Please post all off-topic comments for the week in this thread. They will not be post in the main articles.
I once saw a clip from a very old episode of the soap opera The Young and the Restless, that was so powerful, I never forgot it.
A greedy landlord planned to bulldoze some low income apartments to make room for more expensive ones. As a result, a bunch of poor senior citizens were being forced to move out.
One of them came to his office.
“You think you got it all figured out,” she said to him. “Well one of these days, someone smarter than you are is gona come along and give you a taste of your own medicine, and skin you right down to the bone! Then you’ll be poor like the rest of us. Only, you’ll be all alone. At least we have each other!”
The rich landlord looked slightly frightened by the old lady’s prophecy.
“Because if there’s two things you learn growing old,” she said as she walked out of his office, “one is nobody ever has anything all figured out, and the other is…”
She grabbed the cardboard cut-out of the fancy buildings he was planning to build and weakly broke it in half over her knee.
“nothing lasts forever”
Pumpkin Person 
I no longer believe in the big bang.
I saw a documentary by people with IQ’s near 130 / 140.
They explained why dark matter and dark energy does not exist.
Time is not one dimension but 3d dimensions of time.
Redshirt is time stretching not space.
Space is not quantized but there are infinite frames of reference in time.
Infinite time dimensions.
So the universe is static like Einstien predicted, an eternal universe.
infinite in all directions.
Google “The Dark Side of Time” to see the documentary.
No big bang.
These people that made the documentary comes
from England, The British Isles.
Lots of smart people over there like Stephen Hawking who recently died.
The science that they do you do not get in textbooks, it is new.
But the documentary is just the basics I believe. For people like me.
High IQ people always work on the new stuff, especially at high-end universities.
Most youtube atheist would **** their pants realizing the big band did not happen.
Recently I canceled all my subscriptions to atheists and Christian youtube channels.
I feel much better now. (I like science)
“I no longer believe in the big bang.
I saw a documentary by people with IQ’s near 130 / 140.”
This makes no sense at all. Why “no longer believe in the big bang” all because the “documentary was “‘by people with IQ’s near 130 / 140”? Appealing to ‘IQ’?
How is it even possible that people make a documentary and announce their IQ?
Probably due to the ‘IQ cutoff’ for physicists.
lol.
[redacted by pp, april 29, 2018]
she claimed there was a group of nerds at her school with 150 IQs. that’s impossible at a candian U. none of them are sufficiently selective. at cal-tech and mit and harvard and stanford it’s possible, not at mcgill, ubc, toronto, waterloo, queens, whatever.
By definition about one in 2000 (white) Americans have 150+ IQs. Canadians have higher IQs than Americans & university students have higher IQs than the general public, so you’d expect the better and larger Canadian universities (mine had tens of thousands of students) to have some 150+ IQ students. I could have overestimated them though.
RR always makes these mistakes that IQ again being about values and not about quantifiable measurements. The mentioning of the documentary being made by people around 130 was to should that the quality would be different from if the documentary was made by people around 115 IQs like me. He even mentions that physicist is usually around 130 so why to say I am appealing To IQ other than to make me look stupid. It is not because they have 130 IQs that the proved the big bang did not happen but if they all had 115 IQs they would never prove the big bang never happened. RR just throughs around appeals to this and appeals to that and fallacy this and fallacy that because he does not directly want to say what he means. What he really wants to say is I am stupid and I think their IQ caused them to know something. That I stupid because I think IQ is magic and you do not need to show your work and you just know the answer to any problem if your IQ is high enough. That’s how stupid RR thinks I am. He is all Falacy this and fallacy that. Evidence this and evidence that.
Bottom line he thinks people are stupid. He thinks I think IQ gives you any answer to any question instantly because of the: you are appealing to this and you are appealing to that mentality of his. It’s tiring. It’s not logical it’s not rational it’s not reasonable, stop acting like you are being those things RR you are not good at it.
yes there will be some but you said they were in a “group” talking.
only in some american graduate programs is this likely to happen.
On a scale where american whites have a mean & SD of 100 & 15 respectively, my university probably had a mean and SD of 110 & 13.5 respectively.
Assuming a roughly normal distribution & tens of thousands of students, there’d be dozens of students above 150, concentrated in STEM classes & so a tiny group of friends could average 150
You think the SD is that high (at your uni)? The Harvard study showed a SD of what, 7 (if I remember correctly)?
Sure your uni may be more diverse, but still…
Harvard’s SD is around 12 when measured by the WAIS. Probably lower on the SAT since they were selected by it
“but if they all had 115 IQs they would never prove the big bang never happened”
How do you know?
“He is all Falacy this and fallacy that. Evidence this and evidence that.”
And there’s nothing wrong with that.
“Bottom line he thinks people are stupid.”
Correct.
“It’s not logical it’s not rational it’s not reasonable, stop acting like you are being those things RR you are not good at it.”
How so? Logic is imaginary, true, but what about rationality? Is rationality imaginary? Help me out here, meLo.
“How do you know?”
Because people with higher IQ’s tend to be smarter. his contention is speculative, but completely reasonable.
“How so? Logic is imaginary, true, but what about rationality? Is rationality imaginary? Help me out here, meLo.”
Logic and rationality are more or less the same, Logic tends to have more empirical grounds to it, but it is still imaginary in the sense that it is an abstraction dependent on justified premises(posteriori,priori).
Logic is about perceive reality = recognize real patterns. Rationality is about verify, balance, manipulate reality and the simple reality-analysis already can be understood as ”perceive pros and contra, all reachable/approachable sides of the same subject”.
Logic is to perceive and or also to create systems which works. rationality is to balance the logic itself expecting a consequently related outcome. Just like if i have two objects. If i perceive the reality of this two objects so i can conclude that they exist. It’s logical. Rationality is often relational and judgmental, relating and judging interactions among subjects and or objects. But logic also have this fundamentally obvious perceptual approach. Maybe the different is the level of .. empathy or via moral/ very interactional emphasis. Logic is more similar to pragmatism than with rationality, IN MY VIEW. Maybe i must create new words or word combinations than reinterprete existent and vague/free-interpretable concepts.
“Because people with higher IQ’s tend to be smarter. his contention is speculative, but completely reasonable.”
It’s a baseless assertion. He says he no longer believes in the big bang because of the documentary with high IQ people. What kind of appeal would that be?
“Logic and rationality are more or less the same, Logic tends to have more empirical grounds to it, but it is still imaginary in the sense that it is an abstraction dependent on justified premises(posteriori,priori).”
Logic isn’t imaginary rationality isn’t imaginary.
What’s the argument that logic is imaginary? What’s your logic? Whoops…
“It’s a baseless assertion.”
It’s speculative, not baseless.
“What’s the argument that logic is imaginary? ”
“it is still imaginary in the sense that it is an abstraction dependent on justified premises(posteriori,priori).””
As swank said, Math is a language. it’s an abstraction.
I posted the documentary below.
that’s not an argument
“that’s not an argument”
Syllogisms(posteriori,priori) are symbolic abstractions akin to language and math. Math and language are abstract,symbolic,Imaginary. Logic is imaginary.
It’s an argument, and a fact, it’s just not in syllogism form. Can you not understand simple concepts unless they are in syllogism form? Are you seriously that triggered by the word “imaginary”? Grow some thicker skin.
Hahaha
^Nervous laughter induced by the embarrassment from the realization of his own stupidity.
Sad.
^ Nope, that’s the only response to that ridiculous statement (not argument, you’ve yet to provide one).
P1) Imaginary is defined as an abstraction independent of physical constructs
P2) All forms of symbolism are imaginary
P3) Logic is a form of symbolism
C1) Logic is imaginary.
P1) All men are mortal.
P2) Socrates is a man.
C) Socrates is not mortal.
Is that imaginary (defined as only existing in the mind)?
“Is that imaginary (defined as only existing in the mind)?”
Well all symbolism is, but it has physically verifiable premises and conclusions. Posteriori arguments are “less imaginary” than Priori ones.
Your problem is with a priori arguments?
It’s fine to say that they’re abstract, but it’s not fine to disregard a priori arguments because it’s not “empirical”. Logical arguments are evidence.
I don’t have a problem with priori arguments. I’m just stating a fact of definition. I don’t disregard them either anamolous monism is possibly true in some universe but doesn’t reflect our reality. Newtonian physics was mathematically sound, but was contradicted by Mercury’s orbit. How can a priori be evidence when it is literally an argument formed without evidence? Priori arguments are almost always concerned with categorical semanticism.
Is logic empirical?
logic can have empirical ‘groundings’ but by nature logic is rational.
Read Hillary Putnam.
LOL Putnam doesn’t disagree with anything I said.
Why?
Because the fact that Math can reflect physical properties does not contradict anything I said.
Putnam argued that tlogic is a natural science and the rules of logic could be false for empirical reasons. Logic is empirical.
“Putnam argued that tlogic is a natural science and the rules of logic could be false for empirical reasons. ”
No. Logic is not empirical. No mathematical theory is empirical. Empiricism arises in the isomorphism proposed to connect the mathematical theory with reality.
Such an isomorphism exists in all scientific theories when you connect the (mathematical) objects in the theory with whatever they represent in reality. That applies for even the basic notion of counting when two apples plus two apples equals four apples. Happily enough 2+2=4 as Natural numbers. But something different happens with two apples and two pints – the difference is in the modelling, not in the theory of arithmetic.
So it is with logic. It may be the case that there is a different or better logic than classical logic for modelling quantum effects. So what? That says nothing, precisely nothing, nada, zilch about any of the underlying logics, all of which are completely independent of reality.
Anyway, even if it was empirical that would contradict all those times you handwaved my empirical evidence.
Was that your favorite answer on Quora?
Logic is not “independent of reality”, if an argument is illogical, it is not valid. If it is illogical, then it does not make sense in reality.
P1) All bachelors are male.
P2) My sister is a bachelor.
C) Therefore not all bachelors are male.
“Anyway, even if it was empirical that would contradict all those times you handwaved my empirical evidence.”
That X is not an empirical question (but is conceptual)?
Either way, if logic is empirical or not, the relation between the mental and the physical is not amenable to scientific investigation.
“Was that your favorite answer on Quora?”
That one, but they all agreed with me.
“P1) All bachelors are male.
P2) My sister is a bachelor.
C) Therefore not all bachelors are male.”
That just further proves my point. the premise is based on the definition of the term “bachelor”. It’s categorical semanticism. and further buttresses what the Quora user was saying: Logic is just rules and these rules are not always reflective of reality.
Are all bachelors male or not?
Logic is empirical. Linking papers does not refute the argument buddy. Text blocks, words and links aren’t arguments. Arguments have premises and conclusions. You make claims with citations, not arguments with citations. There is a world of difference.
“Are all bachelors male or not?”
LOL duh, that’s not the point.
“Logic is empirical. Linking papers does not refute the argument buddy.”
You have no idea what you’re talking about. The syllogism you just posted is a priori argument. It’s validity is not based on any observation it’s based on definition. A bachelor is by definition only male. Logic can provide a framework for emprical observations but its is inherently rational and symbolic.
There is no physical mechanism that constitutes the separation between bachelor and ‘taken for’. Instead you would say ‘an organism without a mate’ but that would make the logic wrong because female organisms do not always have mates either. If you include the word ‘male’, the argument then becomes circular.
“Logic can provide a framework for emprical observations but its is inherently rational and symbolic.”
And? That doesn’t make a priori arguments any different from posteriori. Logical arguments are evidence. Do you deny that logical arguments are evidence? Why or why not?
“And? That doesn’t make a priori arguments any different from posteriori.”
LMAO, Priori arguments are by definition different than posteriori ones.
“Logical arguments are evidence. Do you deny that logical arguments are evidence? Why or why not?”
Logical arguments can be based on empirical observations which then can become evidence but they cannot be evidence by themselves. Logic is just language RR. Why are you asking me when I’ve already explained this? Seriously, take your time reading what I write.
kitty thinking
”i believe in x because ”smorthy” people believe too”
If time is stretching the redshift and space is not stretching. Then object like galaxies are not movie away from each other and the universe is static.
therefore no big bang
I don’t understand what you mean.
I posted the documentary bellow
static = / = eternal
thank you
your welcome
kitty is the most IQist-believe here. He is capable to donate his penis to score higher in IQ tests.
no, I need that for sex
”Recently I canceled all my subscriptions to atheists and Christian youtube channels.
I feel much better now. (I like science)”
dumber 2.0
religion debates are dumb
its just drama
waste of time
old news
move on with your life Santo
watch Anime from Japan instead
”watch Anime from Japan instead”
Saint Seiya or Naruto*
”religion debates are dumb”
Absolutely agree, but not about religion itself.
All the Anime. 🙂
The Dark Side of Time
“You think you got it all figured out,” she said to him. “Well one of these days, someone smarter than you are is gona come along and give you a taste of your own medicine, and skin you right down to the bone! Then you’ll be poor like the rest of us. Only, you’ll be all alone. At least we have each other!”
filed in: things losers say
you’ve gotta stop quoting shitty movies swank. italians are next to jews in directing.
That’s a very poignant quote. I gotta find that episode of YatR and check it out.
is pumpkin a shitty movie, now?
I can’t think of something more kitsch and gay than YatR. It’s what my semi-literate nanny watched in the afternoon.
What a rich spoiled arrogant brat you are. Show some respect for the nanny who helped raise you.
She has all my respect. But she has shit taste, it’s a fact.
“I can’t think of something more kitsch and gay than YatR. It’s what my semi-literate nanny watched in the afternoon.”
My grandmother watched these shows.
top canuckistani unis https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings-articles/world-university-rankings/top-universities-canada-2018
acceptance rates compared to top US unis according to wikipedia.
toronto can’t find it
mcgill 46.3%
ubc 52.4%
harvard 5.4%
stanford 4.8%
mit 7.9%
cal-tech 8%
QED
plus according to its own website the u of t has 10,000 students from the prc.
now that’s just sad.
WOW. Thats funny!
University of Texas? That’s crazy. I thought Asians mostly concentrated on the west coast, in major metro areas, and at engineering schools…
Toronto not texas
Oh duh
college in canada is like hs in the US.
sad!
Pumpkin remembers that scene because he found the old woman intimidating and it reminds him of when he was a rich landlord before now living in a cardboard box in an alley with some stray cats for company and how arrogant he was.
Pumpkin its important to be humble. Look at anime and how humble he is about his brain. Anime has described all of his weaknesses 100 times. How many times have you admitted a weakness or when you were wrong or when you berayed anyone?
Humility is very important.
Why is it important? i wouldnt say kitty is a reliable goal to strive for 🙂 .
It’s a unconscious self-imolation and not humility [all imolation is self-inflicted**, whatever]
acceptance rates to unis outside the US and canada are meaningless, because in countries with non-shitty education systems the admissions criteria are very clear…hence no one applies who won’t get in.
so oxbridge and the grande ecoles and tsinghua and u tokyo and moscow state and all that…if they have “acceptance rates” they’re meaningless.
Swank’s use of memes is autistic
yes, using internet memes on the internet in blog comments is socially daft. blog comments are the place to be extremely formal….
so…
That white house dinner was really bad. The comedian went way too far. I think conservatives are winning the culture war now, even though the shark people are in control of all the media, including social media.
the culture war was always a distraction.
the dems used it and identity to hide their total corruption by wall street.
the GOP used it to get poor whites to vote against their own economic interests.
the “culture war” is waged by the 1% on the 99%.
everyone is transphobic.
That’s what chomsky wants you to think the motive for the culture war is, but chomsky doesn’t always tell the whole story
Some argue the real motive is white genocide
but maybe canada’s education system explains why it has basically no class system and the best social mobility in the world.
or maybe a lot of its social mobility is poor immigrant chinks and boxwallas.
boxwallas haha
Racist
Omg I think you are East Indian.
canada DOES use tests for its graduate admissions.
could be there is a thing in canada where the best go to school in blighty or the US. idk.
definitely nothing like the US and UK:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Canada_by_academic_degrees
Terence McKenna – Encountering the Holy Other (Video Lecture)
https://youtu.be/e3W1rCQD1Wk
this is confirmation of two of pill’s claims.
1. bill gates is retarded.
2. jews lie and pay stupid gentiles to lie for them.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/college-tuition-why-bill-and-melinda-gates-put-20000-students-through-college/
note: “low income minority students”
pill is so much more right than i knew.
but gates’s voice gave it away.
he sounds 10x more autistic than jordan peterson.
it’s not just a super thick seattle accent.
and gates has a tiny head.
and he’s left handed.
QED.
left-handed people are more likely to have extreme IQ (high or low)
Why?
probably cause their brains are abnormal, and thus less likely to be average
Whatever.
Citation?
Just speculating
PP do you think asperger syndrome or HFA boosts IQ?
No it lowers IQ, but it might be more common in high IQ families
I am a converted right hander.
I have a strong dominance with my right hand except for writing . I don’t consider myself as ambidextrous.
The reason of this thing is unknown – even if I know I am not alone . There was no left handed person around to influence me. When I was young, I am told I wouldn’t know with wich hand to write, a school psy told my parents they had to let me choose, and I started writing with the left while doing everything else with the right hand
Oprah is lefty too
Bruno, im also converted right hander. But i dont use my hands often. I think masturbation was a mediating factor.
ThinkingMouss, I didnt know how to masturbate before mid twenties …. I used to rub myself out in the bed just by moving the pelvis. I believe it can be a paraphilia. But when I « discovered » I could use my hands, I progressively switched to the usual technique and abandoned entirely the former one
i’m lefty but mein icube is circular.
Jordan is a snake
so if you’re poor and white bill gates doesn’t care.
this is brainwashing 101.
bill gates is blaster.
robert rubin is master.
so if gates is a moron for not helping his people, oprah’s a genius for helping hers:
You and pill can’t have it both ways.
you can’t care about poor and white people because that would call attention to the failings inherent to the system itself…
…when you focus on other groups, you can say ‘see the system works, and we just need to have that system for these other people…’
What are the failings? 🙂
it’s interesting how, according to psychiatry, the sociopath and the aspy are so similar.
the sociopath can only fake social intelligence.
his ability to imagine himself in another’s situation is nill.
there are no other minds in his world. only robots.
9,000 penises.
QED.
sociopaths don’t fake social intelligence, they fake compassion
they understand your pain, they just don’t care
cognitive empathy vs emotional empathy
not possible.
I don’t even believe sociopaths can even understand pain. They know that other people experience emotions, which causes them physical discomfort. They know there are socially acceptable ways of responding to other people’s emotional pain (usually). But I wouldn’t say they can understand it.
That comma should be left out of that second sentence, because it changes who “causes them physical discomfort” refers to.
This is why English is a dumb language; commas change who a clause refers to and the pronouns aren’t gendered like in German, which would help a lot in referencing😠
I dont think thats what cognitive empathy is. It is being able to ‘imagine’ others pain even if they cant feel it and empathise. Emotional empathy is they can ‘feel’ others pain and therefor imagine and empathise.
Psychopaths lack a self-model and a model of others so use predatory tactics to understand others.
Sociopaths lack a model of the self but have a hyper model of other and use that model to get what they want but usually follow the CEO way of doing things, heartless rules.
normals have a model or self and others at normal size.
autist have a super enhanced model of the self which corrupts the model they have of others thinking everyone is like them leading to miscommunication.
Schizos have a corrupted self-model and delusional models of others. But these models still exist and are not always wrong.
Empaths have expanded self-models and expanded models of others.
Interesting thoughts Cat!
I’m still not sure if there’s an agreed upon differentiation between psychopaths and sociopaths.
It seems some “high-psychopathy” types have a finely-tuned perception of what other people think and feel. John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton were like this. Other high-psychopathy people are better classed as “pure-predator” types: they seem to have little insight into other’s or their own motivations but they’re still good at taking advantage of others due to their lack of empathy and high levels of cynicism.
I’m not sure if this is anyhow related to sociopaths vs. psychopaths.
GondwanaMan, we had this conversation with LoB who believes in strict difference between the two .
It s not clear for me because the psychopath is also defined in terms of social behaviour partterns. If people mixed the two categories, it’s becausd they widely overlap. For the other, they put what they feel socio or psycho in each, with mutual inconsistency generally … (except the one who thinks it s a matter of degree, but that’s destroying the categories )
Still there*
psychopathy is predatory
sociopathy is parasitism
Most politicians, famous people et all are sociopaths or conscious parasites.
Parasites want to use other beings/people to maximize their comfort.
Predators just have fun hunting and killing other people.
And there are also some parasites who are more like predators or between both beasts.
parasitism is a slower predatory as well a lower level of innate or biologically determined/stereotyped cruelty.
Psychiatry is BS.
You’re BS.
Nah psychiatry is trash. It’s a Big Pharma front. It’s on the same level, maybe worse, as psychology.
I agree with your statement and my statement.
How am I BS?
i mean imagining others pain and empathise even if they cant feel it is cognitive empathy.
Why do you think I make fun of him all the time. Its really bad in his particular case.
