
J.P. Rushton 1943-2012: RIP
According to science writer Peter Knudtson, on January 19, 1989, scholar J.P. Rushton stood in the Sausalito Room of the San Francisco Hilton hotel and unleashed his controversial evolutionary hierarchy of the three main races.
Knudtson writes, on page 163 of A Mirror to Nature:
In Rushton’s mind his hypothesis had global implications. If his evolutionary-model-for racial-differences hierarchy turned out to be scientifically correct, he said, “then two important predictions can be made about the course of world history.” First, so-called evolutionarily favoured Oriental populations–the top ranked race in Rushton’s neat hierarchy–could be expected to outdistance the predominantly Caucasian populations of North America and Western Europe.
Almost exactly 29 years later, Rushton’s prediction has come true this week as the Chinese have cloned primates; the biggest leap forward since man landed on the moon, perhaps a lot bigger.
Of course, other animals had been cloned in the past, but primates proved especially difficult because of epigenetics. The Chinese have now solved the problem of primate cloning, and by extension, human cloning. They have literally figured out how to bring people back to life after they die, or at least their genomes.
As the saying goes “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”
These aren’t the First primte clones, they are the first using somatic cell nuclear transfer like “Dolly the Sheep”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_that_have_been_cloned#Monkey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_(sheep)
Those previous primate “clones” never made it past the petri dish
“Only two of the four embryos survived to the stage in which they could be implanted into surrogates, and Tetra was the only one to be delivered successfully after 157 days.[1] The announcement of Tetra was made on 13 January 2000, when she was four months old.[7] It was thought that by producing identical primates, advances in human medical research could be made. A further four monkeys, cloned using this same technique were due to be born in May 2000.[8]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetra_(monkey)
“During the method in which ANDi was created, two hundred and twenty-four eggs were injected with the protein and only 166 or 75% were successfully fertilized. 126 or 76% of these fertilized eggs developed to the four-cell-stage embryos. 40 of the fertilized embryos were implanted in 20 surrogate rhesus mothers, each carrying two embryos. 5 of the surrogates became pregnant. From these five surrogates, three live births proceeded. In these three monkey births only one infant, ANDi, carried the transgene.[2] Research team leader Gerald Schatten said the technique that created ANDi would become a vital tool for scientists investigating therapies for human diseases.[3]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANDi
Why do you insist on not reading? Honestly seeing how hard scientists work on achieving these feats regardless of method, this is pretty biased.
I read in a news article that the primate fake clones never made it past the petri dish, but it seems you’re right on that specific point. Thanks for the clarification.
Note, I know Andi wasn;t a true “clone” but was mentioned due to intentions behind the endeavor being similar to Tetra, that is for disease research in genetics, and that her creation was likely using the research gained by Tetra’s birth.
Occidental regulations against cloning may explain a big part of it.
Interesting story. I’m not sure what the medical benefits are to cloning. I suppose you could probably clone organs eventually. I don’t see why a government would want to clone people unless you have these very specific metal gear solid scenarios where you are trying to clone brilliant soldiers, scientists, etc. I would doubt the clones would be as good as the original but if you cloned a brilliant person 100 times, maybe 4 or 5 would be as good.
On another note, the reason why westerners are averse to human cloning and the chinese seem to be very interested in manipulating the genome or cloning humans is the aesthetic value of life in east asians is much lower. I can’t think of another race of man other than whites that put such a strong cultural emphasis on the individual sanctity of life and ‘natural order’ despite the amount of scientific advances they have made. The glib answer for why asians don’t value humanity is autism, but I also think it may psychologically have to do with the gigantic numbers of people in east Asia historically which is in contrast to the sparsely populated western nations in terms of density of population.
Rushton saying asians are the most evolved is technically true. But to say that evolution is progressive is stupid. We all know east asian women abandon their men once they move to the west.
