intelligence. You either are retarded or you’re not.
Your IQ is either below 70 or not. It’s an arbitrary cut-off, just like malnutrition. Actually Alzheimer’s disease is a better analogy. There are many people who have it but are never diagnosed because they have so much cognitive reserve that their functioning never falls below a critical threshold, but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be a lot smarter if they didn’t have it. Similarly with malnutrition in Africa. Almost everyone in Africa has it, but most have the physical reserve to never be diagnosed with it, and some have so much physical reserve they can dominate the Olympics in spite of it, but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t dominate by a greater margin without it.
Same with malnutrition and height. Short=/= malnourished. Retardation is to malnutrition as low IQ is to low height.
Correct but irrelevant
“We know the tallest Africans would be taller if they had First World living standard, so by analogy,”
We don’t know that. You didn’t actually address any of my criticism and that’s why i felt the argument was no longer going anywhere. You’re only real criticism which was aimed at my point on Admixed individuals was flawed as well, because the “it’s always genetic until it isn’t” mindset is obviously prevalent in the logical sequence. This is fallacious, because you cant just pick and choose nature or nurture as a counter conjecture when it is convenient for you, it adds an air of unfalsifiablity. Secondly you must of not read any quotes I provided because American Blacks do not have a phenotype that expresses 20% Caucasoid admixture in all dimensions. Neither do the majority of Hispanic Countries. Try again.
If Jamaicans don’t express certain traits associated with Sickle cell anemia, it still validates my point that well nourished African countries can be very short in height. You didn’t address this either. Or any of my links for that matter.
“There are many people who have it but are never diagnosed because they have so much cognitive reserve that their functioning never falls below a critical threshold, but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be a lot smarter if they didn’t have it.”
Source?
“Similarly with malnutrition in Africa. Almost everyone in Africa has it”
You’re only proxy for making such an arbitrary speculation is height, which is not good enough for the aforementioned reasons I stated through the conversation.
“Your IQ is either below 70 or not. It’s an arbitrary cut-off, just like malnutrition. ”
That’s not true, you can have a slightly higher IQ and still be considered mentally disabled, like Autists or idiot savants.
“Almost everyone in Africa has it, but most have the physical reserve to never be diagnosed with it, and some have so much physical reserve they can dominate the Olympics in spite of it, but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t dominate by a greater margin without it.”
It make perfect sense.
Why are you still arguing on this ?
https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/10-brain-myths9.htm
It lowers testosterone while your drunk though.
i’d never argue alcoholism is “good for you”. this is why despite the evidence that moderate drinking is good for you, american doctors will never prescribe it, except perhaps in the case of PVD.
what i do argue is that it comes in degrees, for some it is harmless or even beneficial, but the negative effects are exaggerated, especially by puritanical american doctors.
and heavy drinkers do in fact outlive non-drinkers. the people who die prematurely are those who become physically dependent on alcohol. but churchill was dependent and lived to age 90. so like steroids it’s a gamble.
the curve of mortality vs alcohol consumption for men when not corrected for things like social class shows that a drinker must consume 8 drinks per day to equal the mortality rate of a non-drinker. that’s a lot.
the now disgraced charlie rose asked hitch if he regretted his drinking given his cancer. hitch took the bait and said he didn’t. he said, “life is a wager, and alcohol has made my writing better.” of course hitch also smoked, and the odds ratio is 100x for those who do both vs 3 or 4 for those who do only one.
chiasmus:
i have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me.
of course if churchill had ever had to have a real job he’d’ve failed.
Well in theory alchohol should be good for you as its kills unwanted germs and bacteria in the gut. Anytime I have food poisoning or an upset stomach I always drink whiskey.
In my opinion this article is good but doesn’t answer what sexual selection wants to achieve or why it works the way it works. The article doesn’t explain at all how sexual selection pro forma works in a certain environment. Is it the same mechanism everywhere in different environments. Would a woman find a cooperative man more sexually attractive under the emperors rule in China? (answer: no)….so whats going on?
There are probably 5 things the topic needs to be addressed later:
1. Gender sexual dymorphics – white women are most beautiful and selected to be so, White men are somewhat in the middle or above average in looks if the environment is sufficiently masculine. Black men are selected to be most masculine and their women are not sexually selected. Asian women are much more attractive than their men. Why is this pattern holding when you throw them all into an urban mixer?
2, Break down sexual attraction by gender. What is the key facets the male and female of the species look for. Do these various races achieve it (subsection of number 1).
3. Sexual selection does not select for abstract intelligence. Peoples abilitiy to do calculus is not related to how sexually attractive they are among all races. But it does select for charisma/social intelligence and musical intelligence – why is this?
4. Is sexual intelligence divorced from ‘normal’ selection pressures like being big so you can be safe from violence (you talk about tallness/shortness being driven by ‘paedomoprhics’ as a deus ex machina type force, I think you’re implying plasticity and responsiveness to the environment is a desirable trait in itself….seems mysterious). Is there a peacock value in any sexually selected traits e.g. big buttocks? We know big breasts and large arms on males are not worthless like peacock feathers.
5. What weight does sexual selection play in the algorithm. Honestly I think its the number 1 force in non warfare societies. Not resource provisioning. Not following masters rules. Not family/tribe relations. I think its the ‘baseline’ force. And then you have these other things bending it this way and that like sexual market regulations, religion and of course Masters mind control rays. Be good to clarify this.
Other than that a good introduction to the topic which I agree with melo is very important to know.
3. Sexual selection does not select for abstract intelligence. Peoples abilitiy to do calculus is not related to how sexually attractive they are among all races. But it does select for charisma/social intelligence and musical intelligence – why is this?
Because musical talent and charisma are more like instinct while abstract reasoning is the heart of intelligence. Music and charisma are specific abilities that evolved for specific reasons (mate attraction) as I told Rushton many years ago, while abstract reasoning is by definition the opposite of specific (that’s what abstract means) because it helps you to adapt to almost any situation (the essence of intelligence).