Honestly, I think you could convince Bill to throw his family off a cliff with the right images presented in the right order.
You’re name is Bill philo ?
You don’t get it. Gates suffers from white guilt. As a non-white sociopath, you can’t understand what it’s like to feel white or guilt
The other point you & Mug of Pee miss is that Gates is buying social status using Warren Buffet’s money. Seems pretty clever to me.
Gates is not tribal like you so he doesn’t care if he’s helping whites & if he did help whites, he’d be reviled. By giving tens of billions of buffet’s money to Africans, gates is treated like royalty all over the world & will be credited by history with ending certain diseases
I agree. I think Gates is an HBD believer. He is driven by pure social ambition. He is very social.
When he started at Harvard, he wanted to share a room with a black and a foreigner to broaden his experience while aiming at being the top math student in the college. After he failed to be the top student on math55, despite his having a big knowledge advantage over many, he forage all classes and moved in the room with the top student, another Jewish, Andy Braiterman, but from a lesser background (became tax partner at Hughes Hubbard NY firm). Then he left.
I believe Gates is a 145-155 guy that has a unique testosterone driven ambition. That’s why he is unique. He is not the autistic harmless to-do-good liberal philo describes
I believe Gates is a 145-155 guy that has a unique testosterone driven ambition
You’re obsessed with downgrading his IQ way below what his SATs showed.
I doubt gates is high in testosterone but i agree he’s ambitious
Gates is not tribal like you so he doesn’t care if he’s helping whites & if he did help whites, he’d be reviled. By giving tens of billions of buffet’s money to Africans, gates is treated like royalty all over the world & will be credited by history with ending certain diseases
The real points that everyone here miss are:
1- The amount of money that Bill Gates has given to his foundation is small. 28 billion dollars so far, it’s equal to the income that a El Salvador and Uganda made in the year 2017. And even when he donates his whole fortune upon his death (89 billion dollars), it will only be worth Sri Lanka’s 2017 GDP. Countries are much richer than any individual on earth, even the poor ones.
2- I follow humanitarian action around the world closely and we know that no charity will change the world on its own. Humanitarian action is only effective in the long term when it works in collaboration with governments and is able to influence policy.
3- Bill’s foundation doesn’t just work in Africa nor everywhere in Africa. And it’s not even the most active on the continent. Médecins du Monde is by far the most active there, along with the Red Cross and other French, Swiss and Italian charities as well as the Catholic Church and some Protestant denominations.
4- Charity is extremely important to the wealthy. When you travel and you see how much distress there is around the world and you see how much money you have and that you can never spend reasonably in a hundred lives, it’s strikes you as perfectly natural to give a significant amount of it to people who need it, especially when you’re Christian. I think nobody here can understand because you aren’t upper class.
5- It feels good to be a good person.
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Get-Involved
Everything I’ve read about Bill Gates describes him as cut-throat . Almost Steve Jobs level. His obsession with Africa isn’t necessarily purely philanthropic; it’s so obvious he’s doing it moreso to build brownie points with other elites and to put his stamp on history. More chest-thumping than anything.
I highly doubt his test levels are thru the roof either, though. Trump’ s were only 410 ng/ml (though he’s old and fat, which reduces them).
I have a hard time believing Gates IQ is 170 also. I’ve known 150 IQ people and he seems no smarter than them. But then again how would a 120 IQ guy be able to tell?!
I was interested, because of reading your comments, about his experience at Harvard because there were some inconsistencies. Then the two years story makes sense to most comments about that time. The IQ is just a detail, but a necessary one, of that story. You are right it is compulsive.
But it’s not about downgrading his IQ. And it’s also unrelated to your correlation between financial success and IQ examples versus The outsiders elucubration.
I have a hard time believing Gates IQ is 170 also. I’ve known 150 IQ people and he seems no smarter than them. But then again how would a 120 IQ guy be able to tell?!
You’re so cringey.
afro is upper class?
that’s a hoot.
why not give away ALL your money afro and just live off your affirmative action job.
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
“I highly doubt his test levels are thru the roof either, though. Trump’ s were only 410 ng/ml (though he’s old and fat, which reduces them).”
Trump has a garbage diet. He [redacted by pp, april 30, 2018] (contra morons like JayMan who *think* that dieting doesn’t matter). Seriously, check out his Twitter rants on dieting he’s been doing the past 2 days. JayMan is a joke.
A few things to note here. Trump’s total cholesterol puts him into the borderline range. His triglycerides are at a good level, below average. HDL cholesterol being 67 mg/dL is in the good range while his LDL cholesterol level puts him at borderline risk. Trump’s cholesterol to HDL level, however, is good implying that he’s not at an increased risk of heart attack.
Regarding his white blood cell count, he’s slightly below the values for a man of his age, and white blood cell count is a good predictor of mortality in the elderly (Nilsson, Hedberg, and Ohrvik, 2014) and since he’s on the lower end there, he doesn’t have to worry about that.
For hemoglobin (HGB) he’s in the normal range. His HCT levels (hematocrit tests measure the percentage of red blood cells in the blood) and since he’s at 48.7% this puts him in the normal range of 38.8 to 50 percent. His platelet count (PLT) is in the normal range (241 K/uL), with the normal range being between 140 to 400 K/uL. His fasting blood glucose is normal (he had a value of 89 mg/dL with the average being 70 to 100 mg/dL implying that Trump is at no risk of developing type II diabetes.
His BUN level (blood urea nitrogen) was 19.0 mg/dL with the normal range being 7 to 20 mg/dL so he’s at the high end there. His blood creatinine level being .98 mg/dL is in the normal range of .84 to 1.21 mg/dL. His ALT levels were 27 U/L with the normal range being 7 to 56 units per literally. His AST levels were 19 U/L with the normal range being 10 to 40 U/L. His hemoglobin A1C level is normal at 5.0%. A level between 5.7 and 6.4 indicates pre-diabetes indicating that he is not at risk for diabetes.
Regarding vitamin D levels, Trump is right at the edge of good levels, at 20 ng/ml however others state that for the elderly their levels should be around 32 to lessen the chance of fracture. His PSA level (prostate specific antigen) is extremely low at .12 ng/dl with medical professionals advising that PSA levels over 10 ng/dl are at risk for prostate cancer. Finally his TSH (thyroid stimulating hormone level) was 1.76 uIU/ml with the normal range being .4 to 5.0 uIU/ml.
The only thing wrong looking at this report are his LDL cholesterol levels. Regarding the summary of the report, it states that he should lower his intake of fat and carbohydrates. Ravnskov et al (2016) state that “High LDL-C is inversely associated with mortality in most people over 60 years.” So it seems he’s fine there.
CRINGE BITCH CRINGE!!! I DON’T CARE WHAT YOU SAY AFRO
Gondawa does put people on a pedestal but Afro is extremely passive aggressive. What I wish to say will inevitably be redacted by PP so I am forced to just look at Afro disapprovingly.
Rick and Morty S03E05 Cosmic Apotheosis Scene
Separated At Birth But Living The Same Life?
Calculating Rick Sanchez IQ
The smartest man in the universe.
IQ (Rarity#) zeros
100 ()0
115 ()1
130 ()2
145 ()3
160 ()5
175 ()7
190 ()10
205 ()13
220 ()17
235 ()21
1 plannet per galaxy
10^10 people per plannet
10^10 galaxies per universe
20 zeros = 9 standard deviations = IQ 235
Rick Sanchez IQ 235, is on is one in 10^20 people in the universe.
doing more = (IQ – 100)*1.8
243 = (235-100)*1.8
Rick Sanchez can hold and manipulate 243 items in his head simultaneously.
Why are you obsessed by holding and manipulating a large number of items mentally ? Massive calculus abilities – like the one big computers have – has almost nothing to do with fluid intelligence. And even for crystallized intelligence, like chess to 900 who have learned more than 100k configurations, the intelligent use of this knowledge is that ony 3 or 4 idoneous positions pop up in their mind, for consideration. They don’t have to review thousands of possibilities like a computer. And even for’computer, the intelligent aspect is having rules to reduce drastically the number of hypothesis they have to hold.
So if I understand that if it’s true that a schizophrenic or an under average IQ person who is not able to get 5 items in his working memory has a serious handicap for reaching quickly and accurately correct conclusions, besides those, holding and manipulating large number of items can’t be a definition of’intelligence …. So you shouldn’t worry. If you remember 4 or 5 items, and you are able to order them following a given criteria, it’s all what anyone need. For 100 IQ or 160. It’s not important once your above that threshold .
And I want to replace the verb “obsessed” I wrongly employed, because it can be emotionnaly charged I presume, to “giving to much emphasis to” wich is much better.
If you weren’t so pompous and self regarding you’d see that anime is sharing a valuable insight to how intelligence works and what we all must do to be intelligent. I can think of many things at the same time. Im trying to hold more in my big juicy brain to be more intelligent than the person brainwashing bill gates.
You are a funny devil philo
KittyCat:
I have an idea– practice your abstract reasoning abilities about 6 hours daily. Do [redacted by pp, April 30, 2018] tests, and a bunch of math problems
Take some Adderall.
Don’t masturbate.
Get off the Internet for a week and come back and tell me what happened.
Gondwana is trying to punish kitty by pretending to help him. You know what will happen to anime if he doesn’t masturbate gondwana.
Wait what did I type?? What’s wrong with [redacted by pp, april 30, 2018]???
I wonder if they could sell them in books like those logic grid puzzles or sudoku, and make them extra hard.
best not to call to much attention to subtests lest you invalidate them
Phil, what would happen if Kitty didnt masturbate?
“best not to call to much attention to subtests lest you invalidate them”
You’re implying they’re valid in the first place.
“Phil, what would happen if Kitty didnt masturbate?”
Im not a scientist, but theres a chance he might spontaneously combust at some point.
Probably nothing will happen but I find thinking about masturbation distracts me from other things.
I can only consciously keep track of 5 things at once.
In my subconscious, I can keep track of a lot more.
I can see a puzzle and solve it if it has less than 27 parts.
That is in my subconsciose.
The conscious and subconscious work together.
But my working memory is so low I have problems.
Like I said, my mind is empty and I stare blankly at my notebook.
Nothing comes out of my mind, and I hold nothing, it is empty.
I like how philosopher says he thinks many thoughts at once.
It would be fun to do puzzles in my head consciously no external references.
In order to understand how people can think about multiple things at the same time, you need to understand control theory. Control theory is what allowed your brain to learn to tie its shoes at 4-5 years old. It allows you to balance and prioritize thoughts and store them in memory. White matter determines how many things your brain can prioritize at any given moment into your memory.
ergo, prioritization is intelligence
I feel sad with my life.
Rick & Morty – Pass the Butter
speaking of shitty movies…people who complain about shitty blockbuster movies miss the point of those movies — and most every large scale, MOR pop-culture event.
they don’t exist as high art.
they exist as ice breakers.
they’re an easy way to interact with strangers.
All the Star Wars movies are stupid, pulp entertainment.
But they allow people an excuse to socialize.
how many useful friendships, acquaintances, dates, etc. have started over a conversation about some stupid mass media entertainment? a ton!
this is how the nation of ideas works.
for people who get it, it works fine…
Star Wars is boring. I’d prefer movies like the Goodfellas or reading even Jane Austen or Pynchon over Star Wars.
Swank, what do you think? you seem to like Chomsky, and think that people have more mental illness becuase of modern society, and that blacks suck at the dating scene, and that people want to “belong”, and i dont comprehend the females liking winners while having plastic sexuality thing. What is all of this? no comprendo.
Swank, wouldnt you say that online dating has selection effects as many get dating through other means?
blacks don’t “suck” at dating. they just are in a culture where they are branded as losers. any trait that has a loser brand = not going to do well.
plastic sexuality as in appearance only matters to the extent of the trait in question’s current cultural brand.
what matters most is just winning. if you are winning in life, then you will be seen as beautiful/sexy by women.
physically attractive traits are only so because cultural association. for example, muscles = associated with strength/winning. height = associated with strength/winning. certain facial features = same thing, etc. etc.
good advice for making it in this society?
“Act as if! Act as if you’re a wealthy man, rich already, and then you’ll surely become rich. Act as if you have unmatched confidence and then people will surely have confidence in you. Act as if you have unmatched experience and then people will follow your advice. And act as if you are already a tremendous success, and as sure as I stand here today – you will become successful.”
let’s put it to the test — who was that guy’s wife?
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSvELDvyJYg6ddMf1JkKFRT4C-uxPLM0zrAymOLPIF0KweMjhza
of course this is nothing new to the romans
Vincit qui se vincit
Swank, can you think critically and be self critical or do you have to sacrifice those passive and considerate behivours to narcissism and hard work? Could we create a world where many are seen as succesfull, or do we have to have many lose. You said that america had simple standards, is this a way to give appreciation to many people? how many (percentage of the male population) are sexy in your opinion.
then guys who look like alan dershowitz are sexy?
blacks don’t “suck” at dating. they just are in a culture where they are branded as losers. any trait that has a loser brand = not going to do well.
Nope. Black guys don’t come off as losers, even when they actually are losers. You know it’s more shocking to see a black guy like GondwanaMan than a white guy like AnimeKitty or Philosopher. In fact, it’s very hard to believe there are black versions of philosopher and Anime Kitty.
Black guys get laid a lot, and probably get with white chicks more than other non-whites do. It’s very obvious in France, and I don’t think it’s much different in the US. Just look who Ariana Grande, Selena Gomez, the Kardashian etc. fuck. Go to a club and see how many white chicks are here in booty enhancing skirts with their Kylie Jenner make up and captioning their selfies with Drake lyrics.
Urban culture has taken over our generation and its stars are disproportionately black men. So any black guy that’s minimally decent in looks and behavior can get as many similarly decent non-black chicks as he likes. Now if by “white chick” you mean flat ass chicks who are into white stuff like country music and surf, the turn off is mutual.
what matters most is just winning. if you are winning in life, then you will be seen as beautiful/sexy by women.
This is not as true as you think. Many women also like shy unassuming men who keep a low profile and wouldn’t get with a top dog that they couldn’t control. Because women are full of insecurities and many just want a man that will stick around and won’t attract too much attention from other women. It’s just complex, we can’t just throw generalizations on men and women as if there is a one size fits all approach to dating.
thinking critically involves figuring out what works for you.
the behavior that works to achieve one’s goals varies from individual to individual and from situation to situation.
the liberal arts are just an education in modern day social religion. they are bullshit in the sense that they are arbitrary, but if you attempt to act as though these ideas don’t control the populous, then you are going to have a bad time.
so you have to stay a step ahead of the moment and critically assess what model best maps to your reality.
there are times when it is best to behave as though you are racist and times to behave as though you are the opposite.
make concepts work for you, don’t let concepts rule you.
To every thing there is a season,
and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to get, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
A time to rend, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate;
A time of war, and a time of peace.
america does have simple standards.
the first standard is win.
and the success of america, to the extent that it can be seen as successful is seen in the many examples of excellence that are celebrated. john popper was a great harmonica player. what a useless skill. but celebrated, he was. pro wrestlers are great at….whatever it is they are great at. etc. etc. etc.
self-actualization is increasingly becoming possible and profitable. it seems as though Marx was right about everything.
what percentage of the male populous is ‘sexy?’
define ‘sexy.’
Nope. Black guys don’t come off as losers, even when they actually are losers.
the black brand is considered lower status than the white brand. that’s just a cultural fact. therefore, the brand = loser brand vs. white brand.
IIRC a black man has to earn about 155k more than a white man to compete for the same white woman in online dating. a 5’7 white man has to earn around 140k more to compete for the same white woman on equal terms as the 6’0 white man.
Black guys get laid a lot, and probably get with white chicks more than other non-whites do.
no. latino men are the kings of ‘interracial’ dating.
now that i’ve thought about it, though…i would say that black men do better than asian men. but that’s because asian men tend to also be short.
and while it’s true a lot of white women embrace urban culture, this doesn’t mean that a lot of white women are sleeping with black men. it just doesn’t happen that much.
and the white women who do tend to sleep with black men tend to be of a lower quality than the type of white woman the black guy would get if he were a white guy. significantly so, in most cases.
This is not as true as you think. Many women also like shy unassuming men who keep a low profile and wouldn’t get with a top dog that they couldn’t control.
no, this is just the difference between long-term arrangements and raw attraction.
women are most attracted to winners.
that doesn’t mean they will end up with them, and indeed, many may avoid even short-term arrangements with them because, as i have already said:
the female ego is yuge.
but if you are aware of this, how are you not able to see through statements women make…
for example, ‘i don’t like white guys’ does not literally mean what it says.
people assort because what is desired is not the same as what can be sustained.
It’s just complex, we can’t just throw generalizations on men and women as if there is a one size fits all approach to dating.
but there is:
if you win, you get in.
this idea of women and attraction being ‘complex’ is just a facade that serves women.
“In fact, it’s very hard to believe there are black versions of philosopher and Anime Kitty.”
Funny how homosapiens can say anything he wants about me, but anything I say is moderated.
Very fair pumpkin.
I’ve moderated most of his insults against you too
the black brand is considered lower status than the white brand. that’s just a cultural fact. therefore, the brand = loser brand vs. white brand.
False, if it were the case, black women would be avoiding black men even more than Asian women avoid Asian men. It doesn’t happen. Even worse, we see black women sticking around losers who treat them like shit and these wouldn’t even think about getting with non-black men who would treat them better.
People don’t think in terms of social labels, black men, more often than not have winner personalities and physiques, and this fully compensates for racism.
IIRC a black man has to earn about 155k more than a white man to compete for the same white woman in online dating. a 5’7 white man has to earn around 140k more to compete for the same white woman on equal terms as the 6’0 white man.
Don’t trust statistics, let alone online dating statistics, people who make six figures incomes don’t date online to begin with. Trust your experience and your black friends’ experience (if you have some, otherwise you just have me). Trust what you see on the streets and in the clubs, look at NFL/soccer wives vs. Ivy League graduates wives and you’ll know these stats are nonsense.
no. latino men are the kings of ‘interracial’ dating.
Latinos aren’t a race, those who are well integrated are just slightly exotic-looking whites. Within latinos, blacks/mulattos probably date more interracially than very native-looking metizos.
now that i’ve thought about it, though…i would say that black men do better than asian men. but that’s because asian men tend to also be short.
It’s not just their height. Women have a thing for bad guys. Many Asians just look too weak, too nice, too boring and what’s even worse is that they have internalized these stereotypes in the same way as blacks have internalized hyper-masculinity. These are two extreme types of polarizing personalities, so most women will be attracted to something in between e.g. White, Latino.
and while it’s true a lot of white women embrace urban culture, this doesn’t mean that a lot of white women are sleeping with black men. it just doesn’t happen that much.
Much more than you think, and since there are far more white women who have no issue with dating black men than there are black men interested in dating white women (I’m talking in terms of absolute numbers, not proportions within each group), the law of supply and demand favors black men, despite residential segregation, social stigma etc.
and the white women who do tend to sleep with black men tend to be of a lower quality than the type of white woman the black guy would get if he were a white guy. significantly so, in most cases.
No, what only happens is that even in interracial dating, people still match by social status, since blacks are poorer on average, they get poorer white women than white men do. But again, look at NFL/NBA wives, they look much better than Ivy League wives.
no, this is just the difference between long-term arrangements and raw attraction.
women are most attracted to winners.
that doesn’t mean they will end up with them, and indeed, many may avoid even short-term arrangements with them because, as i have already said:
Alright. That’s true but the thing is, being a winner is how you attract women, but if you want to keep her without fighting like dogs night and day, you have to show willingness to get involved in an exclusive relationship.
the female ego is yuge.
Haha, I think I know that.
for example, ‘i don’t like white guys’ does not literally mean what it says.
In the case of my girlfriend and many of my exes, it literally meant what it means. And she knows I know what it means. I can only get stressed out if she’s talking to a black guy with the same characteristics as me, I also keep an eye on Arabs/Mediterraneans. But if we’re at a bar, I get away for a few minutes and she’s talking to a white guy with green eyes and long hair, she tells me he’s a friend/colleague/ex-classmate, I don’t really care. If it’s a 6’3″, jacked black man, she can’t get away with vague responses and I won’t let go until she makes me understand that they don’t see each other frequently and that he has nothing on me.
but there is:
if you win, you get in.
Not really, especially if you’re not subtle about your success and you’re so full of yourself that you take it too seriously. Women are not so different from men, they want to have a good time, laugh, and not simply be listening to someone’s who’s just bragging about how much money he makes, where he goes on vacation, how many cars he has. You know, most communication in dating is non-verbal, so being a winner is in your body language, your eye contact, the way you touch etc.
people assort because what is desired is not the same as what can be sustained.
People assort because taste is independent of social norms. Few people stick to someone just because they couldn’t get “better” by mainstream standards.