This is evidence that the underlying assumption of what causes evolution – ‘the environment’ – is poorly understood by adherents to the prog ev cause. A better word than ‘evolved’ would be ‘adapted’. In asians case, an adaptation to Masters edicts.
What you call being slaves to master, Rushton would call the evolution of superior social organization. It would be one thing if East Asians had evolved to be slaves to another race, but what you’re claiming is merely a hierarchical cooperative structure within their own race, allowing them to function better as a group, which Rushton would view as progress. And it’s not as though “master” consciously selected, but rather “rule following” was a natural adaptation to civilization, so it remains natural selection, not artificial selection.
Master makes the rules abd decides what civilisation should entail for peoples behaviours. Also china didnt progress as a group compared yo other civilisations. In fact it stagnated and is inly now catching up larhely by copying western tech.
For centuries China was the richest and most powerful nation on Earth, at least according to Rushton.
Master makes the rules abd decides what civilisation should entail for peoples behaviours.
Yes but that’s a sign of a more advanced population because having someone in charge creates order and structure. Cooperation and collectivism > competition and individualism.
Are you patronising me just because im blackfaced? Do you reallly think youre smarter than me just because my skin is painted black?
“For centuries China was the richest and most powerful nation on Earth, at least according to Rushton.”
Yet they never developed science just as the Roman empire never developed it.
You have low standards for advanced countries or groups if the naations you call rich and powerful never developed science. Wealth and power not equal advancement. Look at what science is. You must know what science is since this is an IQ blog.
Why no cars or trains if Romans and Chines empires so advanced?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
“Yet they never developed science just as the Roman empire never developed it.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_China
https://www.ancient.eu/Roman_Science/
“You have low standards for advanced countries or groups if the naations you call rich and powerful never developed science.”
You must have a pretty daft understanding of science and history if you think such influential civilizations of Western and Eastern societies made no innovations or
“Wealth and power not equal advancement. Look at what science is. You must know what science is since this is an IQ blog.”
Given how tyou treated ancient China and Rome, you apparently have not concept of science either.
“Why no cars or trains if Romans and Chines empires so advanced?”
1. Think about what you just typed and get back tom me when you realized how asinine that was.
2. You do understand that without those ages of classicism, based on greco-roman and chinese antiquity, we likely wouldn’t have the advance scientific knowledge to even create trains and cars, correct? You basically linked to a source that explains the legacy and influence of those civilizations.
Otherwise, you would have to point out an alternative society in regards to what was the basis of modern science.
Rome and China were mega-states. Even if they developed some form of science, politically the main focus was to maintain order and use technology mostly for that purpose. They existed for at least one thousand years (China and Rome) but Rome was always expanding until it became too large to maintain stability and broke up. A major cause of Romes fall was unemployed where the citizenry left the cities because slaves took all the jobs. Chinna became somewhat isolated when unified into one empire. It was like what happened in Japan when the emperor started making customary rules since the wars stopped.
Rome never had a plan what to do when it concerned all of Europe but geographical and politically it never got that far. Islam had “scientists” that preserved the writings of Plato and Aristotle and others but it had its dark age like Europe did.
The scientific method was not discovered until after the Renaissance. Math was a big part of it. Functions used to find the path of elliptical orbits and metal work to make machines as scientific instruments. Chemistry and Musical instruments, pipes and strings. Yes, Rome had music and Rome had maths. But they were arcane and mostly thought of as magic since Romans believed in the gods and the pantheon such a long time. Reading was common but there was no scientific community exchanging ideas. Knowledge was more standardized in the Roman empire so was static.
Just because the Romans built an empire does not follow that they prioritized experimentation and testing of claims. They still followed the gods and saw no reason to change society based on new technologies that had little to do with imperial conquest. All mainstream Roman technology was for war or building elaborate cities. I would say it was a homogeneous culture trying to standardize everything. The economy was just not built for scientific innovation to be much cared about because everyone was busy doing something else. Old technology works fine, if it ain’t broken don’t fix it.