That makes sense. But musical intelligence has nothing really to do with mates directly. Most humans didn’t have anything more sophisticated than drums and horns for thousands of years. I suspect being good at music is actually a a proxy maybe for how intuitively clever you are.
Most humans didn’t have anything more sophisticated than drums and horns for thousands of years.
They also had the ability to sing and dance, and those who could come up with catchy tunes would have likely attracted more mates.
Thats stretching it a lot. Honestly I don’t know.
One thing I’ll note is that of all the types of smartness you can have, people that are musically smart are usually the best looking.
Holy fuck thank you for the well thought out response. I just gained a little more respect for you.
“The article doesn’t explain at all how sexual selection pro forma works in a certain environment. Is it the same mechanism everywhere in different environments. Would a woman find a cooperative man more sexually attractive under the emperors rule in China? (answer: no)….so whats going on?”
That’s what I meant by its extremely complicated. There are some many environmental factors influencing the direction of hetero-chronic processes that it can become very hard to detangle what exactly causes what. The paedomorphism of Pygmies is strictly of their size, which implies ecological not sexual pressures. In contrast, East asians are paedmorphic in facial appearance and body proprotion, which implies a higher sexual selection.
“Gender sexual dymorphics – white women are most beautiful and selected to be so, White men are somewhat in the middle or above average in looks if the environment is sufficiently masculine. Black men are selected to be most masculine and their women are not sexually selected. Asian women are much more attractive than their men. Why is this pattern holding when you throw them all into an urban mixer?”
Indeed, I will probably make a follow up in the future on sexual dimorphism. Whites males actually have the most hyermorphic traits in facial appearance. White females are in the middle. blacks males are second and black females are first. East asian women and men are both the least hypermorphic in regards to facial features. Each race at one point had sexual references that matched their sexual counterpart, it is different in a globalized world.
“What is the key facets the male and female of the species look for. Do these various races achieve it (subsection of number 1).”
Females are usually caught between genetic fitness or good parental skills. Men either look for neediness or independence.
“Sexual selection does not select for abstract intelligence. Peoples abilitiy to do calculus is not related to how sexually attractive they are among all races. But it does select for charisma/social intelligence and musical intelligence – why is this?”
That’s because calculus is not an independent ability that is actually biologically separable from “social intelligence”. If you’re smart socially and charismatic more than likely you have the propensity towards higher level math, you just never practiced or had an interest.
“Is sexual intelligence divorced from ‘normal’ selection pressures like being big so you can be safe from violence (you talk about tallness/shortness being driven by ‘paedomoprhics’ as a deus ex machina type force, I think you’re implying plasticity and responsiveness to the environment is a desirable trait in itself….seems mysterious).”
heterochronies are process that change development relative to an ancestor, they arent the same thing as pressures. Plasticity is a desirable trait and a bigger brain hypermorphic but gives a paedomorphic appearance.
“What weight does sexual selection play in the algorithm.”
Enormous weight, sex decides whose genes get passed on, it is the basis of evolution.
“Whites males actually have the most hyermorphic traits in facial appearance. White females are in the middle. blacks males are second and black females are first.”
what do you mean by this ?
Progressive features**
Whites males have the most Peramorphic features, blacks second, asians last.
White females have the most Peramorphic features, Blacks second, asians last.
Peramorphosis in this sense is masculinity
so why both black men and women look more masculine than whites ?
what do you define as masculine ?
“so why both black men and women look more masculine than whites ?
what do you define as masculin”
They don’t unless you think darker colors are masculine than actual bone structure.
they have stronger jaws and more prognathic. they look less delicate than caucasians.
A wider jawline is actually a paedomorphic trait. Whites have larger brow ridges, larger nose bridges, high cheekbones,prominent chins, all of which are peramorphic.
“A wider jawline is actually a paedomorphic trait”
how ?
and does it really mean something scientifically to call a life form “more paedomorphic overall” ?
“how ?”
Human infants have rounder faces, a wide jawline gives the face a round appearance.
“and does it really mean something scientifically to call a life form “more paedomorphic overall” ?”
Yes an organism is more “paedmorphic overall” if paedomrphosis defines it’s development more than peramorphosis.
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
Perhaps their reduced prognathism is caused by Caucasoid admixture:
The unexpected snippets of DNA most resembled sequences from southern Europeans, including Sardinians, Italians and people from the Basque region (see “Back to Africa – but from where?“). Dating methods suggested they made their way into the Khoisan DNA sometime between 900 and 1800 years ago – well before known European contact with southern Africa (see map).
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24988-humanitys-forgotten-return-to-africa-revealed-in-dna/
Yes this is possible, in which case it woudln’t be due to their environment it would just be a byproduct of outbreeding.
but why do they look anything but caucasoid ? they look both negroid and mongoloid but clearly not caucasoid
The Caucasoid admixture may help explain their reduced prognathism and skin darkness, relative to other sub-Saharans. The few Mongoloid traits they have are probably just convergent evolution.
A Yale professor (see 1 hr 12 min mark near the end of below video) argues that the reason humans evolved to be so much smarter than chimps, is that chimps evolved through mate competition (males beating the crap out of each other for access to women) while humans evolved through resource competition:
This explains why the smartest men (Bill Gates) are great at getting resources (money) but suck at getting women, while the dumbest men (Mike Tyson) are great and beating the crap out of other men who hit on their women, but suck at keeping resources (lost most of his fortune) 🙂
mike tyson is a human [redacted by pp, dec 5, 2017]
and mike tyson is NOT stupid!
NOT!
maybe in IQ test terms he’s stupid, but not in reality.
werner herzog LOVES mike tyson!
not even joe louis has been as dominant at his best.
Bruno mentioned what its like to talk to a mega society person. I met one guy who is the official ‘smartest’ tested person in my country about 2 years ago and he claims to be a member of it.