Blacks look like the orcs from lord of the rings. Its in the movie.
just the typing about sex is too much for upper class people.
typing is prole.
prep sex is a contradiction in terms.
and afro did actually have an article on “how to impress girls”.
wtf?
does he have no clue as to how ridiculous he is?
medallion, range rover, yuge polo pony…
france has no upper class people OR afro is NOT upper class.
Either/Or
just donate to a sperm bank.
winning.
i have many children.
mostly by black ladies.
i also have one china baby.
A realistic heritability study would be for the same group of men to donate sperm to women in many different countries. Do the babies of the high IQ men have higher IQ than the babies of low IQ men in every society, including hunter/gatherers?
False, if it were the case, black women would be avoiding black men even more than Asian women avoid Asian men
asian women don’t avoid asian men…
within race is always the most preferred.
and black women would avoid (like any other race would would avoid) their race in favor of white if there was any chance of something long-term…
white men take a slight penalty inter-racially on average
every other race takes a yuge penalty vis white women.
because…
…cultural facts are what they are.
People don’t think in terms of social labels, black men, more often than not have winner personalities and physiques, and this fully compensates for racism.
people think ONLY in social labels, especially in highly stratified class-based societies….
and with regard to athletic bodies or whatever — lol no they don’t!
black men are more likely than white men to be overweight or obese — in the US at least.
and in the US, black men are more likely to have NPD, which makes it seem like they have higher self-esteem, but NPD is a self-defense mechanism to cover for low self-esteem…which would make sense….
they are in a culture that shits on them constantly and so would develop that sort of defense mechanism.
Don’t trust statistics, let alone online dating statistics, people who make six figures incomes don’t date online to begin with.
i speak only from experience. the data just happens to pretty much agree with what i say.
Trust what you see on the streets and in the clubs, look at NFL/soccer wives vs. Ivy League graduates wives and you’ll know these stats are nonsense.
NFL/movie stars/hip hop billionaires aren’t really relevant because the level of status they have achieved obviously cancels out their ‘flaws.’
this…
ain’t the norm.
not only that, but NFL players look after their physical fitness more than the average Ivy Leaguer, so you’d expect the assortment to work out in their favor anyway….
it’s like someone invoking Prince to say that women like short guys
what i see in clubs/bars is what i say:
the white women tend to be older or ‘heavier’ when they get with black guys. now, some black guys do get cute white women, but relative to the black guy they are without exception worse — either worse looking, lower status, both, etc.
being black is a penalty in the non-black dating world…idk why that’s so controversial to you.
since there are far more white women who have no issue with dating black men than there are black men interested in dating white women
this is true…which is why it is fairly common for a black man to date out — the absolute numbers.
Latinos aren’t a race, those who are well integrated are just slightly exotic-looking whites
yeah i put interacial in quotes because you’re technically right, but white people don’t think that. they still think anyone who is any degree of brown = different race.
in fact, the higher up you go on the class scale, the more anything beyond WASP may as well be ‘different race.’ me getting with WASP women comes with a penalty because of me being Italian, etc.
Women have a thing for bad guys
another yuge misconception. women want a winner first and someone who is agreeable/nice/doting SECOND. so if they can’t get the latter, they will always try to get the former…which is why you get the ‘bad boy’ phenomenon.
a loser who acts like a bad boy is still a loser. and no, i’m not just referring to not having a job, etc.
but if you want to keep her without fighting like dogs night and day, you have to show willingness to get involved in an exclusive relationship.
yes and no. i’d say show the willingness is almost zero in importance. instead, show to her that you’re flawed in one way or another and thus attainable is more important. although, you’re talking to someone who really isn’t in a settling down mindset and really doesn’t see the utility value in ‘keeping’ a woman.
if you can get your needs met and find some cute thing to have on your arm out on the town, then why invest more effort?
I can only get stressed out if she’s talking to a black guy with the same characteristics as me, I also keep an eye on Arabs/Mediterraneans. But if we’re at a bar, I get away for a few minutes and she’s talking to a white guy with green eyes and long hair, she tells me he’s a friend/colleague/ex-classmate, I don’t really care. If it’s a 6’3″, jacked black man, she can’t get away with vague responses and I won’t let go until she makes me understand that they don’t see each other frequently and that he has nothing on me.
lol why do you care? lmfao.
she’s just a woman….there are so many others exactly like her.
Not really, especially if
yeah, all you said there is ‘if you act like a LOSER.’
but to ME, this whole ‘i won’t let go until she makes me understand that they don’t see each other and he has nothing on me stuff’ isn’t winner behavior.
i can’t rag on you too much there. italian men are also very possessive. never understood it.
Few people stick to someone just because they couldn’t get “better” by mainstream standards.
i would say this is 100% of the reason people assort long-term. they feel that this is the ‘best’ they can do and call it a day.
i understand that there is a lot of woo-woo silliness designed to camouflage and obscure that basic fact, though.
as i’ve said so many times…
yes.
they would on average.
but the difference would be A LOT smaller than densen claimed.
asian women don’t avoid asian men…
within race is always the most preferred.
They do when when you see the huge sex difference in intermarriage among Asians. And unlike black men marrying non-black women, Asian women are not cheating on their white husbands to get laid with their co-ethnics.
and black women would avoid (like any other race would would avoid) their race in favor of white if there was any chance of something long-term…
You say this because you don’t know the stereotypes that black women have on white men. Pretty much the same as what white women think of Asian men: weak, not cool, not attractive.
white men take a slight penalty inter-racially on average
every other race takes a yuge penalty vis white women.
because…
…cultural facts are what they are.
Doubt it, especially for Asian women. Just look how many of them get with white dudes who belong on a wheelchair.
people think ONLY in social labels, especially in highly stratified class-based societies….
No, only climbers and status conscious people do. And these are vulgar attitudes. Interracial births statistics all over the West speak for themselves.
and with regard to athletic bodies or whatever — lol no they don’t!
black men are more likely than white men to be overweight or obese — in the US at least.
These are still domineering winner physiques, your boss is probably a bit overweight like Donald Trump. Winner physique. Trump looks more like a winner than Obama or Bill Gates. It’s scrawny types who look like losers.
and in the US, black men are more likely to have NPD, which makes it seem like they have higher self-esteem, but NPD is a self-defense mechanism to cover for low self-esteem…which would make sense….
they are in a culture that shits on them constantly and so would develop that sort of defense mechanism.
I’d like to see your source on that because I researched quickly and I just saw that racism was a symptom of NPD, not that NPD was a defense against racism nor that it was more common among blacks. Either way, when I meant winner personality I meant extroversion, swag, etc.
i speak only from experience. the data just happens to pretty much agree with what i say.
I speak from experience too and I disagree, probably because we live in different countries and because I’m actually black and I am/have been with non-black women with whom we talked about interracial dating quite often so your narrative isn’t accurate by my experience, neither were your thoughts and your studies on height.
NFL/movie stars/hip hop billionaires aren’t really relevant because the level of status they have achieved obviously cancels out their ‘flaws.’
They aren’t billionaires. Billionaires have even uglier wives. The point is they are the high status men who get the hottest women. And I’m specifically referring to athletes wives, it’s less true of other entertainers.
ain’t the norm.
That’s what I knew you were thinking. She isn’t attractive to most black men. Black men like curvier, darker women, so you won’t see many with blond model chicks with teenager bodies.
the white women tend to be older or ‘heavier’ when they get with black guys. now, some black guys do get cute white women, but relative to the black guy they are without exception worse — either worse looking, lower status, both, etc.
Again, you’re applying your standards to people who don’t share them. And your wrong about age. As for thickness or more, yes that’s what black men usually like and when they date non-blacks, they don’t go for girls slimmer than the black female average. You’re wrong on social class too, black men don’t go for poorer women than white men of similar SES would, especially here in France with the children of the African elite. Doubt it’s much different in the US.
being black is a penalty in the non-black dating world…idk why that’s so controversial to you.
It’s controversial because it’s not accurate. Being black has always been a bonus for me, with black women obviously and with my type of non-black women. Which probably isn’t the same as what you think as a “quality white woman”, but classy thick chicks with an attitude, not some plain Barbie dolls.
yeah i put interacial in quotes because you’re technically right, but white people don’t think that. they still think anyone who is any degree of brown = different race.
in fact, the higher up you go on the class scale, the more anything beyond WASP may as well be ‘different race.’ me getting with WASP women comes with a penalty because of me being Italian, etc.
Yet look who Prince Harry is marrying.
another yuge misconception. women want a winner first and someone who is agreeable/nice/doting SECOND. so if they can’t get the latter, they will always try to get the former…which is why you get the ‘bad boy’ phenomenon.
You can’t be a winner if you can’t be bad when needed. And yes women tend to have a thing for men who fuck with their feelings quite a bit, though not to the point of being sadistic/psychopathic but just enough to remind them who wears the pants.
yes and no. i’d say show the willingness is almost zero in importance. instead, show to her that you’re flawed in one way or another and thus attainable is more important. although, you’re talking to someone who really isn’t in a settling down mindset and really doesn’t see the utility value in ‘keeping’ a woman.
It’s about time to change your mindset if you are older than me. I mean no offence but you can’t really feel like a man if you fail to take responsibility in a relationship. And while you might think that you were the one who ended your past relationships, just take a second and ask yourself what your exes did to keep you, maybe they passively broke up too.
lol why do you care? lmfao.
she’s just a woman….there are so many others exactly like her.
No. She’s unique, our relationship is unique, she makes me feel like no other could and I love her. So she isn’t “just a woman”, she’s my lady.
yeah, all you said there is ‘if you act like a LOSER.’
but to ME, this whole ‘i won’t let go until she makes me understand that they don’t see each other and he has nothing on me stuff’ isn’t winner behavior.
A relationship can’t be healthy without a moderate amount of jealousy. I’m possessive because I love her, because I have respect for myself and because she wouldn’t trust my feelings if I didn’t care about who she talks to. But we rarely argue about things like this because we trust each other a lot in spite of things I did in the past that weren’t okay.
i can’t rag on you too much there. italian men are also very possessive. never understood it.
That’s because you never really fell in love.
i would say this is 100% of the reason people assort long-term. they feel that this is the ‘best’ they can do and call it a day.
i understand that there is a lot of woo-woo silliness designed to camouflage and obscure that basic fact, though.
No. maybe you think that way and that’s why you’re still single. But love isn’t about social conventions, people are more likely to sacrifice a lot of things for someone who isn’t the one that social norms approve than sacrifice their love for social conformity. And it’s not just Romeo and Juliet types of stories.
You know when you’re in love with someone, it feels like you’re living in your world of two and the rest becomes irrelevant. That’s when you meet real love, not just a pretty chick that fits well on the passenger seat of your Range Rover.
https://youtu.be/cyAjDBLGAZI
Unbelievable. Afro what do you have to say about this new Kanye West song and will it help me attract women? Maybe I should stick trying to play Bill Joel sings on my clarinet.
GODDAMIT AUTOCORRECT I MEANT SOMGS NOT SINGS WHY DO YOU DO THIS TO ME
Weird track, I’ll probably add it on spotify to give it a few tries. As for getting ladies, man just be yourself and find a woman who loves you the way you are, there probably is a Clarinetists Anonymous club in your city lol.
“A relationship can’t be healthy without a moderate amount of jealousy. I’m possessive because I love her”
Love isn’t possessive you creep. It is free and unconditional
Swank is right, you can’t listen to what a girl says she likes, how often do you and your chick argue?
Love isn’t possessive you creep. It is free and unconditional
No. Love is about loving and being loved. Love hurts, love makes you work, love makes you mad, love makes you change. And I’m less possessive than she is, she knows what type of guy I was when we met, she knows what I did at the beginning of our story and I find her jealousy perfectly normal, I’d be offended if she was telling me to fuck who I want as long as I bring good money home.
Swank is right, you can’t listen to what a girl says she likes
I know what my girl likes from the fact that we were stalking each other on Instagram before we met, from the the remarks she makes on men on the TV, from how many times her friends told me she’s crazy about big black dudes etc.
how often do you and your chick argue?
She mildly annoys me once every one or two month but we never spend days mad at each other. We always find a way to admit when we were wrong about something or to just let go, fuck, work out, smoke some weed, buy some clothes, go to a restaurant….
“No. Love is about loving and being loved. Love hurts, love makes you work, love makes you mad, love makes you change. And I’m less possessive than she is, she knows what type of guy I was when we met, she knows what I did at the beginning of our story and I find her jealousy perfectly normal, I’d be offended if she was telling me to fuck who I want as long as I bring good money home.”
It’s a thin line, but love is not the same as passion. Don’t confuse the two, and coveting is the most unattractive trait a man can have.
It’s a thin line, but love is not the same as passion. Don’t confuse the two, and coveting is the most unattractive trait a man can have.
LMAO! Thank you but I need no advice at all, let alone from a kid who doesn’t mind being cheated on.
“LMAO! Thank you but I need no advice at all, let alone from a kid who doesn’t mind being cheated on.”
It’s not cheating if you aren’t monogamous to begin with. Our ancestors were more than likely sexually polygamous but social monogamous in the form of pair bonding.
I’ve had what you have. You can love two different people, but the feelings that inspire this love can be completely different. I’ve had women make me feel like a god and i’ve had women that humble me and made me more in touch with my emotions. It’s not real love though. Free love is not synonymous with ‘slutting around’ love is like what you feel for your children and family. Something that transcends lust.
You may think you dont need my advice, but i beg to differ. The biggest advice I can give you is to not get married, because you will slowly sink into misery as the things you once coveted and prioritized disappears from under you. True love is when the passion is gone yet they still have your back.
Damn you’re so dumb. I’m not wasting more time on you. Enjoy your life with your pet dragon.
The reason you haven’t felt it is because it doesn’t exist. What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons. You’re born alone and you die alone and this world just drops a bunch of rules on top of you to make you forget those facts. But I never forget. I’m living like there’s no tomorrow, because there isn’t one.
having said that….
most concepts don’t really ‘exist.’
it’s all models.
i kid with afro about not getting married, but if it works for him and makes him happy to believe what he believes and the arrangement he has with his beau works, who cares?
i kid with afro about not getting married, but if it works for him and makes him happy to believe what he believes and the arrangement he has with his beau works, who cares?
Beau? Belle.
Do you have kids? Do you want to have kids. Would you prefer to live with your kids if you have some?
“Damn you’re so dumb. I’m not wasting more time on you.”
Can lead a horse to water, can’t make it drink. 🙂 Have fun getting cucked.
I’d suggest actually refuting arguments I make before you question my intelligence, because you consistently bastardize my ideas, and make yourself look stupid.
all fine art is low art.
a toyota is prettier than a renoir, jean or pierre-auguste.
because it’s what the commies called…
bourgeois degeneracy.
and speaking of soap operas….
they are STUPID…
…but they do have an effect on women….
this much is undeniable.
women are so taken in by temporary fantasy. it’s unreal.
very much a ‘here and now’ existence….which is why they don’t really want you to take them, what they do, or what they say too seriously…because it’s all up for grabs.
men are different. men are very much about some long-term fantasy. to the point of ignoring their current circumstances.
….
here’s a tip for phil and anime — who are dire need, whether they are going to admit it or not — whenever a woman you don’t know or are unfamiliar with is repeatedly in your proximity during a social outing, she likes you.
even if she says nothing or does not even appear to acknowledge your existence. her repeatedly being near you or at your side or whatever is never an accident.
maybe you’ll say ‘well what about if, and it could be, and sometimes,’ no. that’s wrong.
never an accident.
Why is Afro being in the comment section when he could write articles instead? Does he actually like you guys? perhaps all of this is easy for him, and writing articles would take too much time/effort. Just curious.
Afro, do you worry about resource depletion?
Yes. Although I’m confident that technology will be able to sustain our overconsumption and that of the upcoming developing world’s middle class for a few centuries, I think it’s crucial that we start learning to make more with less from now on.
afro is not getting married. sad!
the biggest problem the earth faces is too many black africans.
tfrs everywhere else are below replacement or soon will be.
macron agrees with me.
^^^ BINGO!!!!
As Steve Sailer says, the world’s most scariest graph….
the biggest problem the earth faces is too many black africans.
Black Africa is still underpopulated, it’d need to triple its population to match the current density of Europe. So Africa’s population is not an issue, as long as the rest of the world stabilizes its population or decreases it.
^^^bourgeois decadence^^^
Why is Afro being in the comment section when he could write articles instead?
There aren’t many topics I could launch that commenters would relate to.
Does he actually like you guys?
I don’t like or dislike anyone (except Santoculto that I literally can’t stand). I feel pity for some, weird amazement for others.
perhaps all of this is easy for him, and writing articles would take too much time/effort.
Yes, and in addition to the time spent writing the article, there’s the time I’d need to allocate to addressing the comments, including those from the most mentally disabled commenters like Illuminaticat and the “philosopher”.
pill’s illness is all in his head. he has shown no sign of mental illness.
call it malingering or psychiatric hypochondria or psychosomatic brain disease or just…
brainwashing.
sad!
He’s brain dead, even his psychiatrist can’t stand him.
“There aren’t many topics I could launch that commenters would relate to.”
Homosexuality.
nothing is wrong with malingering per se.
sometimes it’s the sanest thing.
…
i’ve posted this so many times on peepee’s.
go back and look.
WWI…so many claiming mental illness…it was an epidemic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_shock#Origin
no bullshit. no shellshock. no yuge polo ponies.
shellshock = malingering.
but in the case of WWI it’s not that simple.
a small number were driven mad…permanently.
other wars this is much less believable.
WWI at its worst is BY FAR the worst war EVER.
Phil, the reproductive patterns of Africa is working fine as the living conditions have improved. Look at southern africa, they are pretty low when they still face shit living conditions. Its no the scariest graph.
Afro, do you really think technology will provide enough for us? we cant even convince westerners of decreasing the amount of meat consumed. I feel like we will undergo a bunch of war and increased amounts of criminality as a product of scarcity/poverty.
Do you feel like ethnic diversity in Africa will be an issue with scarcity? or will africans of different ethnic groups get along well in the fututre?
What are your thoughts on different allegations of Neo-colonialism (tax evation, regime change, the petrodolar)? Is it an issue the developing world will have to face? and if so, how?
Is there any way to verify your claims regarding technology and its relationship to environmentalism?
Afro, do you really think technology will provide enough for us?
Yes, but not forever. Many technologies for deep sea oil extraction, renewable energy, multi-story farmlands have already been developed, the oceans are like a second planet from which we’ll be able to extract most resources needed for our survival. But the technologies aren’t yet cost effective, but they will be as soon as scarcity of land resources makes the investments profitable.
Do you feel like ethnic diversity in Africa will be an issue with scarcity? or will africans of different ethnic groups get along well in the fututre?
It’s more likely to be a challenge, but Africans are much smarter than Europeans when it comes to dealing with diversity. Also, as smaller group are being assimilated by larger groups, the cultural diversity of Africa should decrease in the long run.
What are your thoughts on different allegations of Neo-colonialism (tax evation, regime change, the petrodolar)? Is it an issue the developing world will have to face? and if so, how?
These have been real problems until the 90s or the early 2000s in some places. But with the booming middle classes and the improvements in education, the populations have gained awareness of these issues and are asking more accountability from their leaders.
At the same time, Western countries are declining in relative power and influence, China is about to face huge demographic and political constraints as well as economic stagnation, so the rest of the world should gain in autonomy.
Is there any way to verify your claims regarding technology and its relationship to environmentalism?
Yes, European countries have reduced their hydrocarbon emissions for instance, especially in Scandinavia. Or some scientists, I don’t remember where, have found a way to create artificial diamonds with exactly the same properties as real diamonds.
Afro, im not used to getting awnsers this quick, thanks dude.
Do you think that autonomy in developing countries will come thanks to manufacturing jobs being moved to countries outside of china? How would the rising middle class give accountability to their governments? democracy? do you think there are any flaws in democracies.
Afro, im not used to getting awnsers this quick, thanks dude.
You’re welcome.
Do you think that autonomy in developing countries will come thanks to manufacturing jobs being moved to countries outside of china?
No, they’ll gain autonomy by promoting endogenous growth, expanding their domestic markets. Exports-led growth like China did isn’t viable in the long run and that’s why China is falling short of expectations and will have to adopt a different growth model to avoid economic complications.
How would the rising middle class give accountability to their governments?
Because dictatorships and corruption flourish when the mass is uneducated and concerned with immediate survival. With education and material well-being, people start thinking about social justice, get interested in politics and lose the sheep mentality that gets the mass addicted to the worst tyrants.
democracy? do you think there are any flaws in democracies.
There are flaws in democracies, but to this day, it’s the political regime that enables the most freedom and the least use of force. So it’s the best we have to deal the diversity of opinions that’s inherent to any society.
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Fifth Adition comes after the Fourth Adition with have 5 indexes.
Do you know what those are pumpkin and what constructs of intelligence they are trying to demonstrate?