When the empire broke up was when diversity emerged. There was no common standard of education anymore. There was no more group identity of being a Roman citizen and the quest to expand the empire continuously.
The biggest comparison I can make between The Romans and modern times is that of industrialization. Science allowed steel mills and mechanical factories. The Romans had metal work and the could use it to make stone buildings but that is a different science. Machines come from modern science, Stone comes from Ancient science. No Roman army could defeat a battalion of machine guns.
“Rome and China were mega-states. Even if they developed some form of science, politically the main focus was to maintain order and use technology mostly for that purpose.”
How does having a politically driven purpose =/= undadvanced?
“They existed for at least one thousand years (China and Rome) but Rome was always expanding until it became too large to maintain stability and broke up. A major cause of Romes fall was unemployed where the citizenry left the cities because slaves took all the jobs. Chinna became somewhat isolated when unified into one empire. It was like what happened in Japan when the emperor started making customary rules since the wars stopped.”
Again, how does this translate to unadvanced? Early civilization would obviously have pitfalls compared to how society developed now.
“Rome never had a plan what to do when it concerned all of Europe but geographical and politically it never got that far. Islam had “scientists” that preserved the writings of Plato and Aristotle and others but it had its dark age like Europe did.”
This doesn’t refute advance status, the fact that you mention ancient writings that direct Western society out of the “Dark ages” proves my point.
“The scientific method was not discovered until after the Renaissance. Math was a big part of it. Functions used to find the path of elliptical orbits and metal work to make machines as scientific instruments. Chemistry and Musical instruments, pipes and strings.”
The basis of which was of Greco Roman foundation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#History
“Yes, Rome had music and Rome had maths. But they were arcane and mostly thought of as magic since Romans believed in the gods and the pantheon such a long time. Reading was common but there was no scientific community exchanging ideas. Knowledge was more standardized in the Roman empire so was static.”
Source that the actual scientific community of Rome thought of science as “magic”, because that would contradict how they managed to use it for specific and practical use and advance upon Greek traditions in the field.
“Just because the Romans built an empire does not follow that they prioritized experimentation and testing of claims. They still followed the gods and saw no reason to change society based on new technologies that had little to do with imperial conquest. All mainstream Roman technology was for war or building elaborate cities. I would say it was a homogeneous culture trying to standardize everything. The economy was just not built for scientific innovation to be much cared about because everyone was busy doing something else. Old technology works fine, if it ain’t broken don’t fix it.”
“One notable distinction of Roman scientists was their desire for authoritative answers to any questions they had about the world. In addition, for the practical Roman mind science had to provide useful information which could be used to ensure successful outcomes of real projects. Long and ultimately purposeless discussion and research on a purely theoretical level were not for the Roman scientist. Physics had to be of practical use to produce effective torsion catapults, biology must improve agricultural yields, and mathematics and geometry must combine to provide the best answers in order to build the most impressive domes and arches. This pursuit of scientific knowledge was very often sponsored by wealthy private individuals who sought the benefits of a reputation with the public as an active promoter of culture.”
https://www.ancient.eu/Roman_Science/
Try again.
“When the empire broke up was when diversity emerged. There was no common standard of education anymore. There was no more group identity of being a Roman citizen and the quest to expand the empire continuously.
The biggest comparison I can make between The Romans and modern times is that of industrialization. Science allowed steel mills and mechanical factories. The Romans had metal work and the could use it to make stone buildings but that is a different science. Machines come from modern science, Stone comes from Ancient science. No Roman army could defeat a battalion of machine guns.”
…….”Ancient” and “Modern science”….articulate those concepts to an actually physical scientist and I’ll await what he would say.
To put not simply, ancient science was the BASIS of modern science. Romans used Greek science to apply it to their society, so obviously they would’ve advanced engineering, agriculture,etc just as steel mills did.
Overall, the biggest problem you aren’t capable of conceiving is compared these civilizations in their respective time periods. Using “better” examples from latter civilization hardly proves anything, especially when said “better” civilization used Greco-roman knowledge to develop their knowledge.