He set a general knowledge type quiz for the group,
You have to understand, and this is what Chris Langan thinks as well, not just me saying this – that intelligence is a facet of your personality. Its impossible to talk to a high IQ person without quickly figuring out what he is smart at and what that will mean for the types of things hell talk about.. He reminded me a lot of Robert Mugabe (our one, not the fake one in Zimbabwe) in speech pattern type. Dexterity and jumping around topics. Laser focus on the points he was making and that.
we had a good shag at the sauna didn’t we?
This retarded became obsessed with homossexuals…
lack of social life
lack of REAL intelligence
lack of sex OR ”love” with prostitutes
excess of cheap drinks in the head…
it’s sad!1
”When a man loves a …. PROSTITUTE”
never identify with your affliction.
don’t be the blind person who claims he prefers being blind.
Langan is smart. But I’m not sure socially. I would be interested to hear his opinion on 3 topics:
1. Sexual market.
2. The Jews.
3. What social regulations he would have.
I remember I saw one interview where he mentioned he would introduce eugenics. Basically stupid people would be encouraged not to breed and smart people would be, but not forced like allegedly Hitler did or Galton recommended.
He must have a lot of reasoning for eugenics. Im not sure if it would be good.
I would be much more in favour of sterilising, repatriating or executing psychopaths though once uncovered. Especially high IQ ones.
eugenics would work, but it wouldn’t make super humans as professor shoe claims.
I think Langan means to do it through husbandry rather than genetic manipulation like Shu.
yes!
shoe doesn’t grok that the path to the summit is always tortuous.
and mallory is dead.
he looks socially smart with his light blue eyes.
but it somewhat show low social intelligence talking about eugenics in such a direct way.
There hasn’t been anything interesting said in academia for decades. Most of it is lies.
All the exciting stuff is happening in comment sections on alternative blogs. I say that half jokingly. Its the only place smart people can say something without losing their jobs and reputations.
In real life, I am 100% pro diversity and love open borders with all my heart. I keep telling anyone that asks about my political views – all non _______ are refugees.
Just looking at a KID for this fund and it struck me at kind of stupid you would rate the fund by how much the price moves. The price moves because its traded a lot because people deal in it and its famous.
A fund that is risky to me is one with a manager with no track record (or a poor one) or invests in a certain asset class like commodities or uses a lot of leverage.
i assume the market is close to efficient so my first criterion is a low expense ratio in CEFs (investment trusts), mREITs, BDCs, banks, insurance companies, etc.
i’d NEVER buy a mutual fund, unless it was with vanguard. NEVER.
Must be one of the most beautiful people of the past 100 years. Thats Anderson Coopers mother believe it or not. Stunning.
Of course, the gold standard.
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maskcara.com%2Fmaskcara%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2Faudrey-hepburn.jpg&f=1
Unlike Vanderbilt, Hepburn aged without going to the plastic surgeon and she looked much better. Hepburn has incredible eyes.
Both are of royal/aristocracy lineage. Vanderbilt is a 400 family. Which as you all know from reading the Devils Chessboard is the de facto aristocracy of america that nobody except the people that read the Devils Chessboard knows about.
again you like delicate frog faced women. sad!
ingrid in casablanca is the gold standard.
”don’t like”
I remember you accusing a non-native english speaker writing like that
don’t like or dislike*
Men who give excessive aesthetical standards for/to choice women, tend to dislike them and stay alone…
Audrey Hepburn, definitely don’t look like a ”pubescent boy”… just because her short-hair**
she looks like an elf. she’s not thick and juicy.
and by “thick and juice” i do NOT mean fat. there are no bbws. they’re all bUws.
although “zaftig” is a real thing…even for men. that is…
the 0% body fat ripped wiry body is not what most women want.
it’s true they look like frogs. really weird.
especially the first one.
it’s hard to come up with examples, because famous women are not the best looking. i mean the best looking women i’ve known were not famous.
perhaps because gay men have a big say in selection of models and actresses. david spade made a comment to that effect on SNL years ago. remember when afro posted all those ugly models’ pictures?
and even more…sometimes the most attractive people do not look especially good in photos. and those who look good in photos are not as attractive irl.
but no matter how good looking the she is, she’ll look ugly in some pictures.
models being thin is because gay men dominate the fashion industry. i read this on an article.
women in gangsta rap video clips are much more thick. may be because rappers are not gay.
i think people who like thin women might have a tendency toward pedophilia.
^^^
Is a gay man himself.
The Devils Chessboard should be mandatory for every child in the West to understand their rulers. And that America in the 20th century was actually not very different from the ‘Old World’ of Europe with its class system of hereditary elite families.
Even if some of their elites were incredibly good looking.
Notice the way all human societies tend towards feudalism. Communist, capitalist, fascist, democratic, warrior. One of the enduring traits of the British Empire is how most of its elites were related by marriage, kin or being awarded land in similar places for exploration/millitary services.
I think my essay (an informal enquiry regarding the absence of phenotypical femininity from the historical record prior to the second quarter of the 20th century), currently being written, might tie into this. I don’t punctuate each paragraph will a flurry of sources and links, as I am not an academic, and I find that it impedes my flow. Most of the information presented will be uncontroversial, since anyone who already knows about the subject matter will recognise what is accurate. Be forewarned that I do make value judgements, as I am not a stone-cold “science is impartial” type who has a shitfit every time someone dares to rationally evaluate the worth of a given trait.
I’ve noticed this myself. Be interesting to read your piece.
What have you noticed? Yeah it will be a while before it’s finished. Currently it’s hovering around 11,400 words, but there’s still more to be written, and then after that comes the dreaded editing stage. It’s gonna be hell.
I can understand why some people deny capoids are negroid. I don’t agree but I see the logic. I don’t see the logic in denying pygmies are negroid. Yes, they’re super short, but the Dutch are tall, but that doesn’t mean they’re not Caucasoid.
Yes pygmies diverged from Negroids a long time ago, but there’s been so much intermixing, that all of sub-Sahara is basically one big breeding group.
yet black africans are the most varied at genetic level of any group.