1. verbal comp
2. working memory
3. spatial
4. fluid (should be called abstract since some other indexes are fluid too)
5. processing speed
I know Pumpkin may ban me for this but I have a recommendation: try [redacted by pp, April 30, 2018]. I have some theories about how those withexecutive functioning deficits may perform on those tests but I don’t know how to set up an experiment with enough people.
Gman, those tests are for testing purposes only.
Friedrich Nietzsche: “Without music, life would be a mistake.”
chinaman runs for president.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/2020-candidate-andrew-yang-need-alternative-gdp-200800694.html
this is another example of why i say i’m not opposed to all immigration…just almost all.
a very very very small fraction of immigrants are doing things that natives aren’t doing and wouldn’t do.
and the non-white ones ALL come from ne asia, south asia, arab-ia…
but never from black africa…never mestizos.
interpret this with whatever retarded theory.
the truth is the truth.
After working in the healthcare industry for four years, Yang left MMF Systems, Inc. to join friend Zeke Vanderhoek at a small test preparation company, Manhattan Prep. In 2006, Vanderhoek asked Yang to take over as CEO. While serving as CEO of Manhattan Prep, the company primarily served GMAT test preparation becoming the largest U.S. test prep company reaching $18 million in annual revenue. The company expanded from 5 locations to 27 locations and was eventually acquired by Kaplan, Inc. in December 2009, at which point Yang served as the company’s President through the year 2011.[6][7][8]
this is a scam. so he’s a douche.
or maybe the US is so criminal only a criminal can improve it.
it’s sad!
i made 790 on the practice test and 770 on test day.
no prep.
800 on the GMAT is VERY rare. like the pre-1995 SAT 1600.
it takes smart AND luck.
I can’t find any exact data on number of GMAT perfect scores per year. I’ve seen estimates range from 0-30.
Score range on the is LSAT less disperse. But average indicates higher level of intellugence.
But you could say the same about jews. IMO, when they first let jews into the US they thought it would be good for commerce and that. They didn’t realise theyd pimp out the whole system.
i agree.
the numbers have to be kept below a certain % of the whole population.
Nobody can run the financial system as well as jews can. If anybody else was doing it there would have been many more crashes. If whites were doing it, financial institutions will be in a mad rush to outdo each other, say irish americans are running one and scottish americans another and english another and french americans or german americans another, all of these will be so severely trying to compete and outmanouver each other that the entire financial system will become unstable. Every ethnicity has it own strengths and weakness. English excel at creating administrative institutions, irish excel at whatever they excel in, scots inventing stuff like TV, radio etc, germans at high quality engineering, french excel at fun stuff, italians sport, east asians at mass-manufacturing at tremendous speed, including R&D, russians excel at code and aeronautical engineering, while jews excel at finance and also non-finance academic research.
Sure there are people in any ethnicity who excel at things other ethnicities excel at but these people are few.
I remember when Afro was showing his magic with the ladies with resident moron Deal. Very funny scenes ensued. Like a comedy sketch.
If I remember right, Deal was offended a member of the LGBTQHSSSA community was hitting on her.
You don’t remember right, get on your pills again. She got pregnant from seeing my smile and my pecs.
I think I threw out my lord of the rings directors cut boxset. I hope I haven’t. Ive never seen the whole trilogy. But Ive read the books, including hobbit and silmarillon.
In silmarillon you learn Tolkien was basically representing hitler with Sauron.
tolkien was a ROMAN.
rare at oxford in his time.
gandalf = castel gandalfo
try harder.
I saw each movie 3 times. The third movie is 4 hours long. I don’t know how I did it. I was a teenager. Fostercare.
I saw 100 episodes of star trek the next generation on VHS from the library. I like scifi
I’ve never seen any of them.
there’s The Resurrection
and
there’s WWI.
all other events follow…
or are meaningless.
Out of interest do you think jesus christ really existed?
is that a joke?
resurrection is what happens when females orgasm
afro’s afro (the character afro plays on the interwebs) is based on…
Different Strokes
he thinks he can fool the goyim.
as the tallest end most evil president of my country said….
You can fool all the goyim some of the time and some of the goyim all the time, but you cannot fool all the goyim all the time.
rome ALWAYS wins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZnuFxkPyg0
[rest of comment redacted by pp, april 30, 2018]
swap or delete.
swap is better.
https://youtu.be/VstP2jqJcQM
And sadly philosopher would say Mr. Drummond was autistic and brainwashed by Jews into adopting Arnold and Willis. He’s so psychotic.
Yes, I’m the one thats crazy. Bill Gates and Afros parents are 100% not influenced by anyone.
I actually think the hobbit is a better book than lotr. But both are good. Very white guy thing to like fantasy.
Very white guy thing to like fantasy.
So why do you like it then?
Are you serious in your implications that the schizo isn’t white?
I definitely don’t think he’s black but that doesn’t mean he’s white
But do you think he is not European? He couldn’t talk about blacks and Jews this way if he weren’t European. Maybe he’s just not western European but he can’t possibly have African or Asian ancestry. Impossible.
I think he’s either Eastern European or South Asian. I don’t think he’s of predominantly West European ancestry
Eastern European is plausible but not South Asian. He once mentioned his addiction to fake tanning and he clearly sounds like an angry white man. And IIRC, he’s spent some time in Prague and he hangs out with Eastern Euros in the UK.
Another possibility is some Irish traveler ancestry, his familial background is very trash. It combines mental retardation, illiteracy and psychosis. That would not be surprising given the level of distress in those communities.
very black guy thing to be unable to tell the difference.
I’m much more European than the whitest American. There are real Eastern Europeans in my country, not some hyphenated Anglos in denial.
As a blackfaced man I respect all cultures. Diversity is our strength.
phil thinks that if he identifies with his WASP-y masters he will become them.
^^^JEW^^^
LOL! I was thinking the same thing. It would explain the short stature, Italian appearance, elite law degree, anti-HBDism & hatred of pill. Turns out our golden boy swank is a Jew 🙂
blackface is master??????
I havent seen brendan fraser in a movie in years. He just completely disappeared. Must have upset an important jew in hollywood.
LOL that reminds me of that black guy from idiocracy Mountain Dew Camacho who accused this jewish guy of pinching his ass and sexually molesting him!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
He could kill the guy in a fight but cant touch him because hes too powerful. Terry Crews I think his name is. Funniest story Ive seen in celeb gossip for a long time.
I wish. I had enough problems being “low class.” more than any Jew would ever have.
but common sense isn’t unique to Jews. If you identify with something you are not….that’s stupid.
When meditating you can make yourself feel high by activating the dopamine circuits sometimes by breath and super oxygenating your blood. 3 times it activated on its own and I was not on drugs but it just activated and fluctuated in pleasure I was feeling and I was so surprised because it randomly happened that I was all of a sudden high and everything was swirling around and no drug??? Other times I was formless awareness, awareness without a physical body. And one-time spacetime became a liquid and was flowing into the top of my head super fast. I was on laughing gas at the dentist when I was 9 years old. it felt weird too.
Something scare was when I was doing my occult research and my left and right side of my brain completely disconnected from each other. They lost synchrony and it felt like everything, all reality, was glass that cracked completely down the middle. I saw other hallucinations before that. Venus is the goddess of love but also Lucifer the morning star. She comes from the sea foam which is water which is the unconscious where the whale is. Jona and the whale. Doctors think I have schizo.
Something I am currently experiencing is that feeling you get when you are embarrassed or drunk or having sex. I have never been drunk or had sex but I know this warm feeling that is so hot but is not uncomfortable. The same feeling but opposite is super cool and it is what you feel in your chest when you feel love and such capital (L). So super warm and super cold but not uncomfortable I have felt this sometimes not everywhere but a larger portion of myself and I never have any romantic feeling felt in my chest before but only in my head but I once felt random cold and it it was in my chest and it felt like in my head so that’s what love in the chest feels like. Also when you have frostbite you get warm good feeling keeping it in the snow but bad if you take it out.
I just feel warm right now and nice. It feels nice to feel cold love feelings in your chest, that has not been happening recently but I remember it. Since the anxiety went away a month ago all sorts of energy channel have been opening up from my brain untangling itself. It is a good thing to feel things. But being stuck is not good at all. Things just need to go where they naturally tend to go.
I’m really not sure what you are talking about but you have one of the most inventive imaginations of anyone I’ve met online. Which is why I’m sure you’re not some kind of elaborate troll.
a funny joke to play on a woman:
she’s walking her dogs on the street or a sidewalk and you slow your car down and wave…
not to her…
to her dogs.
and you say…
“hello mr dog. hello mr dog…”
she frowns and thinks…
“yuck!…i just threw up a little in my mouth…”
Its funny how feminists completely stop believing in feminism as soon as the man thats beating the wife isn’t white anymore. Then its more important to protect wife beaters and deadbeat dads because of pokemon points. And the new york times even blamed ‘white men’ for the sexual abuse epidemic in Hollywood. The chutzpah of the jews is incredible!
Feminism is a another jew racket. We’ve talked a lot about diversity and open borders and the neocon lebensraum plan for Israel in the middle east, but we never talk about what a crazy thing feminism is. Its definitely the most corrosive one of all them in the long run to societys health.
Although I’d consider myself a 1st wave feminist. I think the guys that say civilisation collapsed once we gave dumb women the vote are going too far.
Do you think there should be any restrictions on who can vote?
What is going on now is not ‘feminism’ and it is not a jew racket. Neither was feminism.
On average women are slightly smarter than men. But at the extremes theres going to be men both ways.
AFAIK, black women do test higher than black men.
But actually I would be surprised if asian women tested higher than asian men. I do think asian men are selected for certain types of intelligence and being able to deal with very monotonous tasks.
Ive been reading some dark threads on the net. Apparently Rosario Dawson is a mega slut. I think shes been with Jay Z but she sleeps with basically anyone. Id say jewish producers love her.
Unlike these guys I dont think every single MeToo celeb is lying about the casting couch and it not being ‘against their will’. Some of the stories are true.
The paedophile ring in Hollywood is the real news though. Corey Haim committed suicide because of it and the guy from the lord of the rings has said there are predators in hollywood. I would guess they are mostly jews as well, but Kevin Spacey was a prominent goy who got caught kiddy fiddling so who knows.
Im pretty sure theres a paedo ring in Washington and Joe Biden might know a lot of things about it. Epstein lured gentile politicans into bed with kids and videotaped them for israeli secret service use.
Sailer thinks Selma Hayek is telling porkies. I think so as well. Im pretty sure Selma Hayek bangs for $$$. She married a french billionaire ffs. Women that marry only for money are disgusting and a good clue as to who wouldn’t mind the casting couch.
I think its fair to say overall the most successful Hollywood actresses are the most slutty and morally contemptible. Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Lawrence are major examples. Theres even photo evidence on the web on Lawrence on the casting couch.
Among porn actresses it seems to me most women don’t like what they do. Most of them save up enough to go college or not have to work again and theres a website where mentally damaged ex pornstars warn people about how bad the industry is to women. A lot of them are drug addicts.
No surprise James Dean, the jewish pornstar got accused of beating women as is the genetic temperament of jews.
Im pretty sure a lot of them get paid to have sex with politicans, real celebs, athletes and movie agents/producers and that.
If you notice Mia Khalifa went offline for a long time just doing ‘private viewings’.
There are rumours that some Hollywood actresses used to be hookers. e.g. sharon stone and actually got found that way. I believe it. But as to who exactly I don’t know.
Im pretty sure Marco Rubio worked in a gay bar before his political career. Thats why I was asking Santo if he ever met him.
A lot of 90s hollywood actresses are washed up now. If you look at Meg Ryan and Renee Zellweger or Courtney Cox they look fuckin terrible with all the plastic surgery. Nicole Kidman would do anyone to be in a movie.
Some actresses are smart though and know when to let fame go, Jessica Alba or Sarah Michelle Gellar are good role models there.
Angelina Jolie I actually do admire in many ways. I think she believes in the liberalism we are one people stuff and doesn’t adopt black babies as a fashion accessory like others. And she dropped out of hollywood in her prime to do that save the world stuff (make life easier for jews stuff).
I don’t mind people who are brainwashed and believe in it. I have nothing personally against Gates as a person either. Its just sad though.
so you think if jews had no influence, no white would ever adopt a black baby or help Africa in any way?
It would be a LOT less. DO you see similarly rich asian and arab countries helping africa?
hbd chick argues whites are genetically more open because of less cousin marriage. also whites may feel more guilt because of slavery/jim crow/colonialism. I agree jewish influence works to amplify white guilt though.
Jewish influence IS white guilt.
It’s a just-so story and hbdchick can’t answer the question: what observation disconfirms a byproduct explanation and vice versa since a byproduct explanation would fit data just as well. Strange that she can’t answer what amounts to be such a simple question… Hbdchick only tells tall tales. She’s a storyteller, like all EPers. Remember, all EP hypotheses are just-so stories.
have you asked hbqchick or just assuming she can’t answer? again, why are only EP explanations just-so stories? Is the evolutionary explanation for white skin (vitamin D) or bipedalism a just-so story? can they answer your byproduct question? It’s a scientist’s job to explain things. As science improves, some explanations get confirmed, others rejected.
I’ve asked her many times.
The vitamin D hypothesis made a novel prediction. Bipedalism is a just-so story.
“Why are only EP explanations just-so stories?”
P1) A just-so story is an ad-hoc hypothesis
P2) A hypothesis is ad-hoc if it’s not independently verified (verified independently of the data the hypothesis purports to explain)
P3) EP hypotheses cannot be independently verified
C) Therefore EP hypotheses are just-so stories
If a hypothesis can make predictions of novel facts it’s no longer ad-hoc (a just-so story).
How can one identify adaptations and know they’re not byproducts and vice versa? One can logically state that a supposed adaption is a byproduct and explain the same things. No observation will disconfirm either hypothesis therefore they’re just just-so stories. One can make any story to fit any data out there. Telling a good story is irrelevant. What matters is if the hypothesis in question makes risky, correct predictions of novel facts. That’s what science is.
What novel prediction did the vitamin D hypothesis make & when did it make it? Citation needed
Racial differences in health outcomes correlated with UVD exposure.
This doesn’t change the fact that all. EP hypotheses are just-so stories and that hbdchick only tells tales that jive with her hypotheses. You can fit any story to the data. Her hypotheses don’t make novel predictions and are therefore irrelevant.
And hunter-gatherer differences in latitude correlate with tool variety & complexity. Thus cold winter theory not a just-so story by that standard.
How’s the independent verification? We’ve discussed tool complexity last year. It was known before CWT was formulated.
Which EP hypotheses are not just-so stories?
When was CWT formulated? Nordicism goes back to the 19th century or earlier. The tool complexity paper’s from the 1980s
Late 1800s I believe. Tool complexity was known before then.
The Torrence paper on hunter-gatherers was not until 1983. And latitude differences in IQ & reaction time were not known until the 20th century. So you have a 19th century theory predicting the future work of Jensen, Lynn & Rushton
Tool complexity was known before the formulation of CWT. RT differences are irrelevant. It was presumed that tropical peoples were less ‘intelligent’ before the formula of CWT. Ad-hoc explanations abound.
Tool complexity was known before the formulation of CWT.
citation needed
RT differences are irrelevant.
More relevant than your claims about racial differences in UV health
It was presumed that tropical peoples were less ‘intelligent’ before the formula of CWT.
it was presumed that skin color related to the sun long before vitamin D theory
“citation needed”
It doesn’t matter if tool complexity was known before CWT formulation; a hypothesis isn’t ad-hoc if there is a confirmed novel prediction. Which confirmed novel prediction was made after the formulation of CWT? Tool complexity is not a confirmed novel prediction known before the formulation of CWT.
“Modeling relevant than glue claims about racial differences in UV health.”
How?
“It was presumed that skin color related to the sun long before vitamin D theory”
And it was then verified. Not so for CWT and ‘intelligence’.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201211/cold-winters-and-the-evolution-intelligence?amp#click=https://t.co/V4RNlSmso4
PP, write an article on this so we can discuss further.
By the way, Lynn’s explanation for Arctic IQ is ad-hoc. CWT is the definition of just-so story.
no it’s not. Lynn consistently claims that small isolated groups have lower IQs than expected from their climates. He applies this not only to arctics but to bushmen, australoids and native americans too. It’s vitamin D theory which comes up with an ad hoc explanation for why arctic people lack white skin, since their theory applies to arctics and only arctics.
The fact that he needs to explain away anomalies in his theory make it ad-hoc. The logical explanation for Arctic skin color is that the sun’s rays bounce off the ice giving them a darker skin color, along with their diet high in vitamin D (from fish).
The fact that he needs to explain away anomalies in his theory make it ad-hoc.
Not when all the data can be economically explained by just 2 variables: climate & population size
The logical explanation for Arctic skin color is that the sun’s rays bounce off the ice
The ultimate just-so story. The theory was that latitude correlates with color cause high latitudes have less vitamin D. When arctics have dark skin, it just-so happens that they get vitamin D from bouncing ice & fish. 100% ad hoc
“explained by just 2 variables”
The addition of population size was added after CWT formulation.
“ultimate just-so story”
All theories have a protective belt of ad hoc hypotheses. Theories become pseudoscientific when they fail to make new predictions and must take on more and more ad-hoc hypotheses that have no predictive value. That’s the only ad-hoc explanation in the vitamin D hypothesis that I’m aware of.
CWT is pseudoscience.
Also, a byproduct hypothesis can explain ‘intelligence’ as well which is what Gould argued. But there’s no way to independently verify either a byproduct or adaptationist explanations so even byproduct explanations are just-so stories if they cannot be independently verified. Byproduct explanations can explain the same things as adaptationist explanations.
There are no EP hypotheses that are not just-so stories.
Not when all the data can be economically explained by just 2 variables: climate & population size
No. Neither work. there is no such thing as “population size” that makes sense to begin with, only population density is relevant in the study of breeding populations. As for climate, it doesn’t work either: East Asia is warmer than Europe, for instance. In any case, the strongest predictor is disease burden, it’s also the one that makes the most sense biologically speak
Also, the data is false, you’re in deep denial of the possibility that Lynn and Rushton intentionally made up the data to fit their narrative, but it fools nobody else.
The ultimate just-so story. The theory was that latitude correlates with color cause high latitudes have less vitamin D. When arctics have dark skin, it just-so happens that they get vitamin D from bouncing ice & fish. 100% ad hoc
Not ad hoc at all, it’s a fact that bouncing ice and fish consumption are source of vitamin D. It’s not a speculation, an untested hypothesis, it’s a fact. On the contrary, we have never seen that more “intelligence” was needed to survive in cold climates. Never happened in the Homo genus or any animal on earth.
Afro disease burden doesn’t explain why tropical races have lower IQs even in the U.S.
Just cause something has vitamin D doesn’t prove it’s why skin color changed. Arctics may simply have lacked the population size for skin mutations to occur
Cold climates do require more intelligence as proven by the greater tool repertoire & more technology even today. More tools = more stuff to learn. Doesn’t proven higher intelligence evolved, but the greater need was there
It didnt happen on the past because non-Africans lacked sufficient population size
Population size does matter as proven by selective evolution speeding up a hundred fold since agriculture
We don’t have to rely on Lynn’s data. Even your education data correlates with climate & population size as does PISA data
I’m not saying Lynn’s theory is proven, just saying it’s viable
Afro disease burden doesn’t explain why tropical races have lower IQs even in the U.S.
It does, it explains state level differences (especially when blacks and Hispanics are concentrated in southern states). And it’s in line with health disparities between races.
Just cause something has vitamin D doesn’t prove it’s why skin color changed. Arctics may simply have lacked the population size for skin mutations to occur
It does, sunlight exposure provides vitamin D, white surfaces reflects sunlight. It’s true in the Arctic, in ski resorts, on the beach, in the desert. The population size thing is ad hoc, it can’t predict evolution of traits as a function of population density all over the world.
Cold climates do require more intelligence as proven by the greater tool repertoire & more technology even today.
No, first of all, the same study states that the tool complexity/latitude correlation only applies in hunter-gatherers but there is no such thing between farmers. Furthermore, tropical farmers have more complex toolkits than arctic hunter-gatherers. So they have the ability to develop more complex tool when they transition to agriculture.
It didnt happen on the past because non-Africans lacked sufficient population size
No, you made this up.
Population size does matter as proven by selective evolution speeding up a hundred fold since agriculture
You made this up too. Eurasians have kept on accumulating more deleterious mutations.
We don’t have to rely on Lynn’s data. Even your education data correlates with climate & population size as does PISA data
No, it doesn’t correlate with population size, it correlates with HDI, GDP per capita, and life expectancy. And the racial patterns disappear with these objective, reliable measures.
I’m not saying Lynn’s theory is proven, just saying it’s viable
You’re wrong. Lynn’s data aren’t viable, neither is the story he builds upon them.
It does, it explains state level differences (especially when blacks and Hispanics are concentrated in southern states). And it’s in line with health disparities between races.
Even black kids from the highest social classes score substantially lower than their white counterparts. Unless you think even upper class blacks are teeming with parasites, this theory explains little.