I am a proud blackface man.
Blackface lives matter!!
I have a dream that one day a blackfaced boy and a blackfaced girl can go to school and use the same toilets and win the same oscars…
How long until they scour their huge 1,5 billion population for “the perfect human” (160 IQ, athletic, stable personality, etc) and then proceed to put a few thousand of those in charge of the country? You’d literally have a continent run by very stable geniuses.
no chinaman living or dead is as intelligent as trump.
nor any chinaman who ever will exist.
I for one look forwards to our Chinese overlords.
The failing West needs to be put out of its misery.
and the spanish led the way.
first latin america, then the US, and now western europe.
white people hate white people too. (as chris rock might’ve said.)
a lilly white overclass + some jews + a non-white or mixed underclass.
slavery as economic system.
Good to see you!
It’s been far too long since one of my fellow celebs dropped by.
if whites and blacks had much interest in sumo they’d soon dominate. the native japs would lose every match.
the average height of sumo is 6’1″. the same as superheavyweight weightlifters. the georgian in 6’3″ 390. if sumo drew from a larger population the average height might increase. but i expect not that much. wonder how rezazadeh would do as a sumo.
Pumpkin we need to have a conversation about race. Here are the approved jewish talking points.
SUBMIT
SUBMIT
SUBMIT
When I provide hundreds of down to earth evidences showing 2 commenters are the same person it’s not enough… but Chinese cloned monkeys = they are the most evolved !
A real achievement would be that China solves its malnutrition problem.
https://www.economist.com/news/china/21604220-growth-has-helped-millions-avoid-malnutrition-it-still-threatens-hold-back-generation
or used CRSPR to increase chinese penis size so they wouldn’t have to pay white women for sex.
Honestly, I’ve never actually read the NYT. Sailer makes it out to be a deranged death cult sermon. Is it really that ridiculous? Some of the articles Sailer posts are out of this world ridiculous but I just don’t think a newspaper can be that bad. The ones he picks are like parodies or things I would write taking the piss [redacted by pp, Jan 28, 2018].
I read the guardian a bit and although it keeps mentioning blacks in every article as a way to justify it is ‘morally good’ (I still haven’t figured out why liberals think invoking the most barbaric human beings makes something ‘good’…it just goes to show liberalism is more socially retarded than libertarianism), the actual reporting is balanced and you can tell they are genuine liberals.
Point of fact I agree with the guardian on a lot of things. Its a pity there is no mainstream alt right or [redacted by pp, Jan 28, 2018] paper. Everything is [redacted by pp, Jan 28, 2018].
In modern liberalism everything is upside down. For example, non citizens have more rights than citizens. Weird sexual fetishes are morally justified (the more depraved, the better). Dangerous groups are to be pitied, even sustained. The most psychopathic groups are the leaders. Women should be men. Muslims are right to be sexist and homophobic because they are muslim and therefore, unique.
I was never on board with this stuff even when I was a liberal.
If you ever wondered if you would pass a test of whether you would side with Big Brother or Winston in a real life 1984 scenario, now you know.
Are you on the right side of history? I am pretty sure I am.
When I look at Africa, I think that is much more the world that would come to be under [redacted by pp, Jan 28, 2018] than the one we know we had for definite in the 1950s etc. Aesthetics don’t lie.
People know [redacted by pp, Jan 28, 2018] by the world it creates.
A question: why do they hate the 1950s so much?
All surveys of income, happiness, upward mobility etc etc show it was the prime years of the West.
I think they despise it because they were not the kings of high school. Everything goes back to high school. These gamma sociopaths saw the other outsider, the low IQ violent negro and declared: “I will make him a religious object of affectation”.
If you said whites would look at blacks religiously like sacred objects or ‘magical negroes’ in the 50s people would laugh at you. Even now Im still very perplexed whites could be so stupid to be brainwashed so easily to do the most absurd things.