”can you” and not ”do you can”, wey ever
BUGabe thinks men who pay for it are morons.
I would not comment in this post, nothing against MeLo, i’m just [redacted by pp, dec 6, 2017] and also because i’m finding the life off-line interesting. In the end, i will try to write something understandable [hard work] and whatever about this post.
”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.”
Would be interesting to see if the incredible and very specific spatial skills of this groups, namely aboriginals, are ”gendered” or equally distributed among sexes. Would be also interesting to know how this sexually-selected traits as ”blonde hair” is distributed among sexes, more common among women or men*
”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.”
It seems a excessive differentiation because in the end genitalias also will be under sexual selective pressure, like size, type, etc…
Seems R-strategy is more sexually related than K-strategy, in natural conditions, or on avg…
”Paedomorphosis=/= Neoteny. Neoteny is a heterochronic process, paedomorphism is a type of heterochrony.”
Neoteny = paedomorphosis + increasing of intelligence. [or not]
”it’s speculative but very possible that blue eyes coincides with increased intelligence”
COINCIDES.
”Along with pygmies they are the most Paedomorphic race, and one of the most r selected.”
Why you think they are one of the most r-selected* They mature slowly, more slow than caucasians and subsaharians.
”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.”
Do you can detail this better* Why founder effect makes recessive genes easier to be expressed* What the type of recessive genes you are talking about*
Western, eastern and southeastern eurasians have accumulated more cultural knowledge and gene co-evolution have favorable people who are capable to internalize this accumulated heritage more than those who can’t. But yes, i also think novel environments creates new challenges and big founder effects tend to happen…
”have favored” and not ”have favorable people”.
Great post!!
“It seems a excessive differentiation because in the end genitalias also will be under sexual selective pressure, like size, type, etc…”
Yes but some people like pumpkin assumed that most sexual selection was specifically for genitalia.
“Neoteny = paedomorphosis + increasing of intelligence. [or not]”
Uhhh no. Neoteny by definition is deceleration of growth. That’s literally it.
“They mature slowly, more slow than caucasians and subsaharians.”
Source? Pygmies grow at the same rate as caucasians and subsaharans their growth is just stunted, which is paedomorphic, paedomorphism tends to coincide with r selected traits.
“Do you can detail this better* Why founder effect makes recessive genes easier to be expressed* What the type of recessive genes you are talking about*”
Because the descendant population tends to be smaller as a result they will have less genetic diversity, inbreeding occurs more frequently meaning recessive genes will stay at higher frequencies in a population. Increased intelligence is a recessive gene.
“Western, eastern and southeastern eurasians have accumulated more cultural knowledge and gene co-evolution have favorable people who are capable to internalize this accumulated heritage more than those who can’t.”
The brain size differences were apparent before Agriculture. The first Eurasians had large brains.
“Great post!!”
Thank you 🙂
”Source? Pygmies grow at the same rate as caucasians and subsaharans their growth is just stunted, which is paedomorphic, paedomorphism tends to coincide with r selected traits.”
I’m talking about east asians.
”The brain size differences were apparent before Agriculture. The first Eurasians had large brains.”
Yes, well, but cultural accumulation has happening since before agriculture.
”Because the descendant population tends to be smaller as a result they will have less genetic diversity, inbreeding occurs more frequently meaning recessive genes will stay at higher frequencies in a population. Increased intelligence is a recessive gene.”
Yes, but of course this bottlenecks must be preceed or succeed by decantation of this recessive genes to become more ”functional”. And this reduction of genetic diversity necessarily will not result in increased intelligence nor increased frequency of recessive genes, i think.
”Uhhh no. Neoteny by definition is deceleration of growth. That’s literally it.”
Yes, but it may have a propensity to enhance intelligence, or not, i’m not a expert.
“I’m talking about east asians.”
Still need a source though.
” And this reduction of genetic diversity necessarily will not result in increased intelligence nor increased frequency of recessive genes, i think.”
Could you rewrite this sentence lol?
but the other two great apes do have korean sized penises, or what santo calls “fun size”.
Orangutans have smaller penises (erect length ~ 8.5 cm) and gorilla penises are even smaller (erect length ~ 6 cm).
the problem with bitcoin is…
even though the ultimate supply is limited, there is NO restriction on the number of competitors…additional crypto/digital currencies.
so ultimately bitcoin fails as a currency because ethereum and others are as good as gold too. or rather as good as dirt.
history lesson…
the reason why gold and silver were money was because their value was very dense. so even salt was once a unit of exchange where it was scarce.
but it is true that all that is required of a would be currency is….
1. it’s scarce. its supply is limited either absolutely or within a certain time frame.
2. its storage and transfer from one to another is very cheap or costs nothing.
1. only 21 million Bitcoins exist.
People want bitcoins so the value increases.
2. For currency exchange, more people need to use bitcoin so that exchanges can happen by setting up exchange sites. It needs to gain a network effect outside government and banking exchanges. People buy bitcoins right now with the Dollar but it is technical and not easy to do because no one has made it for the average person.
As for trust, bitcoin has the most trust in it as it is the first cryptocurrency to exist.
yes. i grok all that.
but there’s nothing stopping anyone from making their own crypto-currency. there are already 1,000 of them at least.
it’s like living on an infinitely large planet with an infinite number of countries, each with their own currency.
so bitcoin per se is scarce.
but this is like saying…
the gold from a particular mine in the great karoo is scarce.
no one should care where the gold comes from.
my advice to santo:
if there really are homos and if you really are a homo…
don’t EVER be a catcher.
I’m not sure if Santo is dominant enough, contra his posturing on this website.
Thus he will surely get HIV and die from AIDS, which is very sad because he can be interesting when intelligigble.
Get out your macumba negro!!!