It does, sunlight exposure provides vitamin D, white surfaces reflects sunlight. It’s true in the Arctic, in ski resorts, on the beach, in the desert.
If it’s true in so many places, you’d expect it to explain skin color in more than just arctic people
The population size thing is ad hoc, it can’t predict evolution of traits as a function of population density all over the world.
Yes it can: More people mean more mutations, Harpending noted…For example, Europeans as recently as 8,000 years ago developed lactose tolerance, which allows adults to drink fresh milk—a staple of the agricultural economy. Genes that suppress body odor and dry ear wax are spreading rapidly in Asia. In Africa, a speed-up is found in genes that thwart malaria.
No, first of all, the same study states that the tool complexity/latitude correlation only applies in hunter-gatherers but there is no such thing between farmers.
But most of our evolutionary history has been as hunter/gatherers.
Furthermore, tropical farmers have more complex toolkits than arctic hunter-gatherers. So they have the ability to develop more complex tool when they transition to agriculture.
Every race has the ability to master every human technology given enough time, but are you seriously denying that tropical people have been technologically behind non-tropical peoples for most of history (on average)?
It didnt happen on the past because non-Africans lacked sufficient population size
No, you made this up.
It’s a fact that population size influences evolution
Population size does matter as proven by selective evolution speeding up a hundred fold since agriculture
You made this up too. Eurasians have kept on accumulating more deleterious mutations.
The pace of change accelerated about 40,000 years ago and then picked up even more with the advent of agriculture about 10,000 years ago, the study says… The researchers’ analysis found that 7 percent of human genes have been undergoing rapid, recent evolution. If humans had always evolved at this rate, the difference between modern humans and chimps should be 160 times greater than it really is.
We don’t have to rely on Lynn’s data. Even your education data correlates with climate & population size as does PISA data
No, it doesn’t correlate with population size, it correlates with HDI, GDP per capita, and life expectancy. And the racial patterns disappear with these objective, reliable measures.
It correlates with ANCESTRAL population size and climate. HDI, GDP, and life span are themselves proxies for intelligence so you don’t know what came first: the IQ gaps or the human development gaps
Even black kids from the highest social classes score substantially lower than their white counterparts. Unless you think even upper class blacks are teeming with parasites, this theory explains little.
Relative to similar income whites? Yes they likely are more exposed to pathogens. Microbes don’t look at your bank accounts, if you live in an area where they are more prevalent, you’re more at risk regardless of what you earn.
If it’s true in so many places, you’d expect it to explain skin color in more than just arctic people
Yes it can:
You forgot to mention that arctic peoples evolved a liver that’s adapted to their diet made of meat.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/09/17/441169188/the-secret-to-the-inuit-high-fat-diet-may-be-good-genes
And that their overall phenotype is well adapted to their environment.
So no, you failed to show that populations from low density areas are less genetically adapted to their environments.
But most of our evolutionary history has been as hunter/gatherers.
Which is irrelevant, especially when you say that most selection happened after agriculture.
Every race has the ability to master every human technology given enough time, but are you seriously denying that tropical people have been technologically behind non-tropical peoples for most of history (on average)?
Yes. Tropical environments aren’t as hospitable as temperate ones, especially for farming activities. So yes, there is less technological development in rainforests, savannas and deserts like there is less development in steppes, tundras, taigas and ice sheets. But even then, if you told the HBD mythology to an ancient Babylonian, he’d laugh in your face big time.
It’s a fact that population size influences evolution
You’re confusing population size in the colloquial/demographic sense and effective population size in its population genetic sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_population_size
The pace of change accelerated about 40,000 years ago and then picked up even more with the advent of agriculture about 10,000 years ago, the study says…
Evolution =/= selection. Population booms cause mutations, and the evidence from worldwide patterns of genetic load shows us that this evolution wasn’t selective.
It correlates with ANCESTRAL population size and climate.
No, it surely doesn’t, in any meaningful way. That’s why Jamaica and Barbados score higher than China. Because these are objective measures.
HDI, GDP, and life span are themselves proxies for intelligence so you don’t know what came first: the IQ gaps or the human development gaps
LMAO! I surely know what came first, industrialization came first, medicine came first, schooling came first. Duh.
Relative to similar income whites? Yes they likely are more exposed to pathogens. Microbes don’t look at your bank accounts, if you live in an area where they are more prevalent, you’re more at risk regardless of what you earn.
You think most high income blacks live in areas teeming with parasites?
“http://www.earthlymission.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/distribution-of-skin-color.pnghttp://www.earthlymission.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/distribution-of-skin-color.png”
That map doesn’t rebut anything. You still have arctics and only arctics having their skin colour explained by reflecting ice and sea food. That’s the definition of ad hoc.
So no, you failed to show that populations from low density areas are less genetically adapted to their environments.
I didn’t say that. What I said was that they’re less likely to have new beneficial mutations. Not sure how you can even deny this. The more people, the more new mutations. That’s axiomatic.
Which is irrelevant, especially when you say that most selection happened after agriculture.
But plenty happened before
Yes. Tropical environments aren’t as hospitable as temperate ones, especially for farming activities. So yes, there is less technological development in rainforests, savannas and deserts like there is less development in steppes, tundras, taigas and ice sheets. But even then, if you told the HBD mythology to an ancient Babylonian, he’d laugh in your face big time.
You’re in denial. Even the World’s leading HBD deniers like Jared Diamond admit tropical people have been far less technologically advanced than non-tropical people. Diamond wrote a whole book trying to explain why:
Jared Diamond’s journey of discovery began on the island of Papua New Guinea. There, in 1974, a local named Yali asked Diamond a deceptively simple question:
“Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo, but we black people had little cargo of our own?”
Diamond realized that Yali’s question penetrated the heart of a great mystery of human history — the roots of global inequality.
You’re confusing population size in the colloquial/demographic sense and effective population size in its population genetic sense.
Uh no. All I’m saying is the more people there are, the more likely a freak beneficial mutation will occur in one of them.
Evolution =/= selection. Population booms cause mutations, and the evidence from worldwide patterns of genetic load shows us that this evolution wasn’t selective.
This link says otherwise:
Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution
LMAO! I surely know what came first, industrialization came first, medicine came first, schooling came first. Duh.
Or maybe small gaps in IQ may have helped cause small gaps in human development, which in turn caused the IQ gaps to grow, which in turn caused the development gaps to grow etc. A vicious circle.
You think most high income blacks live in areas teeming with parasites?
High income blacks live in similar areas as low income whites so the difference in pathogen exposure must be of the same magnitude between high income blacks and whites as it is between low and high income whites.
That map doesn’t rebut anything. You still have arctics and only arctics having their skin colour explained by reflecting ice and sea food. That’s the definition of ad hoc.
Wrong, snow explains the darker skin color of Andeans and Tibetans. Secondly, it’s a fact that snow reflects UV light.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/6766419/Suns-UV-rays-more-dangerous-in-snow-than-on-the-beach.html
Not sure fish consumption adds more explanatory power.
The study states:
Skin coloration in indigenous peoples is strongly related to levels of ultraviolet radiation (UVR). In this study, the relationships of skin reflectance to seasonal UVR levels and other environmental variables were investigated, with the aim of determining which variables contributed most significantly to skin reflectance. The UVR data recorded by satellite were combined with environmental variables and data on human skin reflectance in a geographic information system (GIS). These were then analyzed visually and statistically through exploratory data analysis, correlation analysis, principal components analysis, least‐squares regression analysis, and nonlinear techniques. The main finding of this study was that the evolution of skin reflectance could be almost fully modeled as a linear effect of UVR in the autumn alone. This linear model needs only minor modification, by the introduction of terms for the maximum amount of UVR, and for summer precipitation and winter precipitation, to account for almost all the variation in skin reflectance. A further significant finding was that the effect of summer UVR seems to reach a threshold beyond which further adaptation is difficult.
I didn’t say that. What I said was that they’re less likely to have new beneficial mutations. Not sure how you can even deny this. The more people, the more new mutations. That’s axiomatic.
Again, you get it wrong: smaller populations are more at risk to accumulate bad mutations because smaller populations are more affected by drift than selection.
But plenty happened before
What do you know? It’s pretty much consensual that the genetic differentiation between human populations is small.
You’re in denial. Even the World’s leading HBD deniers like Jared Diamond admit tropical people have been far less technologically advanced than non-tropical people. Diamond wrote a whole book
I said: Yes. Tropical environments aren’t as hospitable as temperate ones, especially for farming activities. So yes, there is less technological development in rainforests, savannas and deserts like there is less development in steppes, tundras, taigas and ice sheets.
What am I denying in this sentence?
Uh no. All I’m saying is the more people there are, the more likely a freak beneficial mutation will occur in one of them.
Will you understand that no such freak beneficial mutation appeared and underwent selection for anything related to intelligence?
Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution
It’s absolutely not saying that selection outpaced the accumulation of deleterious mutations.
Or maybe small gaps in IQ blah blah blah
Or maybe you just can’t be intellectually honest and you would make up all sorts of stories to make a point.
“Not ad hoc at all, it’s a fact that bouncing ice and fish consumption are source of vitamin D. It’s not a speculation, an untested hypothesis, it’s a fact. On the contrary, we have never seen that more “intelligence” was needed to survive in cold climates. Never happened in the Homo genus or any animal on earth.”
This. Hypotheses cease to be ad-hoc when they’re independently tested and verified
The bouncing ice pseudoscience has not been independently verified
Independent verification refers to novel predictions not known before the formulation of the hypothesis. When I said “verification” I didn’t mean independent verification.
So UV rays bouncing off ice giving them UV rays hasn’t been verified? Do they not get mass amounts of vitamin D in their diet Yo explain their skin color?
So upper class blacks score lower on IQ tests than upper class white kids because they have more parasites? Absurd.
vitamin D theory did not make any novel predictions. It was already known that light skin absorbs more vitamin D and that vitamin D improves health.
Parasite burden holds in America too.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289611000286
The novel prediction for vitamin D theory is racial differences in health.
Not a novel prediction. They already knew blacks were less healthy.
That differences in vitamin D partly explain racial differences in health is a novel prediction.
Either way, ad hoc or not, I’m not married to hypotheses. That vitamin D theory may be ad hoc is not relevant to CWT being ad hoc and not making novel predictions—which makes it pseudoscience.
Point is you hold evo psych to a much higher standard than other evolutionary theories
Non-ad-hoc explanations I don’t hold to these high standards. Everyone should be this skeptical and not just accept something because it agrees with their beliefs.
Either way, if vitamin D theory is ad hoc or not, it made successful, risky and novel predictions that were verified. CWT is nothing but ad hoc hypotheses.
CWT made the risky prediction that blacks would score lower on IQ tests even after controlling for socioeconomic status
Hahaha
And the prediction that black americans are vitamin D defficient is being debunked
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/11/20/246393329/how-a-vitamin-d-test-misdiagnosed-african-americans
If you walked into the most brainwashed sociology department in Berkeley and asked the affirmative action hire what her opinions were, they would be less extreme than what Race says.
RR is basically a sociology academic on cocaine.
Philosopher what’s so extreme about the argument identifying EP hypotheses as just-so stories?
CWT made the risky prediction that blacks would score lower on IQ tests even after controlling for socioeconomic status
No it didn’t make this prediction, not to mention how disputable the measures of SES are, the CWT came after the data.
The most risky prediction that HBD has made is that the gaps in IQ and related outcomes would never close. So the theory is being falsified or weakened anytime a gap narrows.
Youre a fuckin just so story. Stop saying that phrase like a parrot.
“And the prediction that black americans are vitamin D defficient is being debunked”
This is something I’ve read into extensively.
1) The main problem with vitamin D deficiency are weak bone; but blacks have stronger bones than whites even though they are vitamin D deficient.
2) Check the limitations of the Powe et al (2013); I wouldn’t use information like this in my professional life.
3) Powe et al make the claim that vitamin D-binding protein concentrations differ in blacks and whites. But…
Counter to prior observations by immunoassay, VDBG concentrations did not vary by race.
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1373/clinchem.2015.244541
4) Even if Powe et al’s conclusions are true, that doesn’t mean blacks with high VDBP shouldn’t take vitamin D supplements.
5) Poor vitamin D status may increase the risk of blacks as well as others for osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and other serious chronic conditions.
https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/136/4/1126/4664238
That blacks may have higher levels of VDBG than whites doesn’t mean they should not supplement with vitamin D.
6) There is an indirect relationship between 25-hydroxyvitamin D serum level and hypertension.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5356990/
Blacks are more likely to have hypertension:
The prevalence of hypertension in blacks in the United States is among the highest in the world.
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1097/hpc.0b013e318053da59
http://hyper.ahajournals.org/content/57/3/379
However, there is solid data that shows that differences in education—and not genetic factors—explain the disparity:
We found that education, but not genetic ancestry, was associated with BP among African Americans in the United States. Furthermore, education was significantly associated with BP in African Americans, but not in Whites, suggesting that improved access to education in African American communities may help to reduce racial inequalities in health.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464817/
My thoughts:
Only good can come from supplementation; and the fact that low vitamin D levels may partially explain other maladies blacks have is even more of a reason to supplement with vitamin D.
If you care, there are a ton of problems with the paper and there have been many responses.
Furthermore, differences in vitamin D–binding protein affinity owing to Gc genotype may be smaller than those used in the formula to calculate bioavailable 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels, because in-depth analysis under different conditions (buffers, pH, and temperature) showed no substantial differences.5 In our view, black Americans, as compared with white Americans, have lower levels of not only total 25-hydroxyvitamin D but also free or bioavailable 25-hydroxyvitamin D.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMc1315850
Specifically, for any given physically measured level of bio-available 25-hydroxyvitamin D, the authors are overestimating bio-available 25-hydroxyvitamin D by 2 to 2.5 times owing to underestimation of vitamin D–binding protein in blacks.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4165606/
So my points still stand.
No your point does not stand. Vitamin D theory did not predict black health problems, it merely tried to explain them:
The hypothesis was initially predicated on data from the 1920s and 1930s, which showed that blacks in the United States had a twofold to threefold increase over whites in the prevalence of clinical rickets (Robins, 1991).
See page 447-448 of this paper
So your claim that EP fails to make novel predictions is just a pretext for rejecting it. You don’t apply the same standard to other evolutionary theories.
“Pretext for rejecting it”? You’ve yet to address the argument identifying EP hypotheses as just-so stories.
My point does stand. Either way, ad hoc or not, the hypothesis explains skin color and racial disease disparities. EP hypotheses explain the data they purport to explain and only that data. No novel, risky, correct predictions from any EP hypothesis. Therefore they’re just so stories.
Do you agree that the study you cited on black/white vitamin D disparity isn’t a good paper?
“Pretext for rejecting it”? You’ve yet to address the argument identifying EP hypotheses as just-so stories.
I’ve addressed it by showing you believe in “just-so” stories too, just not EP ones
My point does stand. Either way, ad hoc or not, the hypothesis explains skin color and racial disease disparities.
And Lynn’s hypothesis explains the racial IQ ranking
EP hypotheses explain the data they purport to explain and only that data.
If by only that data, you mean all the racial IQ data we’re aware of, then yes Lynn only explains that data. Just like the vitamin D theory only explains data we’re aware of
No novel, risky, correct predictions from any EP hypothesis. Therefore they’re just so stories.
No novel risky predictions from the vitamin D hypothesis. By your standard also a just-so story. Yet you praise one and deride the other. That’s completely hypocritical.
Do you agree that the study you cited on black/white vitamin D disparity isn’t a good paper?
That’s not the point. The point is whatever black vitamin D problems may exist were known before the vitamin D theory. It made no “novel risky predictions”.
And Lynn’s hypothesis explains the racial IQ ranking
It doesn’t. East Asians couldn’t be “smarter than Europeans if the CWT was true. My IQ estimates even fit the pattern better, because it predicts a lower IQ for east Asians which is in line with their climate but more realistically with their level of development.
That’s what the IQ raking would look like if the CWT was true.
Lynn cites world encyclopedia data to claim East Asia is colder than Europe:
It’s possible he’s mis-cited them, but these people agree East Asia is colder. And even if Europe is colder, whites largely evolved in the Middle East, not Europe.
First of all, there is no continental temperature that makes sense, the populated areas of East Asia are warmer both in terms of lowest and mean temperature relative to most of Europe. Secondly East Asia is warmer, its climates are sub-tropical and the Mongols, Ainus Manchus and Tibetans who live in cold climates should be smarter than the Hans, Japanese, Korean. Thirdly, genetic and linguistic evidence show that East Asians migrated from the South
Also, East Asia has warm climate fauna and flora including primates. They have staple crops like rice and soy which grow in warm areas.
Northeast Asia is extremely cold whether you like it or not.
And the Mongoloid race is an adaptation to the cold:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-evolutionary-reason-for-mongoloid-people-having-a-small-nose-narrow-eyes-and-a-yellowish-skin
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/05/09/is-mongoloid-a-natural-endpoint-state-for-humans-in-cold-climates/
Arctics, Siberians and Tibetans are cold adapted, not the Han, Chinese and Japanese., let alone Southeast Asians, Polynesians and and tropical native Americans.
As for the temperature, I’m right whether you like it or not.
Arctics, Siberians and Tibetans are cold adapted, not the Han, Chinese and Japanese., let alone Southeast Asians, Polynesians and and tropical native Americans.
The Mongoloid morphology appears to have evolved in the cold, but certain variants migrated to warmer climates and/or hybridized.
As for the temperature, I’m right whether you like it or not.
The median coldest temperature of the East Asian countries listed here is -41°C while the median for European countries is -39°C
The Mongoloid morphology appears to have evolved in the cold, but certain variants migrated to warmer climates and/or hybridized.
No, most East Asian and Polynesian haplogroups originate from South-East Asia.
The median coldest temperature of the East Asian countries listed here is -41°C while the median for European countries is -39°C
Whatever, these are record low temperatures, and they were observed in remote very northerly places. It’s a fact that East Asian populations concentrates in mild to warm climate areas.
more tough facts:
Genetic Adaptation to Cold Brought Migraines With It
Humans living in higher latitudes tend to have a variant of a gene involved in sensing cold temperatures, but it comes with a cost.
human genetic variant in a gene involved in sensing cold temperatures became more common when early humans migrated out of Africa into colder climates between 20,000 and 30,000 years ago, a study published today (May 3) in PLOS Genetics shows. The advantage conferred by this variant isn’t definitively known, but the researchers suspect that it influences the gene’s expression levels, which in turn affect the degree of cold sensation. The observed pattern of positive selection strongly indicates that the allele was beneficial, but that benefit had a tradeoff—bringing with it a higher risk of getting migraines.
“This paper is the latest in a series of papers showing that humans really have adapted to different environments after some of our ancestors migrated out of Africa,” explains evolutionary geneticist Rasmus Nieslen of the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the study. “There are a number of adaptations associated with moving into an artic climate, but none with as clear a connection to cold as this one,” he adds. …
https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/52484/title/Genetic-Adaptation-to-Cold-Brought-Migraines-With-It/
Sad!
Ambient temperature is a critical environmental factor for all living organisms. It was likely an important selective force as modern humans recently colonized temperate and cold Eurasian environments. Nevertheless, as of yet we have limited evidence of local adaptation to ambient temperature in populations from those environments. To shed light on this question, we exploit the fact that humans are a cosmopolitan species that inhabits territories under a wide range of temperatures. Focusing on cold perception, which is central to thermoregulation and survival in cold environments, we show evidence of recent local adaptation on TRPM8. This gene encodes for a cation channel that is, to date, the only temperature receptor known to mediate an endogenous response to moderate cold. The upstream variant rs10166942 shows extreme population differentiation, with frequencies that range from 5% in Nigeria to 88% in Finland (placing this SNP in the 0.02% tail of the FST empirical distribution). When all populations are jointly analysed, allele frequencies correlate with latitude and temperature beyond what can be explained by shared ancestry and population substructure. Using a Bayesian approach, we infer that the allele originated and evolved neutrally in Africa, while positive selection raised its frequency to different degrees in Eurasian populations, resulting in allele frequencies that follow a latitudinal cline. We infer strong positive selection, in agreement with ancient DNA showing high frequency of the allele in Europe 3,000 to 8,000 years ago. rs10166942 is important phenotypically because its ancestral allele is protective of migraine. This debilitating disorder varies in prevalence across human populations, with highest prevalence in individuals of European descent, precisely the population with the highest frequency of rs10166942 derived allele. We thus hypothesize that local adaptation on previously neutral standing variation may have contributed to the genetic differences that exist in the prevalence of migraine among human populations today.
“I’ve addressed it by showing you believe in “just-so” stories too, just not EP ones”
EP hypotheses are just-so stories since no observation can disconfirm a byprouduct explanation and vice versa—no possible observation can disconfirm either a byproduct or adaptation hypothesis. Byproduct hypotheses are just-so stories too if there is no independent verifier. (An observation to disconfirm either or explanation.)