[redacted by pp, Jan 28, 2018]
If you bother listening to me, you will pavlonian conditioning they put in you. Say nigge out loud.
Feel the shock?
If you said whites would look at blacks religiously like sacred objects or ‘magical negroes’ in the 50s people would laugh at you. Even now Im still very perplexed whites could be so stupid to be brainwashed so easily to do the most absurd things.
You’re confusing compassion for stupidity. Historically blacks were victims and people naturally cheer for the underdog, especially if they feel guilty. Media brainwashing simply magnified these natural emotions that occur in good people, and it might be a bit stupid to not see the manipulation, but mostly those who celebrate blacks are just good people, or virtue signaling & blacks have talents that make them fun to celebrate (charisma, rhythm, athleticism)
This is for my pals Lyrion and Philosopher:
Okay, suppose you note a correlation between levels of aggression and levels of testosterone among these normal males. This could be because (a) testosterone elevates aggression; (b) aggression elevates testosterone secretion; (c) neither causes the other. There’s a huge bias to assume option a while b is the answer. Study after study has shown that when you examine testosterone when males are first placed together in the social group, testosterone levels predict nothing about who is going to be aggressive. The subsequent behavioral differences drive the hormonal changes, not the other way around.
Because of a strong bias among certain scientists, it has taken do forever to convince them of this point.
[…]
As I said, it takes a lot of work to cure people of that physics envy, and to see interindividual differences in testosterone levels don’t predict subsequent differences in aggressive behavior among individuals. Similarly, fluctuations in testosterone within one individual over time do not predict subsequent changes in the levels of aggression in the one individual—get a hiccup in testosterone secretion one afternoon and that’s not when the guy goes postal. (Sapolsky, 1997)
Testosterone is never going to tell us much about the suburban teenager who, in his after-school chess club, has developed a particularly aggressive style with his bishops. And it certainly isn’t going to tell us much about the teenager in some inner-city hellhole who has taken to mugging people. “Testosterone equals aggression” is inadequate for those who would offer a simple solution to the violent male—just decrease levels of those pesky steroids. And “testosterone equals aggression” is certainly inadequate for those who would offer a simple excuse: Boys will be boys and certain things in nature are inevitable. Violence is more complex than a single hormone. This is endocrinology for the bleeding heart liberal—our behavioral biology is usually meaningless outside of the context of social factors and the environment in which it occurs. (Sapolsky, 1997)
On to the next issue that lessens the primacy of testosterone: What do individual levels of testosterone have to do with aggression? If one person higher testosterone levels than another, or higher levels this week than last, are they more likely to be aggressive?
Initially the answer seemed to be yes, as studies showed correlation between individual differences in testosterone levels and levels of aggression. In a typical study, higher testosterone levels would be observed in those male prisoners with higher rates of aggression. But being aggressive stimulates testosterone secretion; no wonder more aggressive individuals had higher levels. Such studies couldn’t disentangle chickens and eggs.
Thus, a better question is whether differences in testosterone levels among individuals predict who will be aggressive. And among birds, fish, mammals, and especially other primates, the answer is generally no. This has been studied extensively in humans, examining a variety of measures of aggression. And the answer is clear. To quote British endocrinologist John Archer in a definitive 2006 review, “There is a weak and inconsistent association between testosterone levels and aggression in [human] adults, and . . . administration of testosterone to volunteers typically does not increase aggression.” The brain doesn’t pay attention to testosterone levels within the normal range.
[…]
Thus, aggression is typically more about social learning than about testosterone, differing levels of testosterone generally can’t explain why some individuals are more aggressive than others. (Sapolsky, 2017)
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/01/28/race-testosterone-aggression-and-prostate-cancer/
I pimped 4000 words into this piece. It seems like this discussion is now settled. Other arguments and citations are provided in the article. I’ll accept admission that I was right.
“Violence is more complex than a single hormone.”