If I never make sex with homo Negros my chance to get std will reduced a lot…
In the end, this blog is over and dead to me…
I will die to for this blog and will be now for ever and ever
I will kill me on line
Thanks Jewish god
Thanks for all!!!11
(I have a interesting life now to care for…)
there’s actually an answer to that question.
it wasn’t just rhetorical.
richard geer has been rumored to be a homo forever, but he’s not. and he has cultivated this rumor by refusing to address it.
he’s a complicated guy, but he’s not down with ass.
American Gigolo is the single most homophobic and misogynist movie ever made, but it’s also very sympathetic…that is, it’s true.
the answer to the question is…
in the end the grace of God is TOO much…
like the love of a man for a woman is TOO much.
it’s psychosis.
you’re a man…but she’s in control…and she never asked for it…it’s you’re problem 100%.
stupos notwithstanding
of course the majority of men and women never feel this.
these people are termed “sane”.
love is love!
when white racists were democrats, a story:
my mom’s dad was an ex-con. 2 years for bookmaking. always poor. potential unrealized.
when stalin died my mom celebrated. she was very little. where’d she get the idea?
my granddad told her…
never rejoice at the death of anyone.
he also told my mom:
the dems are the party of the little man.
now no man is man enough to admit that he is a little man.
i never met him.
he died years before i was born.
he was an invigilated prodigy…or so claimed my mom’s half-maltese cousin…who’s in Who’s Who for fluid dynamics.
HBDers are evil.
Evil?! I always thought race denialist, the ones that know this stuff, and still lie about it and force others not to talk about it out of ‘morality’ were the evil ones.
Ive noticed there seems to be a lot of comments from the people on this blog on HBD being ‘pro jewish’ and kind of being cuckolded like that. I’ve never seen any of the HBD people I would rate – peter frost, jayman, sailer etc mention these things.
Theres a slight variation where HBDers will say ‘were not racist cos asians are great too’ which I actually kind of agree with. But not east asians per se. I think south asians could also perhaps have european standards of living.
HBD has at least two senses.
1. differences between races.
2. differences between individual members of a given race…usually white people.
“Evil?! I always thought race denialist, the ones that know this stuff, and still lie about it and force others not to talk about it out of ‘morality’ were the evil ones.”
weren’t you saying that in real life you were pro open borders ? so you are the evil one here. saying something he doesn’t think.
may be if people had the balls of saying what they think things would move one.
Hahaha. Its like being a non religious person in the middle ages. Not far off.
in my case, i always avoid talking these kind of sulphurous topics in real life. whenever someone say something like “we should welcome these poor migrants they suffered so much, we are too selfish in our western comfort” i just nod, and say “yeah, yeah… you’re right”.
sometimes i cannot help trolling my interlocutors asking them disturbing questions in a very candide way.
Well i joke that Im bashing the bible for open borders. But if someone brings it up ill be silent and if they keep talking about it eventually Ill ask questions. When I was younger I was very strident in my anti immigrant views, even to immigrant friends faces.
same thing for me but only with family. eventually i stopped arguing. when you are a teenager you tend to be very emotional about things before realizing it’s pointless.
“I think south asians could also perhaps have european standards of living.”
south asia seems like a shithole. with people shitting on the streets.
why do you think this ?
But china was like this 30 years ago as well.
you have to ask yourself why chinese help make their country something else than a shithole and why indians didn’t yet.
but may be your right. i don’t know enough.
ONE CHILD POLICY. Thats the difference. The major difference. Economic system is irrelevant.
the difference is race.
But mongolia, cambodia, burma etc are equivalent to India. Actually some parts of China are really really poor.
but they aren’t shitting on the streets.
Sailer has the right answer vis sport guys.
Whites do great at sports where you need hand eye coordination and endurance – ever notice the way there are no black professional tennis,
Notice the way Tiger Woods is 50% asian. Asians have good hand eye coordination. I would also bet Woods IQ is much higher above average compared to most black athletes.
I see it in rugby as well. Blacks should dominate a sport based on pure physicality but because rugby doesnt have 15 minute breaks every 10 minutes, blacks dont have the endurance.
Sailer also points out how Bolt is crap at 800m + and the amount of bantu blacks at that rack length and above declines precipitously.
Actually I don’t think Saller mentioned hand eye coordination issues for blacks outside of baseball. Its something ive noticed myself.
I would put money on blacks being really bad at things like pool/snooker, bowls or race driving. You can talk about hamilton all you want, but hes half white. Just like the president magic negro mcrussia conspiracy theorist who insults the intelligence of real conspiracy theorists.
Probably the best example is football/’saaaccer’ actually. Most of the best players are white/latino.
what about williams sisters ?
but i agree white and asians seems better with motor skills and spatial perception.
blacks are bad drivers.
yeah. serena and venus williams are chinese.
kenyan and environs blacks DOMINATE endurance running.
Thats true. But not football. Notice the way it doesnt translate to football for some reason.
Would you call the portuguese white?
I wouldn’t. I think you’d call them closer to latinos in temperament, physical attributes and probably cognitive abilites.
JS always bangs on about spain. Portugal was the original colonial empire.
are italian spaniards and greeks white then ?
portugal did import a few black slaves. i don’t think any other european country did that.
my physiotherapist told me the perfect morphology to play soccer was short limbs which africans haven’t.
sorry i answered in the wrong thread.
Treaty of tordesillas. Spain/Portugal agree to carve up the world for colonisation/rampage. Strange to recall.
In Fergusons’ Rothschild, Portugal basically caves in and makes Brazil a quasi fiefdom of Rothschild as they cant pay their debts. Rothschild always leaned on the UK to protect little Portugal. The spain/portugal deals they did were all terrible except the deal with the mines because they always defaulted or gave haircuts.
In modern finance, government bonds are basically non default paper in developed nations as the ‘contagion’ effects are too disasterous.
For example, when Russia defaulted in 1997 that ended up causing a financial crisis in Asia.
We will eventually get to a stage where Gibralter cannot default.
Why?