On the other hand with vitamin D, we know the mechanisms for why less sunlight/UV rays cause light skin:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210015/
Independent verifiers for EP hypotheses are observations that disconfirm a byproduct hypothesis. Because a byproduct hypothesis would predict the same exact things, being that a byproduct is also inherited, too.
Human skin pigmentation evolved to regulate the biological effect of UVR on humans in different parts of the world;
On the other hand, I don’t need a time machine to verify the vitamin D hypothesis, only some knowledge of vitamins and human phys.
“And Lynn’s hypothesis explains the racial IQ ranking”
How does it do that? What makes Africa ‘easier’ (which I presume is why ‘IQ” is so low there, according to Lynn et al) to live in compared to colder climes? And Lynn et al were rebutted on CWT:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody-else/201211/cold-winters-and-the-evolution-intelligence
“If by only that data, you mean all the racial IQ data we’re aware of, then yes Lynn only explains that data. Just like the vitamin D theory only explains data we’re aware of”
P1) UV rays generate vitamin D in human skin
P2) Human populations that migrate to climates with less sunlight get fewer UV rays
P3) To produce more vitamin D, the skin needs to get progressively lighter
C) Therefore, what explains human skin variation is climate and UV rays linked to vitamin D production in the skin.
Consistency refers to the recurring observation of an association in different populations under different circumstances. The convergent evolution of lightly pigmented skin was predicted for all hominids dispersing outside of the tropics because of the importance of maintaining the potential for producing pre-vitamin D3 in the skin under conditions of low annual UVB (Jablonski and Chaplin, 2000; Jablonski, 2004). … These predictions have been borne out by recent genetic studies, which have demonstrated that depigmented skin evolved independently
by different molecular mechanisms multiple times in the history of the human lineage.
…
As to the observation of a singular, linear correlation of skin pigmentation to UVB in the winter, the vitamin D hypothesis still holds explanatory scope and predictive success. Whatever be its specific actions, vitamin D is the only agent that can account for the observation that light skin is actively selected in areas where UVB is seasonal, absent, or more variable. In areas where UVB is strong and unwavering, dark skin is positively selected.
Click to access 0408d870ef1f22b74df6e1da8d4a8391d7ef.pdf
There. It’s over.
Unless there are other agents that I am not aware of that could explain the relationship? That’s the difference between the vitamin D hypothesis and EP hypotheses.
We know the physiological mechanisms behind the relationship between vitamin D and skin color (or lack thereof). Lynn’s hypothesis is just like Kevin Macdonald’s Jewish Group Strategy hypothesis: it explains nothing.
If you want a just-so story for light skin, here ya go:
http://judithrichharris.info/n2a/medhyp.htm
“No novel risky predictions from the vitamin D hypothesis. By your standard also a just-so story. Yet you praise one and deride the other. That’s completely hypocritical.”
If light skin is a byproduct, what is it a byproduct of?
I have no problem discarding hypotheses if the data aren’t right, but I’ve no reason to discard the vitamin D hypothesis because of my understanding of the human body. EP hypotheses, though, cannot be independently verified since no observation would disconfirm a byproduct hypothesis and vice versa for an adaptationist explanation. You’d need a time machine to independently verify the hypothesis.
“That’s not the point.”
Do you agree the paper was not good?
“The point is whatever black vitamin D problems may exist were known before the vitamin D theory. It made no “novel risky predictions”.”
It does not need to (but see above). EP hypotheses, though, are inherently ad-hoc, they explain everything and therefore predict nothing.
CWT is dead.
What makes the vitamin D hypothesis not a just-so story is that we know the mechanisms; we know the sun gets less strong as you move away from the equator; we know that dark skin is an adapation to high UV rays; so the converse is true; light skin is an adaptation to low UV radiation. (Along with the predictions it made, see Chaplan and Jablonski 2009 cited above.)
The hypothesis is completely different from any old EP hypothesis. Nice try though.
(Of course if solid data comes around I can definitely rethink the vitamin D hypothesis, but I’m not aware of any solid data and all criticisms have been rebutted. Vitamin D hypothesis is a good hypothesis; EP hypotheses are inherently ad-hoc.)
Here, the relationship between vitamin D and skin color is completely explainable through physiology:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3709783/
The same is not true for EP hypotheses. There are no EP hypotheses that are not just-so stories.
EP hypotheses are just-so stories since no observation can disconfirm a byprouduct explanation
FALSE! Mug of Pee proposed a byproduct explanation for the IQ-climate correlation (i.e. cold climates selecting for big heads because they lose less heat, and IQ just being a spandrel) and this could be debunked by doing experiments showing high IQ is helpful in the cold independently of head size
On the other hand with vitamin D, we know the mechanisms for why less sunlight/UV rays cause light skin:
We know the mechanism by which cold winters might select for intelligence. Cold climates require more technology. More technology requires more intelligence. WTF is the difference?
Human skin pigmentation evolved to regulate the biological effect of UVR on humans in different parts of the world;
And human intelligence may have evolved to provide more technology to people in climates that needed it. Again WTF is the difference?
On the other hand, I don’t need a time machine to verify the vitamin D hypothesis, only some knowledge of vitamins and human phys.
You don’t need a time machine for Lynn’s theory: only knowledge that cold climates need more technological skill
“And Lynn’s hypothesis explains the racial IQ ranking”
How does it do that? What makes Africa ‘easier’ (which I presume is why ‘IQ” is so low there, according to Lynn et al) to live in compared to colder climes?
The fact that our hominoid ancestors have had 25 million years to become perfectly adapted to Africa, but only about 40,000 years to become adapted to extreme cold
P1) UV rays generate vitamin D in human skin
P2) Human populations that migrate to climates with less sunlight get fewer UV rays
P3) To produce more vitamin D, the skin needs to get progressively lighter
C) Therefore, what explains human skin variation is climate and UV rays linked to vitamin D production in the skin.
P1) Cold climates demand more technology
P2) Technology requires intelligence
C) The evolutionary demands of cold climates may help explain the higher IQs of Northern peoples
Unless there are other agents that I am not aware of that could explain the relationship?
Maybe white skinned people were better camouflaged in the snow. Polar bears are white too 🙂
”Afro disease burden doesn’t explain why tropical races have lower IQs even in the U.S.”
A couple of generations of living in a less pathogen environment cant fully make up for for millenia of high pathogen exposure. Whites originated from tropical races too. But they are smarter than people from south asia and sub-saharan africa. Plus i think in addition to cold adaption and less disease burden, the soils in colder latitudes were more nutrient laden. On another note this could also explain why east asians have higher IQ’s than whites too even if the temperature there is slightly less colder than europe. Maybe the soils were better there even than those of europe enabling more nutritious food,diary,meat. And maybe even the sea food in east asia also had more nutrition. I remember reading somewhere that sea organisms in colder waters had more DHA than similar sea organisms in warmer waters. East asians get most of their DHA laden organisms from the arctic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyashio_Current. Even if all all east asians dont eat sea food from the arctic, a lot of them live along and at the mouth of long rivers. And long rivers even in cool climates could be nutrient laden from the soils they wash. All of these could have enabled bigger brain sizes and high IQ. Or big brain size was itself a ‘cold wind’ adaptation along with other cold wind facial adaptations of the east asians. And this led to higher IQ too.
P1) Cold climates demand more technology
P2) Technology requires intelligence
C) The evolutionary demands of cold climates may help explain the higher IQs of Northern peoples
P1) false
P2) not proven
C) false premises, false conclusion.
P1) false
No it’s not false. Hunter-gatherers in cold regions have more technology than their tropical counterparts, and virtually all major technological advances in the last 10,000 years have been made by non-tropical people.
P2) not proven
Technology is the practical application of knowledge. Acquiring and applying knowledge is the essence of intelligence and technology and complex tool use is what separates man from beasts. Astronomers looking for signs of intelligent life on other planets looks for technology.
No it’s not false. Hunter-gatherers in cold regions have more technology than their tropical counterparts, and virtually all major technological advances in the last 10,000 years have been made by non-tropical people.
Firstly, tropical populations are undeniably more technologically advanced than arctic hunter-gatherers. Secondly, most innovations have come from the subtropical zone: India, China, the Middle East, Southern Europe and Mexico.
Technology is the practical application of knowledge.
No proven relationship between “IQ” and technology.
Acquiring and applying knowledge is the essence of intelligence and technology and complex tool use is what separates man from beasts.
Yes? No proven relationship between these abilities and IQ.
Astronomers looking for signs of intelligent life on other planets looks for technology.
They look for liquid water in the hope to find evidence for bacterial life.
Firstly, tropical populations are undeniably more technologically advanced than arctic hunter-gatherers.
But tropical hunter-gatherers are less technologically advanced
Secondly, most innovations have come from the subtropical zone: India, China, the Middle East, Southern Europe and Mexico.
Only Southern China is subtropical and you’re overlooking the tons of advances made by Northern Europeans including the technology we’re communicating on right now.
Yes? No proven relationship between these abilities and IQ.
IQ tests claim to measure differences in intelligence. Whether you agree or not, Lynn’s provided an elegant theory for how these putative differences evolved.
They look for liquid water in the hope to find evidence for bacterial life.
Because in both cases there’s a causal connection. Water gives rise to life. Intelligent life gives rise to technology
But tropical hunter-gatherers are less technologically advanced
Tropical hunter-gatherers are a negligible share of tropical peoples.
Only Southern China is subtropical and you’re overlooking the tons of advances made by Northern Europeans including the technology we’re communicating on right now.
https://content.meteoblue.com/en/meteoscool/general-climate-zones
Southern China, South Korea and Japan, which are all in the subtropical zone are where the large majority of East Asians live.
Northern Europe overtook Southern Europe during the 17th century. But colder Eastern Europe should have taken the lead. Why aren’t we using Russian technology?
IQ tests claim to measure differences in intelligence. Whether you agree or not, Lynn’s provided an elegant theory for how these putative differences evolved.
Elegant? I don’t find it elegant at all, I find it extremely dumb. And what has elegance to do with science?
Because in both cases there’s a causal connection. Water gives rise to life. Intelligent life gives rise to technology
Yes, but you lied again when you claimed that astronomers look for technology when the main clue for the possibility for extraterrestrial life is liquid water.
Tropical hunter-gatherers are a negligible share of tropical peoples.
It was kind of hard for agriculture to spread to the arctic
Southern China, South Korea and Japan, which are all in the subtropical zone are where the large majority of East Asians live.
Overall East Asia is one of the coldest regions in the world if measured by lowest temperatures
Why aren’t we using Russian technology?
Do correlations need to be perfect to convince you?
And what has elegance to do with science?
Occam’s razor
Yes, but you lied again when you claimed that astronomers look for technology when the main clue for the possibility for extraterrestrial life is liquid water.
I said intelligent life. Haven’t you ever heard of SETI?
The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a collective term for scientific searches for intelligent extraterrestrial life, for example, monitoring electromagnetic radiation for signs of transmissions from civilizations on other planets.
They look for intelligent life by looking for signs of technology.
It was kind of hard for agriculture to spread to the arctic
But it wasn’t hard at all for arctics to move south. Russia, Canada and the US have some of the most productive croplands in the world.
Overall East Asia is one of the coldest regions in the world if measured by lowest temperatures
Again, these are record low temperature observed far away from where East Asians live. You know, it’s like how Canadians aren’t exposed to the climate of the Arctic, because they concentrate along the US border. Duh.
Anyway, I showed you one genotype that evolved due to cold weather and it is more frequent in Europeans than Asians.
Do correlations need to be perfect to convince you?
Yes. Or at least, you’d need to find at least one historical era that’d fit the HBD prediction. There is none. The further you go back in time, the more technological development clusters in the subtropical belt.
Occam’s razor
Occam’s razor undeniably favors a 100% environmental theory.
I said intelligent life. Haven’t you ever heard of SETI?
No.
But it wasn’t hard at all for arctics to move south. Russia, Canada and the US have some of the most productive croplands in the world.
Some did move South and develop agriculture. We call them the Native Americans. And unlike most of the world, they developed it independently. And arctics are just as anomalous for BOTH the skin-color-latitude theory as for the IQ-latitude theory, yet you praise the former and deride the latter. That’s hypocritical.
Again, these are record low temperature observed far away from where East Asians live. You know, it’s like how Canadians aren’t exposed to the climate of the Arctic, because they concentrate along the US border. Duh.
It’s the same standard for all regions of the world. It’s the coldest temperatures in each region that would have selected for hypothesized cold adaptations, not the warmest. Duh
Anyway, I showed you one genotype that evolved due to cold weather and it is more frequent in Europeans than Asians.
And anthropologists say Mongoloid morphology is an adaption to the cold. Why are East Asians Mongoloid if it wasn’t cold?
Yes. Or at least, you’d need to find at least one historical era that’d fit the HBD prediction. There is none. The further you go back in time, the more technological development clusters in the subtropical belt.
How about the historical era we’re living in right now. Northern Eurasians have more technology than Southern Eurasians who have more technology than Africans & Australian aboriginals. How about the upper patheolithic? Europe had more elaborate tools and culture 40,000 years ago than any other places on Earth (though we now know incipient forms of these technologies predate the African exodus). The only time there wasn’t a positive overall correlation between latitude and technology was during the dawn of agriculture since agriculture favours warm climates, but even then, tropical peoples were far from first.
Occam’s razor undeniably favors a 100% environmental theory.
Environment doesn’t explain anything unless you explain where said environmental differences came from
Some did move South and develop agriculture. We call them the Native Americans.
They developed agriculture after they significantly diverged from Siberians and they did so in Mexico and Peru, not in Canada, the US and Russia.
And unlike most of the world, they developed it independently.
So did West Africans and Papuans.
And arctics are just as anomalous for BOTH the skin-color-latitude theory as for the IQ-latitude theory. yet you praise the former and deride the latter. That’s hypocritical.
They aren’t anomalous for skin color as RR and I have been explaining you. It visibly flew over your head.
It’s the same standard for all regions of the world. It’s the coldest temperatures in each region that would have selected for hypothesized cold adaptations, not the warmest. Duh
No, it’s the temperature of where people live, not the temperature of a place they never set foot in. Duh!
And anthropologists say Mongoloid morphology is an adaption to the cold.
Anthropology isn’t a science.
Why are East Asians Mongoloid if it wasn’t cold?
More probably a mix of genetic drift and adaptation to their not-cold climates.
How about the historical era we’re living in right now. Northern Eurasians have more technology than Southern Eurasians who have more technology than Africans & Australian aboriginals.
Funny how that perfectly matches the pathogen exposure gradient but doesn’t fit the HBD hierarchy. And you’re very liberal in your claiming that “Northern Eurasia” is more developed when the biggest chunk of it, China ranks below world average on most measures of development and productivity.
Europe had more elaborate tools and culture 40,000 years ago than any other places on Earth (though we now know incipient forms of these technologies predate the African exodus).
No, Europe has just had more archaeological exploration and better conditions for artifacts conservation.
The only time there wasn’t a positive overall correlation between latitude and technology was during the dawn of agriculture since agriculture favours warm climates, but even then, tropical peoples were far from first.
Eh no, warm climates do not favor agriculture. The distribution of the world’s croplands is this:
Environment doesn’t explain anything unless you explain where said environmental differences came from
Environmental differences come from environmental differences. Read a few history and economics books. How do you feel about all these volumes, hundreds of thousands of books in the social sciences that never refer to IQ and evolution and yet manage to reach many conclusions that few disagree on?
So did West Africans and Papuans.
But the descendants of the arctic people created two of the five recognized independent civilizations. Tropical people created none (unless you count India, but Indians are a mix of tropical and Caucasoid peoples). From Wikipedia:
Current scholarship generally identifies five sites where civilization emerged independently:
1.the Fertile Crescent
2.the Indo-Gangetic Plain
3.the North China Plain
4.the Central Andes
5.Mesoamerica
They aren’t anomalous for skin color as RR and I have been explaining you. It visibly flew over your head.
No Occam’s razor visibly flew over your head. A good theory finds predictable patterns (i.e. further from the equator, the lighter the skin). An ad hoc theory explains exceptions to patterns (distance from the equator causes light skin, unless you eat fish or have reflective snow). If bushmen had the blackest skin in Africa, you’d be claiming it was all the sunlight reflecting off the sand of the Kalahari desert. Since ad hoc theories only need to explain a single exception, you can come up with one for anything. Those are the true just-so stories.
No, it’s the temperature of where people live, not the temperature of a place they never set foot in. Duh!
People do live in them:
Located in far northeastern China, Harbin is the capital of Heilongjiang province and is home to over 10 million people. Due to its harsh winter climate, the city is often referred to as the “ice city.” Winter weather is a part of the city’s DNA as each year it hosts the Hardin International Snow and Ice Festival, one of the largest ice festivals in the world. Normal low temperatures during January range from minus 8 to minus 12 F (minus 22 to minus 24 C). Temperatures as extreme as minus 44 F (minus 42 C) have been recorded during winter in Harbin.
You don’t understand that extreme cold is not limited to remote regions of East Asia:
Most of Europe has very mild winters for its northerly latitude. Especially the British Isles, Scandinavia. Yet East Asia: Manchuria, Korea Northern Japan, Far east Russia. The winter average winter temps are below freezing even at the 38th parallel! Much further south than London , Berlin, Warsaw. Beijing,Seoul,Shangai , Vladivostok are all too cold for the latitude.
Not only that but during the ice age, when racial differences were evolving, East Asia was uniquely cold because of the mammoth steppe which stretched from Spain eastwards across Eurasia to Canada and from the arctic islands southwards to China
Funny how that perfectly matches the pathogen exposure gradient but doesn’t fit the HBD hierarchy. And you’re very liberal in your claiming that “Northern Eurasia” is more developed when the biggest chunk of it, China ranks below world average on most measures of development and productivity.
The 10 most technologically advanced countries:
U.S.
Japan
India
Israel
China
Singapore
Canada
South Korea
Germany
Russia
Most are dominated by peoples of Northern Eurasian ancestry, and virtually none are dominated by peoples of tropical ancestry
No, Europe has just had more archaeological exploration and better conditions for artifacts conservation.
You can dismiss any theory by appealing to facts not yet discovered. Based on the archeological record as best we can detect it, Europe was more advanced than the tropics during the upper paleolithic.
Eh no, warm climates do not favor agriculture. The distribution of the world’s croplands is this:
That map reflects modern technology, not how intrinsically easy it is to farm in a certain areas
But the descendants of the arctic people created two of the five recognized independent civilizations.
What is a “civilization”?
No Occam’s razor visibly flew over your head. A good theory finds predictable patterns (i.e. further from the equator, the lighter the skin).
Damn, it’s not distance from the equator, it’s UV radiation that drives the evolution of skin color. Since you skipped your middle school physics classes, fresh snow reflects 88% of UV light whereas dry and light sand reflects 18%.
Click to access shade-audit.pdf
If bushmen had the blackest skin in Africa, you’d be claiming it was all the sunlight reflecting off the sand of the Kalahari desert.
But they aren’t, because 1) They live south of the tropical zone 2) The lightest sand reflects just 18% of the UV light, the Kalahari’s sand is only yellow to reddish brown, not causing as much reflectance as snow.
Located in far northeastern China, Harbin is the capital of Heilongjiang province and is home to over 10 million people. Due to its harsh winter climate, the city is often referred to as the “ice city.”
OMG, you’re officially an ignorant. Manchuria was mass settled by Han Chinese during the 20th century.
The exact numbers of migrants cannot be counted, because of the variety of ways of travel (some walked), and the underdeveloped government statistics apparatus. Nonetheless, based on the reports of the Chinese Maritime Customs Service and, later, the South Manchurian Railway, modern historians Thomas Gottschang and Diana Lary estimate that, during the period 1891–1942, some 25.4 million migrants arrived to Manchuria from China south of the Great Wall, and 16.7 million went back. This gives the total positive migration balance of 8.7 million people over this half a century period.[10] This makes the scale of the migration comparable to the westward expansion in United States, the advance to Siberia in Russia, or, on a smaller scale, the move to Hokkaido in Japan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuang_Guandong
Most of Europe has very mild winters for its northerly latitude. Especially the British Isles, Scandinavia. Yet East Asia: Manchuria, Korea Northern Japan, Far east Russia. The winter average winter temps are below freezing even at the 38th parallel! Much further south than London , Berlin, Warsaw. Beijing,Seoul,Shangai , Vladivostok are all too cold for the latitude.
Colder for the lattitude =/= colder.
Not only that but during the ice age, when racial differences were evolving, East Asia was uniquely cold because of the mammoth steppe which stretched from Spain eastwards across Eurasia to Canada and from the arctic islands southwards to China
From Spain to China. Duh!
The 10 most technologically advanced countries:
Lol, what is the methodology of this ranking?
You can dismiss any theory by appealing to facts not yet discovered. Based on the archeological record as best we can detect it, Europe was more advanced than the tropics during the upper paleolithic.