Nobody denied that RR.
I’m not going to argue again on the issue but I wish you try to answer this simple question : why do we perceive masculine looking guys as more agressive and threatening than the feminine looking ones ?
“I’m not going to argue again on the issue but I wish you try to answer this simple question : why do we perceive masculine looking guys as more agressive and threatening than the feminine looking ones ?”
That depends what you mean by “aggressive”. Overall, masculine people would be more assertive and dominant but RR already went through the details of how that’s different from aggression in the context of T. To the laymen, these qualities can be easily founded, and even then these perceived “masculine individuals” may have other traits (like low serotonin in the brain, which would be closer correlated to aggression if one was aware of the mechanics) that could promote aggressive behavior.
I have no studies on hand, but type in “serotonin and aggression” and you’ll find plenty of studies with few rebuttals on the basic concept. Serotonin, basically speaking, is what keeps T centered to assertiveness and dominance and not aggression.
Feminine guys would lack assertiveness to begin with if they lack T, thus wouldn’t be associated with aggression necessarily. However, being aggressive doesn’t necessitate being threatening so a “feminine guy” can be “pissy” as a form of aggressiveness.
Edit:
To the laymen, these qualities can be easily *confounded, and even then these perceived “masculine individuals” may have other traits (like low serotonin in the brain, which would be closer correlated to aggression if one was aware of the mechanics) that could promote aggressive behavior.
Sorry I should’ve used “prone to violence” instead of agressive. But you didn’t answer my question.
‘why do we perceive masculine looking guys as more prone to violence and threatening than the feminine looking ones ?’
No idea but it’s not testosterone. Is the difference in the normal range? As can be seen above, the brain doesn’t register testosterone levels in the normal range. Nice try on the attempted vague and trick question.
“Sorry I should’ve used “prone to violence” instead of agressive. But you didn’t answer my question.”
To summarize my original point, many have subjective perception of what it means to be “aggressive”, as due to domiance and assertive (not exactly anti-social aggressiveness) can be confused for it.
As for being “prone to aggressiveness”, that would be an assertion suggesting there is evidence to prove it.
The question is, do you?
“The facial masculinity index does not predict dominance or aggression. Taken together, these results indicate that fWHR, but not a measure of facial masculinity, cues dominance and specific types of aggression in both sexes.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25339656
And to be clear, “dominance” in this study is self reported.
Those who tend to report dominance in others based on appearance tend to be less dominant themselves.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188691000396X
In regards to T, FWHR isn’t as well associated with it as masculinity is in puberty, which is is also associated with competiton arousal, a more reliable measure of masculinity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27078636
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2614257/
http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(04)00027-3/abstract
Though FWHR is still positively associoated with T and aggression among adults, this study suggesting it to be stronger than sexual dimorphism, it wasn’t replicated, and possibly could’ve been confounded for confusing mascluinity and sexual dimorphism (the latter being used in the study).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/per.1942/full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4324773/
However the same researcher published this study showing that FWHR isn’t sexually dimorphic, agreeing with the study that found it weakly associated with male puberty and T.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109051381200027X
http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(16)30092-7/abstract
Regardless, despite the studies showing a difference in Facial masuclinity, certain facial traits, and T associations, people still have perceptions.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886908001748
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/per.1942/full
This suggest that the associations are Novel and not typical of the human conditioning.
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/40/14388.short
Male faces displaying a full beard were considered the most masculine, aggressive, socially mature, and older. Males with a light beard were considered the most dominant.
Full beard > no beard
We don’t perceive masculine men to be more aggressive, we perceive them to be more threatening. Indeed, we perceive a Gorilla to be more threatening than a man, though they are certainly less aggressive. A feminine man does not appear to be as much of a threat and so is perceived to be less dangerous.
That’s a trick of your perception more than it is anything else.
“No idea but it’s not testosterone.”
Are you telling me that T doesn’t have any effect on male secondary sexual characteristics.