People will take the central banks put options on these secutiries and write derivatives on them and leverage the stuff to the hilt. The risk reward frontier will always push out to take on more risk. The only way to stop it is simply to ban it.
Neoliberalism is bad for the financial sector. You heard it here first.
The risk reward frontier will always push out to take on more risk. The only way to stop it is simply to ban it.
that’s right. too big to fail should be too big to exist. and financial innovation is 100% just finding ways to manage more and more leverage.
any country which is allowed to issue debt in its own currency cannot default.
this is the US, canada, switzerland, australia, etc.
the so-called “sovereign debt crisis” in the EU was cause by the euro.
are germans so clever?
maybe!
because fiscal union will make the EU much more powerful than the US in every way…and germany will be the doll inside the dolls, the inside the thing inside the thing.
but germany can get even more if it waits.
as norm macdonald said…
There are academics who can’t understand that if you legalised rape, there would be a lot more rapes and the moral people that didn’t would simply be much more aggressive in their dealing with women. (or in Santos case men).
They just don’t get that.
So when you say finance should be deregulated, of course people will find loopholes or systemic bugs to exploit.
Theres a very good paper I read once that basically argued all financial innovation is really legal innovation. And legal innovation is basically grabbing the governments hand and making it hit itself.
less government could work with high trust population. like nw europeans if you believe what jayman says.
but not with low trust population. there is not a single democracy in the arab world i think.
i don’t know if this is genetic or cultural. may be some population simply have the bad culture. jayman says it’s genetic. i don’t know.
no one likes big government except dictators, but at least in the US government has only grown in size because circumstances required it. the best government is the least government, it’s the government which can change and adapt and evolve.
in the 19th c the US federal government had 2% of GDP. the record shows that the size of government has no effect on economic growth in the US. and then there is the unrivaled economic growth of the soviet union and the PRC.
total tax revenues as % of GDP is only about 26% in the US. only singapore and hong kong are lower among developed countries.
…is NOT the least…
Neoliberalism is the theory good people will not break the rules when there are no rules.
And bad people will not be able to sell more products because people will say: THEY ARE BAD!!!
Autism in academia. Psychopathy in the vision of the elites to pay people to spread it.
it’s all down to the ideological/academic influence of the US and its position in the cold war. that influence is mostly jewish, but not entirely.
The question is: why did elites in the 20th century get fed up with the fordist compromise starting in the late 70s. Was it the oil crisis? I doubt it.
It would be very interesting interviewing the Koch Bros and asking them when do feel the system stopped working?
Would they just say they dont care about how the system works. Just how they do? I actually think they are true believers in the extent that they hate communism so much that any government interference seems like public executions are next to them.
They would be much better off realising communism is more about jewish tribalism than ‘economics’.
Actually Robert would be better off realising all economics is a function of tribal politics. At the end of the day nation states exist not because of economics but tribe.
yes. mass immigration suppresses wages and diversity suppresses solidarity.
yes. the should nation come before the economic system. this is why i have decried the ideological influence of america on the world. an idea nation is not a nation at all. america’s not a country, it’s just a business.
yes. it is not understanding norms of reaction that makes open borders and free trade credible. once one understands norms of reaction he must accept that the nation state is the best polity, that particularism is true and universalism is false.
…the nation should…
stupo or typo?
why so many stupos?
it’s almost as if i’m stupid.
wait…
So Robert can accept the idea elites paid academics to espouse neoliberalism and banned academics who criticised neoliberalism but completely goes AWOL on the idea (((elites))) bribed people to say race is the colour of your socks and banned anyone that questioned it or worse, called them hitler and nazi.
To the people of the 1950s I would strongly doubt nazis connotated ‘racist’ in their heads. They would probably of seen the Germans much like they saw them in WW1, and no worse.
The KKK stuff got amped up later.
…probably ‘ve seen…
banned only if they were strident about their racism. there are plenty of hereditist psychology profs and dissident anthropology profs. such people may study psychology or anthropology precisely because they’re interested in the race question.
Futurama was a great show. Like the Simpsons, the staff all are highly intelligent.
Lisa Simpson has an IQ of 159
Futurama: Global Warming – None Like It Hot!
what does philosopher think about trump’s decision on jerusalem ?
it looks like i’m the only one here who doesn’t get this article.
is this saying that most of racial differences boil down to sexual selection ?
i have a question for the author : why do we find some traits attractive in first order ? for instance, why do europeans found blue eyes attractives ?
blue eyes is lack of melanin so people with blue eyes might also have light skin and hairs and then be more adapted to some environment.
then blue eyed people survive better and had more descendance. and people who liked blue eyes mate with blue eyed persons and then had more descendance too.
oversimplifying a lot but you get the reasoning.
“is this saying that most of racial differences boil down to sexual selection ?”
Not necessarily saying that sexual selection is the largest cause, just that it played an important role.
“why do europeans found blue eyes attractives ?”
3 main reasons
1) they’re novel
2)they’re different
3) they’re “cute” in the sense that it is reminiscent of a helpless child.
Blue eyes are not apart of any heterochronic processes and therefore are neither paedo or peramorphic.
that’s basically the same thing. blue skin is also novel and different but most people would find it disgusting.
i don’t think people find things beautiful for no reasons.
“3) they’re “cute” in the sense that it is reminiscent of a helpless child.”
blue eyes originated in central asia. don’t you ask yourself why they thrive in northern europe and not central asia or the middle east.
blue eyes are link with light features which are advantageous in some environments.
“but most people would find it disgusting.”
Are you sure? Or is that just how you personally would find blue skin. Avatar porn does exist.
“don’t you ask yourself why they thrive in northern europe and not central asia or the middle east.
blue eyes are link with light features which are advantageous in some environments.”
I’m not saying they didn’t provide survival benefits, also you need to ask yourself why it originated in Central asia if it’s an adaptation for low light specifically or why it didn’t migrate east as well.
you are so annoying.