No, and in fact, despite the paucity of paleolithic African artefacts, the first evidence of mathematics is the Ishango bone. This alone surpasses all the cave art of Europe.
That map reflects modern technology, not how intrinsically easy it is to farm in a certain areas
This isn’t a map of crop yields but a map of the world’s most arable lands.
Damn, it’s not distance from the equator, it’s UV radiation that drives the evolution of skin color.
But the actual map of UV shows the further from the equator, the less UV.
Of course these maps don’t include light reflecting, so anytime a race’s skin doesn’t fit the UV map, you can always come up with just-so stories about UV reflecting from the snow or the sand or the sea or you can just abandon UV all together and say they got their vitamin D from fish, cheese or eggs. Since you don’t cite standardized measurements used for all geographic regions, it’s completely ad hoc. A theory that can explain anything, explains nothing.
But they aren’t, because 1) They live south of the tropical zone 2) The lightest sand reflects just 18% of the UV light, the Kalahari’s sand is only yellow to reddish brown, not causing as much reflectance as snow.
They also wear only 18% as much clothing as people in the snow, so more of their body is exposed to UV.
OMG, you’re officially an ignorant. Manchuria was mass settled by Han Chinese during the 20th century.
Human settlement in the Harbin area dates from at least 2200 BC during the late Stone Age
Colder for the lattitude =/= colder.
True, but colder = colder:
From Spain to China. Duh!
Most of the ancestors of Europeans didn’t live in Europe during the ice age but the ancestors of East Asia lived in East Asia. Duh!
No, and in fact, despite the paucity of paleolithic African artefacts, the first evidence of mathematics is the Ishango bone. This alone surpasses all the cave art of Europe.
Hardly. No one even talks about it. In the eyes of archeologists, upper paleolithic Europe was where technology and culture began to accelerate.
This isn’t a map of crop yields but a map of the world’s most arable lands.
Data for ‘Arable land’ are not meant to indicate the amount of land that is potentially cultivable
Of course these maps don’t include light reflecting, so anytime a race’s skin doesn’t fit the UV map, you can always come up with just-so stories about UV reflecting from the snow or the sand or the sea or you can just abandon UV all together and say they got their vitamin D from fish, cheese or eggs. Since you don’t cite standardized measurements used for all geographic regions, it’s completely ad hoc.
What are your standardized measurements for the CWT? What is the population threshold for a “freak IQ mutation” to appear? What minimum IQ is required to survive a given temperature?
A theory that can explain anything, explains nothing.
You no have self awareness, you’re literally the one that push a theory that pretends to explain all facts of life, society and history.
They also wear only 18% as much clothing as people in the snow, so more of their body is exposed to UV.
They still need a dark skin and eye color to protect against sunburns on the face and snow blindness. And they’re not as dark as Kalahari Bushmen.
True, but colder = colder:
Will you understand that there is no racial temperature that makes sense?
The lowest mean temperature is:
-2.4°C in Seoul.
-3.3°C in Beijing
5.2°C in Tokyo
4.8°C in Shanghai
16.3°C in Hong Kong
No one ever experiences the “average temperature” of a continent or even a country. You don’t hear weather forecasts saying temperature will be 16°C for North America tomorrow.
Secondly, even if the data on the chart made sense and were right, they don’t neatly adjust with the un-modified theory. Some get lower IQ with a bigger brain than others, some get bigger brains with warmer temperatures than others, some get higher IQs with smaller populations than others, some get larger brains with smaller populations than others. It’s a complete mess. And anyway, you said before that the gaps were more likely just half of what they currently are in the US but now you’re arguing that the “genetic IQ” of Bushmen is really 54 as Lynn pretends. Get your story straight.
Most of the ancestors of Europeans didn’t live in Europe during the ice age but the ancestors of East Asia lived in East Asia. Duh!
And where are their amazing upper paleolithic artefacts?
Hardly. No one even talks about it. In the eyes of archeologists, upper paleolithic Europe was where technology and culture began to accelerate.
A lot of of people talk about the Ishango bone and the Lebombo bone, just not the two or three authors that you’ve ever read in your life. But wait, how does it even matter since you said Europeans aren’t the descendants of the cave painters?
Data for ‘Arable land’ are not meant to indicate the amount of land that is potentially cultivable
Cropland maps reflect agricultural suitability as shown here:
What are your standardized measurements for the CWT?
International climate data, and climate data from the ice age, along with historical measurements of regional population size.
What is the population threshold for a “freak IQ mutation” to appear?
It can happen in any population, but the bigger the population, the more likely
What minimum IQ is required to survive a given temperature?
Don’t know, but the higher the IQ, the higher the odds
You no have self awareness, you’re literally the one that push a theory that pretends to explain all facts of life, society and history.
The main thing it explains is why Lynn’s 10 geographic races rank in the order they do. My point is not that Lynn’s theory is perfect, but that it’s just as good at explaining the race IQ ranking as vitamin D theory is at explain race skin colour ranking. The reason one theory is revered and the other mocked is political, not scientific.
They still need a dark skin and eye color to protect against sunburns on the face and snow blindness.
You just added to snow blindness to the list of ad hoc theories.
No one ever experiences the “average temperature” of a continent or even a country. You don’t hear weather forecasts saying temperature will be 16°C for North America tomorrow.
If we’re predicting the average IQ of an entire region from their ancestral climate, then we have to use the average temperature for that entire region.
Secondly, even if the data on the chart made sense and were right, they don’t neatly adjust with the un-modified theory. Some get lower IQ with a bigger brain than others, some get bigger brains with warmer temperatures than others, some get higher IQs with smaller populations than others, some get larger brains with smaller populations than others. It’s a complete mess.
But it’s a verifiable mess. We actually have rough data so we verify how well climate and ancestral population collectively predict IQ. Where’s your data predicting the skin color of all the races from sky UV, snow UV, and seafood consumption. You have no measurements so the theory’s not falsifiable and thus not scientific.
And anyway, you said before that the gaps were more likely just half of what they currently are in the US but now you’re arguing that the “genetic IQ” of Bushmen is really 54 as Lynn pretends. Get your story straight.
I said the genetic component of the gaps were likely half what they are in the U.S.. But small differences in genomes can lead to big differences in international living standards which when combined with genomes can lead to even bigger differences in measured phenotypes. What’s relevant is the rank order of the races, not their specific scores.
A lot of of people talk about the Ishango bone and the Lebombo bone, just not the two or three authors that you’ve ever read in your life. But wait, how does it even matter since you said Europeans aren’t the descendants of the cave painters?
It matters because high culture evolved in Europe twice, independently. First in the Cro-Magnon men, and then again in the farmers who replaced them.
Cropland maps reflect agricultural suitability as shown here:
Suitability for agriculture using modern domesticated crops and modern technology. It was far harder to farm without a long warm season 10 kya.
International climate data, and climate data from the ice age, along with historical measurements of regional population size.
International climate data measures pathogen exposure much better than it measures a population’s evolutionary environment.
There is no climate data from the ice age.
Historical population size as measured by genetics isn’t the same as census population and all it’s genetically correlated to is genetic load.
It can happen in any population, but the bigger the population, the more likely
How likely? Which specific mutations are you referring to?
Don’t know, but the higher the IQ, the higher the odds
As proven by what experiment?
The main thing it explains is why Lynn’s 10 geographic races rank in the order they do.
Which is better explained by disease burden, in a way that biologically and experimentally makes sense.
My point is not that Lynn’s theory is perfect, but that it’s just as good at explaining the race IQ ranking as vitamin D theory is at explain race skin colour ranking. The reason one theory is revered and the other mocked is political, not scientific.
What you don’t understand is the biological function of the skin and pigmentation. The skin synthesizes vitamin D and its pigments act as a natural sunscreen. More pigments are needed when UV exposure is higher but we also get most of our vitamin D from UV exposure, so you need to find a balance, being dark enough to avoid sunburns, light enough to get enough vitamin D. It doesn’t matter whether your source of UV exposure is the snow or the sun, whether it selects against skin or eye sunburn or whether you get your vitamin D from sunlight or fish, it all comes down to two identified vital functions. What is truly ad hoc is when people explain lighter European skin, blond hair, blue and green eyes by sexual selection.
You just added to snow blindness to the list of ad hoc theories.
[redacted by pp, May 10, 2018], snow blindness is exactly the same thing as a sunburn except it affects the retina instead of the skin. People with black eyes are less at risk than people with light eyes.
If we’re predicting the average IQ of an entire region from their ancestral climate, then we have to use the average temperature for that entire region.
So the world’s average IQ is the world’s average temperature? [redacted by pp, may 10, 2018]
But it’s a verifiable mess.
There is no experiment that shows a bigger brain and more intelligence are needed in colder climates.
We actually have rough data so we verify how well climate and ancestral population collectively predict IQ.
This alone doesn’t determine the causal mediator of the correlation. And even if disease burden is the most likely cause of the correlation because pathogen exposure is well known to affect brain development, it’s very hard to tell exactly what is the effect size of a given pathogen. Because human experiments would be unethical.
You have no measurements so the theory’s not falsifiable and thus not scientific.
I surely have experimental, not correlational, evidence that 1) darker pigments are protective against sunburn 2) lighter skin synthesizes more vitamin D, 3) diet can compensate for low solar vitamin D intake.
I said the genetic component of the gaps were likely half what they are in the U.S.. But small differences in genomes can lead to big differences in international living standards which when combined with genomes can lead to even bigger differences in measured phenotypes. What’s relevant is the rank order of the races, not their specific scores.
No, what’s relevant is consistency , the ability to precisely tell what causes the evolution of a phenotype. It’s not easy, but 20 years of advanced genomics have uncovered dozens or maybe hundreds of functional genes with strong signals of race-related selection. None of them is associated with IQ, as predicted by the environmentalist theory.
It matters because high culture evolved in Europe twice, independently. First in the Cro-Magnon men, and then again in the farmers who replaced them.
What? Now you’re calling three cave paintings “high culture” and middle eastern agriculture and writing an independent European development?
And you haven’t yet told me where are the fantastic paleolithic treasures of East Asia.
Suitability for agriculture using modern domesticated crops and modern technology.
No, read the key, it distinguishes naturally suitable land from land that is suitable with improvements.
It was far harder to farm without a long warm season 10 kya.
Warm temperature is not what makes crops grow. Moderate temperature, soil nutrients, appropriate rainfall/irrigation and long enough days are what make crops grow.
That’s all the civilizations started in the dark green areas of the map.
The natural selection hypothesis suggests that lighter skin colour evolved to optimise vitamin D production. Some authors question if vitamin D deficiency leads to sufficient health problems to act as a selection pressure. This paper reviews the numerous effects of vitamin D deficiency on human health and argues that vitamin D deficiency is sufficient to pose as a potent selection pressure for lighter skin colour. Vitamin D deficiency manifesting as rickets and osteomalacia are sufficient to impair reproductive success, but additionally, animal studies and some clinical observations suggest that vitamin D may have more direct impact on human fertility. Vitamin D deficiency may lead to a whole host of clinical conditions which impair health and increase mortality rates: increase susceptibility to bacterial and viral infections; rickets, osteomalacia and osteoporosis, with increased risk of falls and fractures; increased risk of cancers; hypertension and cardiovascular disease; maturity onset diabetes; autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease and Type 1 diabetes; and gum disease. We submit that at higher latitudes, lighter skin colour evolved to facilitate vitamin D production under conditions of low ultra-violet B radiation in order to avoid a plethora of ill health, reproductive difficulties and early mortality.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19717244
Initially posted on wrong thread:
Also, the small population excuse is not valid since all the mutations that cause racial traits were already present in the ancestral African population, their frequency increased in non-Africans in adaptation to local conditions regardless of population size.
Wrong again! SLC24A5 affects skin colour & originated in Eurasia 30 kya. It’s also common in East Africans but only because of back migrations from the middle east
The light skin variant is present in West Africans, Pygmies and Bushmen at the same frequency as in East Asians.
Confirming the vitamin D hypothesis:
Unsurprisingly, many of those variations were located on or near genes that are associated with height, the ability to digest lactose, fatty acid metabolism, light skin pigmentation, and blue eye colour – all traits that have previously been linked to our transition to agriculture-based societies.
But the new research, which has been published in Nature, provides more insight than we’ve ever had into how and when ancient humans adapted to agriculture. One big find is that the gene that allows adults to digest milk didn’t become common until about 4,000 years ago – thousands of years later than previously thought.
The study also showed that early farmers were dark-skinned, but that the gene for light skin became more commonly passed on over the millennia. Lead researcher David Reich told Carl Zimmer from The New York Times 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.
https://www.sciencealert.com/ancient-dna-suggests-agriculture-triggered-changes-linked-to-height-digestion-and-skin-colour
I don’t doubt the vitamin D hypothesis, but a theory that’s confirmed by everything is confirmed by nothing
Lynn’s theory is much more falsifiable & thus more scientific
And funny how you cite the same david reich who believes in racial cognitive differences
I don’t doubt the vitamin D hypothesis, but a theory that’s confirmed by everything is confirmed by nothing
You doubt it, you say it’s not perfect when it actually is. the vitamin D hypothesis is not confirmed by everything, it’s confirmed by the testable predictions it makes. Only you doesn’t understand that vitamin D in the diet and UV from snow reflection matter just as much as UV from direct solar radiation. So you’re inventing an anomaly that isn’t.
As predicted by the vitamin D hypothesis:
It has been hypothesised that light skin pigmentation has arisen to ensure adequate levels of vitamin D as human populations moved out of Africa and into higher latitudes. Vitamin D, which is primarily obtained through exposure to sunlight (specifically ultraviolet radiation B (UVR-B)), has been inversely associated with several complex diseases. Greater sun exposure, on the other hand, is a well-known cause of skin cancer. The potential of UVR to be beneficial for some health outcomes but detrimental for others has prompted a public health debate on how to balance the positive and negative consequences of sun exposure. In this study we aimed to determine the validity of the evolutionary hypothesis linking lighter skin with higher vitamin D concentrations in a European population. Additionally, we aimed to examine the influence of pigmentation on personal behaviour towards sunlight exposure and the effects of this behaviour on vitamin D.
Methods
We combined genetic variants strongly associated with skin colour, tanning or freckling to create genetic scores for each of these phenotypes. We examined the association of the scores with pigmentary traits, sun exposure and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels among children of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC, N = 661 to 5649).
Results
We found that fairer-skinned children, i.e. those with higher pigmentation score values, had higher levels of 25(OH)D (0.6 nmol/l; 95% CI 0.2, 1.0; per unit increase in skin colour score; N = 5649). These children also used more protection against the damaging effects of UVR.
Conclusions
In this population taking protective measures against sunburn and skin cancer does not seem to remove the positive effect that having a less pigmented skin has on vitamin D production. Our findings require further replication as skin pigmentation showed only a small effect on circulating 25(OH)D.
Keywords: Pigmentation, Sun exposure, Vitamin D, ALSPAC, Genetic scores
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4067096/
BACKGROUND:
Whether dark skin produces less vitamin D after UVB radiation than fair skin remains controversial.
OBJECTIVE:
To compare 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25-(OH)-D] levels after a single UVB exposure in fair (phototype II-III) and black-skinned (phototype VI) volunteers.
METHODS:
Fair-skinned volunteers (n = 20, 4 males/16 females, mean age: 23.2 years) and black-skinned (n = 11, 6 males/5 females, mean age: 23.8 years) received a single total body UVB exposure (0.022 J/cm(2)). The 25-(OH)-D levels were measured on days 0, 2 and 6.
RESULTS:
On day 0, all volunteers were severely vitamin D deficient. On day 2, 25-(OH)-D levels of fair-skinned volunteers increased significantly (median: 11.9-13.3 ng/ml, p < 0.0001), but not in black-skinned people (median: 8.60-8.55 ng/ml, p = 0.843). Again, on day 6, 25-(OH)-D levels of fair-skinned volunteers increased significantly (median: 11.9-14.3 ng/ml, p < 0.0001), but not in black-skinned people (median: 8.60-9.57 ng/ml, p = 0.375).
CONCLUSION:
This study suggests that skin pigmentation negatively influences vitamin D synthesis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24134867
Lynn’s theory is much more falsifiable & thus more scientific
There’s is no ethical experimental test of the assumption that higher IQ increases survival rate in the cold. No gene showing signals of selection for intelligence at higher latitudes. All you can do is to predict that the gaps will never close, so your only defense is to deny any evidence that the gaps are narrowing. Lynn’s CWT is just another EP just-so story.
And funny how you cite the same david reich who believes in racial cognitive differences
David Reich believes cognitive differences between populations (he doesn’t think in terms of races) are possible, not that they exist. He also predicts that most findings will debunk racist stereotypes.
Either way, what do Reich’s beliefs about cognitive differences have to do with his findings on skin color evolution?
You doubt it, you say it’s not perfect when it actually is. the vitamin D hypothesis is not confirmed by everything, it’s confirmed by the testable predictions it makes.
When Caucasians migrated North, their skin got light. When Arctic people migrated further North, their skin stayed dark. When Arctic people ate sea food, their skin stayed dark. When the Danish ate even more sea food, their skin got white. When Caucasians acquired agriculture, their skin got lighter. When Bushmen eschewed agriculture, their skin also got lighter. Yes, such a predictive hypothesis. LOL!
Only you doesn’t understand that vitamin D in the diet and UV from snow reflection matter just as much as UV from direct solar radiation.
But with so many sources of vitamin D, anytime someone has dark skin, you can always data mine their ancestry for evidence of vitamin D. Maybe they came from a tropical country. If not, maybe they came from a country with reflective snow, sand or sea. If not, maybe their ancestors ate fish, cheese or eggs. With that many variables, every dark skinned race will fit the theory just by chance so the predictions are meaningless. By contrast, Lynn’s theory is limited to just two variables: Ancestral climate and ancestral population size. When just two variables explain almost all the racial variation, it’s a lot more interesting than when seven variables do, because the latter can explain almost anything.
As predicted by the vitamin D hypothesis:
AS not predicted by the vitamin D hypothesis:
To test this hypothesis, Osborne et al. (2008) measured skin color and bone strength in a hundred white and Asian adolescent girls from Hawaii. Skin color was measured at the forehead and the inner arm. Bone strength was measured by section modulus (Z) and bone mineral content (BMC) at the proximal femur. A multiple regression was then performed to investigate the influences of skin color, physical activity, age, ethnicity, developmental age, calcium intake, and lean body mass on Z and BMC. Result: no significant relationship between skin color and bone strength.
There’s is no ethical experimental test of the assumption that higher IQ increases survival rate in the cold.
Yes there is. Having a bunch of bushmen volunteer to take part in a medically supervised game where we observe how long they can handle it in Northern Canada as the seasons change and then correlate their success with IQ. It would be no more unethical than reality TV shows like Survivor.
No gene showing signals of selection for intelligence at higher latitudes.
No life on other planets has been found yet either, but scientists expect it exists. Leading scientists like David Reich expect cognitive racial differences exist too. And if there were even the slightest genetic evidence they didn’t exist it’d be the lead story on every news show and on the cover of every magazine.
All you can do is to predict that the gaps will never close, so your only defense is to deny any evidence that the gaps are narrowing.
No, in a few years they’ll be able to genomically predict most of the genomic variance in IQ and if said genomic predictors fail to show statistically significant differences between races in the expected direction, all of HBD is falsified.
David Reich believes cognitive differences between populations (he doesn’t think in terms of races) are possible, not that they exist.
Plausible, not just possible. He stated:
Genetic variations are likely to affect behavior and cognition just as they affect other traits, even though we know that the average genetic influences on behavior and cognition are strongly affected by upbringing and are likely to be more modest than genetic influences on bodily traits or disease…
…In short, I think everyone can understand that very modest differences across human population in the genetic influences on behavior and cognition are to be expected.
And when Reich says “population” it’s just a euphemism for race.
He also predicts that most findings will debunk racist stereotypes.
Seeing as there are dozens of racist stereotypes, I’m sure he’s right
Either way, what do Reich’s beliefs about cognitive differences have to do with his findings on skin color evolution?
If you believe HBD is pseudoscience, then why are you citing an HBDer as a credible scientific source?
When Caucasians migrated North, their skin got light. When Arctic people migrated further North, their skin stayed dark. When Arctic people ate sea food, their skin stayed dark. When the Danish ate even more sea food, their skin got white. When Caucasians acquired agriculture, their skin got lighter. When Bushmen eschewed agriculture, their skin also got lighter. Yes, such a predictable hypothesis. LOL!
The Danes don’t eat more fish than Inuits, their traditional diet was cereal-based like any other European population.
The Bushmen’s lighter skin was selected by their location, the live south of the tropical zone so they don’t get as much UV light as Equatorial populations. They are darker than Agriculturalists living at similar latitudes in the northern hemisphere.
There is no exception to the rule.
But with so many sources of vitamin D, anytime someone has dark skin, you can always data mine their ancestry for evidence of vitamin D. Maybe they came from a tropical country. If not, maybe they came from a country with reflective snow, sand or sea. If not, maybe their ancestors ate fish, cheese or eggs.