“We don’t perceive masculine men to be more aggressive”
Yeah, yeah… I corrected myself. Another example of this : North Africans are particularly agressive compared to Blacks but clearly have less T and look less dangerous.
‘Indeed, we perceive a Gorilla to be more threatening than a man, though they are certainly less aggressive. A feminine man does not appear to be as much of a threat and so is perceived to be less dangerous.”
Exactly, that it what research shows on T, face structure, and non western perceptions.
I would say for your gorilla example though that I would consider them aggressive, just not impulsive towards violence like a chimp or certain groups of humans. They tend to express it through intimidation.
“Yeah, yeah… I corrected myself. Another example of this : North Africans are particularly agressive compared to Blacks but clearly have less T and look less dangerous.”
This is just baseless and there’s no way for me to objectively answer your assertion as there are quite frankly no studies on the subject. We can use crime statistics, maybe, but crime doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with aggression. That and the crime rate of North African immigrants is absurdly high in comparison to the crime rate of North Africans in their home countries, any question as to why is just speculation.
“I would say for your gorilla example though that I would consider them aggressive, just not impulsive towards violence like a chimp or certain groups of humans. They tend to express it through intimidation.”
In my opinion this is a show of dominance, aggression is a predatory intent to harm, not a social game. Maybe I’m wrong, I haven’t thought about it that deeply.
Criminality =/= aggressiveness. My point was more about the general aggressive attitude of North Africans.
http://www.casimages.com/i/18013108041887404.png.html
Walking in the street you are more likely to be threaten or insult by a North African than by a Black. Though it doesn’t necessarily mean that they commit more crimes than Blacks. I simply used this example to buttress Phil’s point on aggressive =/= dangerous.
Then yes, I’d agree they’re aggressive by culture. I don’t believe it’s unique to them and believe all Mediterraneans share the same ‘hot country syndrome’. They’re well known for it. That’s an opinion, there’s no evidence for it.
I don’t speak very good French, can you properly translate for me?
But you are more likely to be threaten and insult by a Black than by an Italian or a Spaniard. Like every human behavior the aggressiveness of a population must have some genetic basis, though culture might exaggerate these differences.
As for the agressiveness of North Africans it’s not really a personal opinion of mine as people constantly report the same observation as shown by this survey :
“Have you personally be in troubles (aggressive behavior, insults, assault) with one or many individuals from the following groups ?”
Red : many times
Pink : one time
Blue : never
Groups ranking :
1) maghrebians
2) roms (=gypsies)
3) muslims
4) blacks
5) catholics
6) jews
7) asians”
I wouldn’t say this survey is zionist propaganda as it more or less confirm what I have myself observed and people I have talk to. That said, with an equal population Gypsies would be way over maghreb people.
“Are you telling me that T doesn’t have any effect on male secondary sexual characteristics.”
No but testosterone isn’t the active cause. Just accept the fact that testosterone doesn’t cause aggression and that you have causation reversed.
It’s an opinion survey, there aren’t any studies to prove they’re particularly aggressive in comparison to other Mediterraneans. Maybe the immigrants or French-born are, given the majority of immigrants are tcharmil. We won’t know until a study is conducted. I also agree with RR in that I don’t believe testosterone causes aggression.
I never said testosterone caused aggression btw.
“I never said testosterone caused aggression btw.”
It’s good to know that months later we have finally reached an agreement.
I wouldn’t say that RR, my view on the subject is more subtle.
Well then the studies are wrong. Its obvious blacks who have the most testosterone do the most crime and asians who have the least do the least crime.
The reason these studies aren’t picking it up is because they are done by autistic people. They are probably looking for time motion type effects. If you plug a guy with steroids he is not going to club people but if you hit on his gf, the reaction from him will be a lot more acute than if you pumped him with estrogen.
These ‘scientists’ are retards. All they have to do is compare T levels in prisoners vs normies and you get the answer. They are so fucking autistic they are looking for literal smoking gun relationships because theyre too dense to figure it out like RR.