“Are you sure? Or is that just how you personally would find blue skin. Avatar porn does exist.”
yes. and there are people jacking off at horses raping men.
“I’m not saying they didn’t provide survival benefits, also you need to ask yourself why it originated in Central asia if it’s an adaptation for low light specifically or why it didn’t migrate east as well.”
that’s me who is asking you this question…
you are so annoying.
what is your IQ ?
“what is your IQ ?”
Let’s say his IQ was 70. Does that I invalidate anything he said? The ‘what is your IQ’ “argument” is retarded and I don’t take anyone seriously who uses it.
“you are so annoying.”
im not really sure why you are getting so frustrated.
“yes. and there are people jacking off at horses raping men.”
Right, so obviously peoples taste in sex varies significantly.
“that’s me who is asking you this question…”
No. You asked why blue eyes are prevalent in low light latitudes if they originated in central asia, you were implying they are directly from natural selection, i turned the question around and asked why it originated in central asia to begin with.
“what is your IQ ?”
I don’t know. I’ve never taken an IQ test, but like RR said it’s irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Subsequently if I have a low IQ, and you are not able to demonstrate the invalidity of my thesis than that implies you have an even lower one.
no offense, i was just messing with you.
if blue eyes originate in central asia it’s because the mutation occured in this place, i don’t really understand your point.
rr why are you getting so upset whenever someone talk about IQ ? from your reaction we could think IQ tests traumatized you in the past.
“no offense, i was just messing with you.”
That’s fine I thought you may have been serious from the tone of your text.
“if blue eyes originate in central asia it’s because the mutation occured in this place, i don’t really understand your point.”
What i mean is the central Asia also has low light at least in comparison to africa, so why didn’t the mutation go east where their is even less light? My overall point is that blue eyes probably coincided with other recessive traits that were beneficial, because any effect blue eyes does have is probably very small in significance. Scandinavians also have blonde hair and high intelligence their genes probably pooled with blue eyes as an overall selection for sexual appeal.
there is less light in east asia ? i always thought the less light was in nw europe.
my hunch is that blonde hair light skin and eyes are something particular to this part of the world because contrary to east asia there is less light in nothern europe. east asia is cold but with more sunlight.
there is possibly a link with nutrition too.
but light eyes being selected because “people like it” or “find it cute” seems far too incomplete for me.
people don’t find something attractive for know reason. there is a reason why africans crave for big butts and asian men don’t.
when i said that’s basically the same thing i talked about this :
“1) they’re novel
2)they’re different”
what do you mean by east asians are the most r-selected ?
putting east asians whites and blacks in similar environments east asians have the less kids and are the less sexually active then whites then blacks. correct me if i’m wrong.
i thought r people where the more sexually active ones who had a lot of kids. like rabbits.
There is a big debate between followers of anonymous conservative and JP Rushton on which is which. I tend to side with Rushton.
Before the one child rule, China had a birth rate equivalent to Africa. China is used as an “average” template for Mongoloids because it is the Ancestral location of their evolution and it contains the largest amount of mongoloid individuals
are asians more sexually active than whites ?
I have no idea. But that isn’t the only factor that affects fertility.
Youd have to think so with the historically large population numbers. But that may just be because they innovated in agriculture a lot earlier.
i have read 1/200 japanese woman acted in a porno in her life so may be.
Japan has a weird sexual culture, where even children are put on sexual display in underwear magazines. Aren’t asians more likely to be pedophiles? This may explain their attraction to paedomorphic traits.
“Mongoloids seem to have evolved their cranial capacity for primarily for docility and cooperation.”
what ? so why women have smaller brains than men ? it shows having a big brain doesn’t help being more cooperative and docile
You think women are more cooperative and docile than men?
you think the opposite ? on what planet do you live?
The same one you do, which i find it funny how you haven’t noticed how gossipy and talkative women are or how vindictive they are to other women. I’ve seen some studies showing that women are more likely to hold grudges as well as try social manipulation where men usually just fight and then make up.
So you excessively talk on dates?
women are more submissive. it’s more men who will break rules and start a fight. except talking women don’t really do anything.
women are cowards just like asians. they avoid making waves. they follow rules.
“women are more submissive. it’s more men who will break rules and start a fight. except talking women don’t really do anything.
women are cowards just like asians.”
Aggression is relative even if you’re assumptions are true, the most docile race has the largest brains.
“women are cowards just like asians. they avoid making waves.”
Dont ever become a diplomat.
“Aggression is relative even if you’re assumptions are true, the most docile race has the largest brains.”
i’m just saying you are jumping to conclusions to rapidly. you assume the big brain make them docile may be whatever selection pressures that made them big brained also made them docile. we don’t know.
“Dont ever become a diplomat.”
i’m like langan. saying things clearly without filter.
“i’m just saying you are jumping to conclusions to rapidly. you assume the big brain make them docile may be whatever selection pressures that made them big brained also made them docile. we don’t know.”
No, I think their faces and body proportions are due to docility and cooperation. Big brain are hypermorphic. But in this case East asian’s big brains actually give them a more childlike appearance because of it’s relative proportion compared to the rest of the body. This creates a contradiction, where East aisans have high intelligence but are also more submissive in contrast to Europeans who have large brains but are not as submissive, this is because Europeans have less paedomorphosis.
don’t you think asians are more submissive because they were selected for and more submissive people had more childlike traits ?
More or less, yes.
so my own experience vis-a-vis norms of reaction.
had i been in a european country i’d be making millions today as a professional footballer.
i was THAT good.
short legs.
even today at my advanced age i look at football matches and think…
wtf?
these guys are wooden.
i’d score in a trice.
so theoretically the reason why japanese, koreans, native americans, and europeans should be able to compete with black africans in football/soccer is…
what counts in football is…
1. speed over very short distances.
2. maneuver-ability.
3. lower body co-ordination.
short mr olympia legs are best. the less to co-ordiante the easier it is…for the brain.
my physiotherapist would agree.
it explains messi.