There are many conflicting papers. Either way, testosterone doesn’t cause crime or aggression. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. I’ve definitively shown that testosterone does not cause aggression.
‘All they have to do is compare T levels in prisoners vs normies and you get the answer’
Maybe you’re the retard because this was covered by Sapolsky above. Aggression heightens testosterone, testosterone doesn’t heighten aggression.
How many blackfaced people were nominated for an Oscar this year?
ZERO
Once against the gentile straight het-cis gender oligarchy reigns supreme over me and my blackfaced brothers and sistahs.
I am now boycotting the oscars and encourage all people of blackfaced descent to do likewise. We didn’t march in Selma just for blacks and jews to win oscars! Never forget the blackface peoples contribution to America. America is a land of made up ideas.
National review is right – america is a piece of paper that people with average 60-70 IQs and 20% more testosterone can emulate by printing out and photocopying the constitution. It makes sense. Speaking as a blackfaced man.
Philosophical question – if you are tested as a 60-70IQ, does that really mean you are mentally incapable of performing most cognitive tasks?
I would say:
(a) IQ tests don’t measure social intelligence and thats why blacks in Africa don’t seem or look retarded like whites/asians with equivalent tested IQs.
(b) IQ tests don’t test memory and especially short term memory which is very important for most day to day cognitive tasks.
(c) The tests probably understate african IQs as many africans are on the schiz spectrum and have ADD and/or cannot focus on ‘book tasks’. This might explain why someone like Muhammed Ali was so eloquent but tested the same IQ as a dolphin.
(d) The IQ needed to operate machinery, cars, musical instruments, and such is much less than that required to invent them. You think I’m talking about blacks, but actually Im talking about asians.
Langan is right, asians are stupider than whites. All you have to do is walk around Shanghai and London (which I have) and talk to people. The reason western IQs are below asians is because of immigrants like [redacted by pp, jan 29, 2018]dragging down the scores. Its not rocket science to figure out most immigration into the west is as Donald Trump says ‘theyre not sending their best’.
My dad tests in the same range. Sometimes he will sit in silence for long periods staring at the wall. Im not kidding. You don’t need much stimulus at that level. One of the ways he copes is by pretending to understand what people say. So you can have a 20 minute conversation with him about say, economics, and then only when you ask him a question at the end will you realise he didn’t understand anything but he was able to mimic what someone ought to say throughout the conversation.
I think this is how a lot of blacks hide their IQs in social interactions in corporations and things. They rely on social skills to ‘cover up’.
In fairness to blacks, their social intelligence is better than other races generally with the possible exception of jews who have specifically evolved ‘merchant brain’ to deal with people.
My dad is an extremely simple guy. I could take antipscyhotics for 20 years and still not reduce my cognitive profile to that level.
In a sense, thats why the drugs are kind of doing. Slowing down the brain by reducing brain size/gray matter.
I probably haven’t had a proper conversation with my dad that he wasn’t faking understanding since I was 9 lol.
Is your father the only mentally retarded person in your family ?
What’s your ethnic background ?
Since you talked to old JP Rushton, did you ever ask him what he thought about jews? He must have noticed most of the criticism for his work came from merchants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton
Look at the critique section – all jewish names.
Rushton is an example of a scientist being railroaded by religious dogma. Its just that most people are too fucking brainwashed to see they are in a religion.
I’ve always seen this blog as a joke due to Pumpkin’s obvious Mongoloid supremacist ideals, something he can barely hide behind his pseudoscience and ‘correlations’. Sadder still because Pumpkin is a Mongoloid himself so this ‘science’ is just Pumpkin pandering to his ethnic genetic interests.
I think it’s more accurate to say he’s just a dickrider. By your logic we could be like Mugabe and assume he’s a “black lesbian” due to his weird Oprah obcession.
Pump look up carson huey and be impressed.
It’s article worthy