“short mr olympia legs are best. the less to co-ordiante the easier it is…for the brain.”
Lies.
“Lies.”
interesting.
go on.
why is it lies ?
Because long legs are conducive to more distance covered. It’s no surprise that the group that dominates endurance running and sprinting have long legs.
but short legs could still be easier to coordinate in spite their ineficiency for running ?
talk about pleiotropy…or whatever.
my mom and her sister are useless at math.
i was in the dumb math class until puberty.
and then it was like i was on a rocket…zipped ahead…over everyone by age 17.
but that cousin’s daughter was gifted at math. her brother wasn’t.
she made an 800 on the SAT M.
but the idea of europe as a state is not a german invention.
the roman, the holy roman, and the carolingian empire were all after this goal.
not to mention the napoleonic empire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCEDUiqfO-w
Napoleon was italian.
corsica is still part of france.
but why does it matter?
it doesn’t!
the point is that a unified europe is not a german invention.
is melo a white supremacist ? reading him it looks like whites are superior to blacks in almost every field.
No, I’m mixed race.
Filipino and black?
Filipino and white.
All this time I thought you were blasian. Incredible.
do you like black people ?
“All this time I thought you were blasian.”
….Seriously? Im positive I’ve told you this before.
“do you like black people ?”
Of course.
I know -all we need is a Justin Bieber IQ estimate But we are too shy to say it straight up. The short guy with his infamous ‘ sixteenth Chapel”. Rich successful
Rubik s cube wizard on other hand
If we don”t…hm…Is it too late now to say sorry? 🙂
Libgen.io is down so use this link for the time being. Just put the title or Pubmed ID and you’ll get the paper. It’s faster than libgen.io.
http://sci-hub.tw
“By contrast whites are 72% of America, but only 60% of the top U.S. Olympians.”
I used to make this mistake. But youre not comparing like with like. Compare the athletes to the demographic population of athletes i.e. people in their 20s/30s.
Whites in america are 61% of this population.
Also America classes hispanics and arabs as ‘whites’ so adjust accordingly whenever you quote demo figures.
Compare the athletes to the demographic population of athletes i.e. people in their 20s/30s.
I doubt it would make much difference.
It did. Look at the numbers above. No whites are at par.
now whites#
Do you have a source for this Philo? What exactly are you saying?
US census.
Well taking aside singapore and honk Kong who are rich for very unique reasons. Japan is the really the best case one makes for east asians being smarter than whites.
In my opinion, IQ tests can’t measure intuition or social intelligence but they do give points for spatial and quant type thinking. The tests also cant measure creativity.
If you could create a test that tested for those parts of the mind, whites are the second smartest race. And their civilisations reflect that.
The only race of man that would be superior is the sub group of jews. Who as we all know are from the Caucuses region where all the russian chess prodigies and russian scientists come from.
Did you know Nobokov’s ancestry, the greatest novelist according to some is also from the Caucuses region?
The Philosopher:
In my opinion,
IQ tests can’t measure
intuition
social intelligence
creativity
————————
Illuminaticat:
Intuition: (Stillness of the mind. Quiet internalizing focus. Reaching into the unconscious to suddenly know something effortlessly.)
Social intelligence: (acute emotional/gesture awareness)
Creativity: (low latent inhibition)
I have been suppressing my emotions for too long. I have been neglecting my body awareness. I need to get rid of the blockages. I need to get into a flow state. Mental, physical and emotional effortlessness.
No resistance to any negative feeling.
Expanded perceptual awareness.
Light as a feather.
“Who as we all know are from the Caucuses region where all the russian chess prodigies and russian scientists come from.”
i didn’t know it. i always thought jews where from the middle east and progressively mixed with white people in europe.
I’ve talked about this topic at length 50 times. Im done talking about jews.
“Im done talking about jews.”
I thought I’d never see the day :’)
It just occured to me that what Russia did from going from a medieval society to having the worlds leading space programme must be the most ‘g loaded’ achievement you can think of historically.
If I were an anthropologist I would literally write down the names of all the most prominent russian scientists and so on involved in it and put flags of where their families came from historically in russia (there is a lot of inward migration in russia).
If I’m right about my khazar theory of ashkenazi jewish intelligence, you’ll see a lot of the flags near the black sea.
Haha, you could do the same with communist party leaders actually. I think it would be extremely interesting putting the flags where the Djugashvili, Zinoviev, Trostky etc clans hail from.
Of course russia being so backward is not unlike Israel not being a really rich country. Or italy.
The reason of course is because these nations have selected for dark triads traits in their peoples for whatever reason even though they have intellectual talent.
Countries that select for dark triad traits tend to have cruel elites. Countries that select for high empathy tend to have kind elites.
Its not rocket science. You don’t need to be a genius to figure it out. But you do need to be instinctive.
If there is one thing I would recommend to younger readers and young people in general is that following instinct means youre right 9/10. Why? 000s of years of evolved behaviour/psychology is rarely ‘irrational’. If people chose to voluntarily breathe or not, we’d all be dead.
“It just occured to me that what Russia did from going from a medieval society to having the worlds leading space programme must be the most ‘g loaded’ achievement you can think of historically.”
there is also south korea being a mostly illiterate country 50 years ago becoming the 5th country in terms of filed international patent application in 2016.
Patent applications are quite subjective. The chinese are world leaders I think but most of their patents are bureacratic junk. But theres no doubt South Koreas achievement and North Koreas stagnation relate to feudalism and how feudalism is bad for economies.
I should win a nobel for my delightful insights.
Is Russia so important to 20th century history mainly because Duke of Muscovy formally ruled over the former Khazar people at the beginning of the century?
Yep.
Another feather in the philosophers cap.
So , what do you think about Justin Bieber’s IQ? I guess you are my only hope on here. Ive been waiting for so long….And now I see a man who knows everything! Please, share your wisdom,
i would say good at social bad at maths.
Pumpkin do justin biebers iq