There aren’t as many sources of vitamin D which is only naturally found in fish, meat and egg yolk. Vitamin D in cheese, milk and cereals is artificial, it’s called food fortification.
By contrast, Lynn’s theory is limited to just two variables: Ancestral climate and ancestral population size. When just two variables explain almost all the racial variation, it’s a lot more interesting than when seven variables do, because the latter can explain almost anything.
The vitamin D hypothesis is only made of two variables: UVB exposure and dietary vitamin D intake.
Lynn’s cold winter theory is 1) based on false data 2) Full of exceptions 3) Based on untested assumptions 4) Ignoring that the climate/IQ correlation is mediated by disease burden from intrinsic pathogen exposure due to warmer weather.
To test this hypothesis, Osborne et al. (2008) measured skin color and bone strength in a hundred white and Asian adolescent girls from Hawaii. Skin color was measured at the forehead and the inner arm. Bone strength was measured by section modulus (Z) and bone mineral content (BMC) at the proximal femur. A multiple regression was then performed to investigate the influences of skin color, physical activity, age, ethnicity, developmental age, calcium intake, and lean body mass on Z and BMC. Result: no significant relationship between skin color and bone strength.
They’re not directly measuring skin vitamin D synthesis, so they are not disproving that lighter skin color synthesizes more vitamin D.
Yes there is. Having a bunch of bushmen volunteer to take part in a medically supervised game where we observe how long they can handle it in Northern Canada as the seasons change and then correlate their success with IQ. It would be no more unethical than reality TV shows like Survivor.
Well, the Bushmen already live in a place that experiences cold winters and snowfall, so you don’t need to take them to Canada.
No life on other planets has been found yet either, but scientists expect it exists. Leading scientists like David Reich expect cognitive racial differences exist too. And if there were even the slightest genetic evidence they didn’t exist it’d be the lead story on every news show and on the cover of every magazine.
Finding genes that code for race related phenotypes has been very easy for at least 20 years, it’s a mature science and the lead story is that genes of this type are rather rare, that population differentiation is small, unlikely to have large consequences on highly polygenic complex traits.
No, in a few years they’ll be able to genomically predict most of the variance in IQ and if said genomic predictors fail to show statistically significant differences between races in the expected direction, all of HBD is falsified.
They won’t. That’s the risky prediction that I’m making.
If you believe HBD in pseudoscience, then why are you citing an HBDer as a credible scientific source?
He isn’t a HBDer, he’s a population geneticist and he knows that not a single population, whether we’re talking of villages or whole continents, has exactly the same genetic make up. As a logical consequence, any trait that is under genetic influence is likely to show group differences in the same magnitude as the rest of the genome, or more if they evolved under different selective pressures.
Unlike HBDers, Reich doesn’t think genetic cognitive differences between groups are large and caused by natural selection nor that the patterns of variation would fit the socially constructed racial categories.
Vitamin D is also present in mushrooms.
So the only sources of natural vitamin D are:
-Direct sunlight exposure
-Reflected light exposure
-Fish
-Meat
-Egg yolk
-Mushrooms.
The most straightforward prediction the vitamin D theory would make is that the ancient skeletons of Europeans should show a higher percentage of rickets than arctic people and bushmen who in turn should show a higher percentage than West Africans. That’s the kind of relevant high risk prediction the theory needs to make if it wants to move beyond just-so status.
it’s already known that rickets was more common among blacks in the US before fortified food diversified the sources of dietary vitamin D intake.
Among other problems with the hypothesis are that there was no evidence of excessive rickets in the late Pleistocene and early Holocene, when humans were expanding northward.
Vitamin D deficiency would have been lethal long before it develops into rickets. It would have been negatively selected by injuries and infections.
Vitamin D deficiency would have been lethal long before it develops into rickets. It would have been negatively selected by injuries and infections.
So when there’s no evidence of rickets, you just imagine more subtle selection pressures which conveniently don’t preserve in bones and which can’t be conclusively linked to vitamin D. Just-so stories can never be falsified and are thus unscientific.
No, it’s a well known fact that vitamin D deficiency makes bones fragile and weakens immune function. Rickets is only happens in extreme cases of vitamin D deficiency. And life as a hunter-gatherer without modern medicine would kill a vitamin D deficient person long before they get rickets.
anthropologists have evidence that rickets was widespread throughout most prehistoric communities, probably due to low vitamin D levels
Okay, so rickets was also causing selection against darker skin or low vitamin D diet at higher latitudes too.
Okay, so rickets was also causing selection against darker skin or low vitamin D diet at higher latitudes too
In order for the theory to be confirmed, the ancestors of light skinned people must show a higher incidence of rickets than the ancestors of dark skinned people who must show a higher incidence than the ancestors of very dark skinned people.
No, in order to be confirmed, the theory must predict that people with higher polygenic scores for light skin synthesize more vitamin D.
They do, case closed.
No, in order to be confirmed, the theory must predict that people with higher polygenic scores for light skin synthesize more vitamin D.
So if people with high genomic IQ scores are better at figuring out how to keep warm, will that prove Lynn was right?
Yes.
Now bring the data.
No matter what you’re trying to make the vitamin D hypothesis pass for something as absurd as the CWT, the fact is, there is genetic evidence that 1) Europeans got lighter since the transition to agriculture 2) polygenic scores for lighter skin are positively correlated with vitamin D. And there is experimental evidence that lighter skinned people produce more vitamin D from UV exposure.
No matter what you’re trying to make the vitamin D hypothesis pass for something as absurd as the CWT, the fact is, there is genetic evidence that 1) Europeans got lighter since the transition to agriculture
Which could just be a function of population size allowing new genetic mutations that weren’t around before
2) polygenic scores for lighter skin are positively correlated with vitamin D.
polygenetic scores for lighter skin are positively correlated with success at online dating, according to Swank. This is evidence for the sexual selection theory. Not that I believe that, but the evidence is just as strong.
And there is experimental evidence that lighter skinned people produce more vitamin D from UV exposure.
Experimental evidence that lighter skinned people get more dates
There could be experimental evidence that lighter sinned people are more camouflaged in the Northern snow. Does that mean they became white for the same reason polar bears did?
Which could just be a function of population size allowing new genetic mutations that weren’t around before
So why didn’t tropical farmers get lighter?
polygenetic scores for lighter skin are positively correlated with success at online dating, according to Swank. This is evidence for the sexual selection theory. Not that I believe that, but the evidence is just as strong.
Is preference for lighter skin correlated with UVB and dietary vitamin D intake?
Experimental evidence that lighter skinned people get more dates
Do they get more dates the farther one goes from the equator?
There could be experimental evidence that lighter sinned people are more camouflaged in the Northern snow. Does that mean they became white for the same reason polar bears did?
There is no such evidence.
No you’re getting absurd, try to be just a thousandth as skeptical of the CWT and I’ll take you seriously, for the time being you’re wasting my time and I’m not amused.
Which could just be a function of population size allowing new genetic mutations that weren’t around before
So why didn’t tropical farmers get lighter?
Everyone agrees that tropical people needed dark skin to protect against the sun. The question is what advantage did light skin confer? One possibility is that once sun protection was no longer an issue, sexual selection for light skin took over.
Is preference for lighter skin correlated with UVB and dietary vitamin D intake?
Maybe there’s sexual selection for lighter skin everywhere, but in the tropics it’s overwhelmed by natural selection for dark skin.
Do they get more dates the farther one goes from the equator?
They might get more dates everywhere, but close to the equator they’re killed off by natural selection so their sexual advantage doesn’t help
That lighter skin synthesizes more vitamin D isn’t questionable. The only thing that was unknown was whether the benefit was large enough to cause differences in fitness that natural selection could detect. Genetic evidence showed it did. There is no such thing that supports the CWT.
Genetic evidence shows white skin was selected. It can’t tell us whether the selection was natural or sexual.
Genetic evidence shows us lighter skin was selected whenever vitamin D intake was reduced by location or diet.
Location and diet can mean anything. If genetic evidence showed lighter skin was selected whenever rickets increased, then you’d have an elegant theory.
Location and diet only mean vitamin D availability as far as skin color evolution is concerned.
You have no systematic was of measuring vitamin D intake from location and diet. You simply find people with white skin and make up a story about their ancestors lacking vitamin D. They were too far from equator or they didn’t eat enough fish or eggs or mushrooms or the sand, snow or sea weren’t reflective enough. It’s post-hoc sophistry.
No, it all logically makes sense. That low sunlight at high latitudes provides less vitamin D and that the deficiency is worsened by a cereal based diet is a fact.
This paper does show a strong relationship between rickets and latitude:
This paper considers the discipline of palaeopathology, how it has developed, how it is studied, and what limitations present challenges to analysis. The study of disease has a long history and has probably most rapidly developed over the last 40-50 years with the development of methods, and particularly ancient pathogen DNA analysis. While emphasizing that palaeopathology has close synergies to evolutionary medicine, it focuses then on three ‘case studies’ that illustrate the close interaction people have had with their environments and how that has impacted their health. Upper and lower respiratory tract disease has affected sinuses and ribs, particularly in urban contexts, and tuberculosis in particular has been an ever present disease throughout thousands of years of our existence. Ancient DNA methods are now allowing us to explore how strains of the bacteria causing TB have changed through time. Vitamin D deficiency and ‘phossy jaw’ are also described, both potentially related to polluted environments, and possibly to working conditions in the industrial period. Access to UV light is emphasized as a preventative factor for rickets and where a person lives is important (latitude). The painful stigmatizing ‘phossy jaw’ appears to be a condition related to the match making industries. Finally, thoughts for the future are outlined, and two key concerns: a close consideration of ethical issues and human remains, especially with destructive analyses, and thinking more about how palaeopathological research can impact people beyond academia.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298731030/figure/fig5/AS:341733616439299@1458487051149/Rickets-in-skeletons-according-to-latitude-Global-History-of-Health-Project-courtesy-of.ppm
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298731030_Palaeopathology_and_its_relevance_to_understanding_health_and_disease_today_The_impact_of_the_environment_on_health_past_and_present?_sg=nRbow-rIIhedFpEIBI8fjl16SnG6BfMAGNprU8-uBbQPfBk9BtJ8kdY7vm-7SesM4Kj2g9gQNg
You can deny all evolution like this by pretending that observed risk factors and protective factors associated with a trait were not relevant in the past because the arachaeological evidence is lacking. What’s the empirical evidence that the genes that currently provide malaria resistance were selected for malaria resistance? There’s no archaeology to prove it. We just have to infer it from the observed effect of the genotype and see how the global distribution of malaria resistance genotypes match the global distribution of malaria incidence.
On the contrary, that higher IQ people are more likely to survive in the cold is completely made up. We’ve never seen anyone being too dumb to live in a cold place as a hunter gatherer, we don’t know any genotype of intelligence that can be linked to global climate variation. It’s a just-so story.
No, it all logically makes sense.
Just-so stories typically make sense. They just aren’t independently verified as RR said.
That low sunlight at high latitudes provides less vitamin D and that the deficiency is worsened by a cereal based diet is a fact.
That more technology and more brain size was found at higher latitude is also a fact in support of Lynn’s race IQ model
This paper does show a strong relationship between rickets and latitude:
Only in Europe and only in samples post-dating the evolution of white skin
You can deny all evolution like this by pretending that observed risk factors and protective factors associated with a trait were not relevant in the past because the arachaeological evidence is lacking.
Rickets is very easy to detect in old skeletons. It provides a beautifully elegant test of the vitamin D hypothesis.
On the contrary, that higher IQ people are more likely to survive in the cold is completely made up. We’ve never seen anyone being too dumb to live in a cold place as a hunter gatherer, we don’t know any genotype of intelligence that can be linked to global climate variation. It’s a just-so story.
The evidence is 1) a correlation between IQ and climate, 2) a correlation between brain size and climate, 3) a correlation between technology and climate in both moderns and hunter-gatherers, and 4) a correlation between how intelligent a hominoid species is and the coldest location in lives in: Apes are confined to warm areas, primitive homo could live in cold areas but not the arctic, only humans can live in the Arctic and only since full-blown behavioral modernity emerged in the last 40 thousand years.
Just-so stories typically make sense. They just aren’t independently verified as RR said.
Just-so stories just “intuitively” make sense, their alleged causal factors aren’t experimentally tested.
The VDH has been independently verified by experiments on skin color and vitamin D synthesis as well as genetic findings linking the two.
That more technology and more brain size was found at higher latitude is also a fact in support of Lynn’s race IQ model
Even if that were true, there is no proof that any of this is genetically mediated.
Only in Europe and only in samples post-dating the evolution of white skin
So what? It’s proof of ongoing selection against dark skin under low vitamin D conditions.
Rickets is very easy to detect in old skeletons. It provides a beautifully elegant test of the vitamin D hypothesis.
What do you know? Archaeological epidemiology certainly isn’t easy.
1) a correlation between IQ and climate,
Stronger correlation between IQ and disease burden mediated by climate. Supported by enormous experimental evidence on how pathogens affect brain development.
2) a correlation between brain size and climate
Mediated by overall body size, in line with Bergman’s rule.
3) a correlation between technology and climate in both moderns and hunter-gatherers,
False, most technology has come from the subtropical belt, then Western Europe took the lead starting from the 1500s, Western Europe isn’t the coldest place on earth, Western Europeans aren’t the biggest brained nor the smartest people on earth according to Lynn himself. So what happened if you’re going to make a big deal of Arctic people’s dark skin, you just can’t pretend that world history has been thus far in line with the CWT.
a correlation between how intelligent a hominoid species is and the coldest location in lives in: Apes are confined to warm areas, primitive homo could live in cold areas but not the arctic, only humans can live in the Arctic and only since full-blown behavioral modernity emerged in the last 40 thousand years.
False, no place on earth is currently colder than the areas of northern Eurasia where Neanderthals, Denisovans and Homo Erectus used to thrive before the holocene’s temperature increase.
As for behavioral modernity, there is no consensus on either its exact dating or whether it was a gradual or abrupt process. There are as many anthropologists who argue that modern behavior was present at the same time as the first anatomically modern humans and that the increase in cultural sophistication was only a function of demographic growth and cultural transmission.
Anyway, none of your correlations (which are for a large part based on false data and biased interpretation of the historical and archaeological record) are backed by experimental evidence that “IQ” increases survival rate in cold climates and that this ability can be linked to a genotype that correlated with latitude.
So none of it is scientifically sound, and it’s regarded as pseudoscience by any serious person.
Even if that were true, there is no proof that any of this is genetically mediated.
But it’s a plausible selection pressure for how it could be
So what? It’s proof of ongoing selection against dark skin under low vitamin D conditions.
Seeing as the people getting rickets were not dark skinned, it offers no such proof
Stronger correlation between IQ and disease burden mediated by climate.
But the IQ-climate correlation remains even after controlling for disease burden, which is as much a product as a cause of low IQ.
Mediated by overall body size, in line with Bergman’s rule.
The correlation between climate and brain size holds even after controlling for body size
False, most technology has come from the subtropical belt,
The average ancestral temperature of races that created independent civilization is colder than the average ancestral temperature of races who didn’t. And cold adapted peoples were also more culturally advanced before and after the agriculture era on average.
So what happened if you’re going to make a big deal of Arctic people’s dark skin, you just can’t pretend that world history has been thus far in line with the CWT.
Until you find evidence that ancient arctics got less rickets than ancient Europeans but more than ancient Africans, they’re anomalous for both VDH and CWT. But at least CWT has a sub-theory for explaining all the anomalies (population size)
False, no place on earth is currently colder than the areas of northern Eurasia where Neanderthals, Denisovans and Homo Erectus used to thrive before the holocene’s temperature increase.
Citation needed, and even if true, modern humans lived in colder areas than any of those species before the temperature increase
There are as many anthropologists who argue that modern behavior was present at the same time as the first anatomically modern humans
Regardless of when we became behaviorally modern, it was only after doing so that we entered the arctic
But it’s a plausible selection pressure for how it could be
How is it plausible without signals of selection in the genome?
Seeing as the people getting rickets were not dark skinned, it offers no such proof
European pigmentation goes from black hair and eyes and olive skin to white with blond hair, freckles and blue eyes. Darker Europeans could have still been selected against until very recently.
But the IQ-climate correlation remains even after controlling for disease burden,
Source?
which is as much a product as a cause of low IQ.
How are endemic diseases caused by low IQ? There is nothing that has been experimentally showed as caused by IQ.
The correlation between climate and brain size holds even after controlling for body size
Source?
The average ancestral temperature of races that created independent civilization is colder than the average ancestral temperature of races who didn’t.
No, only the Inuits, Pygmies, Bushmen, Australian Aborigines and some Native American natives remained stuck in the paleolithic, the rest all have independently developed at least one neolithic advance such as plant or animal domestication, metal working or writing.
And cold adapted peoples were also more culturally advanced before and after the agriculture era on average.
No, it has nothing to do with cold adaptation. The only correlation is with agricultural suitability which is optimal at temperate latitudes. It enables demographic growth, which further enables more cultural development.
Until you find evidence that ancient arctics got less rickets than ancient Europeans but more than ancient Africans, they’re anomalous for both VDH and CWT.
No, all I need is genetic evidence for the fact that lighter skin evolves under low vitamin D availability, I have it, no need to look further.
But at least CWT has a sub-theory for explaining all the anomalies (population size)
An ad hoc explanation which is in no way borne out by genetic evidence. Those freak large effect mutations do not exist in any population. Stop speculating about their potential existence, hundreds of thousands of people have had their genomes scanned and no such mutation ever popped out. You need to get this off your mind.
Citation needed, and even if true, modern humans lived in colder areas than any of those species before the temperature increase
Nuuk, Greenland’s average yearly temperature is -0.5°C.
Whereas Wikipedia states:
The average annual temperatures during the Würm ice age in the Alpine Foreland were below −3 °C (today +7 °C). This has been determined from changes in the vegetation (pollen analysis) as well as differences in the facies.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%BCrm_glaciation
Archaic hominids have lived in Northern Eurasia in much worse conditions as anything currently observed on earth.
Regardless of when we became behaviorally modern, it was only after doing so that we entered the arctic
The current arctic is further up north than it used to be. During Neanderthal, Denisova and Homo Erectus’ reigns, the arctic was Spain and Korea, not Alaska and greenland.
You’re still not addressing the main points:
1) Which genotypes mediate your alleged correlations
2) Which experiment has proved the survival advantage provided by IQ at higher latitudes?
How is it plausible without signals of selection in the genome?
The same way 99.9% of plausible evolutionary theories have yet to be confirmed by genomic data
European pigmentation goes from black hair and eyes and olive skin to white with blond hair, freckles and blue eyes. Darker Europeans could have still been selected against until very recently.
But darker Europeans live at lower latitudes and were getting rickets less in your sample. You need to compare the rickets rate of different skin colours while holding latitude constant in order to have coherent evidence.
Source?
The 2010 paper called Parasite prevalence and the worldwide distribution of cognitive ability by Christopher Eppig, Corey L. Fincher, Randy Thornhill. The paper does indeed find that parasite load is a stronger predictor (-0.82) of a nation’s IQ than winter temperature is (-0.72).
The authors concluded that when all other variables are held constant “infectious disease is the best predictor of intelligence by a large margin. The effects of years of education are not significant, while temperature and evolutionary novelty seem to have distinct predictive power beyond infectious disease.”
So while IQ differences between countries are related much more to a country’s health than to its DNA, the genomic legacy of the ice age still has some predictive power.
How are endemic diseases caused by low IQ?
By causing a lower level of technological development. You’re much less likely to get Malaria in the rich urban parts of Singapore than in the poor rural parts.
Source?
Rushton. And common sense. Whites and black American are about the same size, yet differ in brain size
No, only the Inuits, Pygmies, Bushmen, Australian Aborigines and some Native American natives remained stuck in the paleolithic, the rest all have independently developed at least one neolithic advance such as plant or animal domestication, metal working or writing.
One is not enough. All five of the independent civilizations recognized by scholars were created by Mongoloids or Caucasoids and no one else.
No, it has nothing to do with cold adaptation. The only correlation is with agricultural suitability which is optimal at temperate latitudes.
According to your bullshit maps that are based on modern technology and modern crops that have been domesticated for thousands of years in temperate climates. In prehistoric times, Africa was one of the best places for stuff to grow and that’s one of the reasons farming spread there late. Why farm on land so fertile it farms itself:
Savannas, which cover 80 percent of sub-Saharan Africa, provided people with a vast garden of Eden. Since they were so mobile, hunter-gatherers and pastoralists could take advantage of many varieties of wild grasses, fruits, tubers and game.
So successful were these strategies that foraging populations like the !Kung San of southern Africa survived until the end of the last millennium, while some in the Tuareg and Zaghawa societies of central Africa still make a living by herding and foraging.
No, all I need is genetic evidence for the fact that lighter skin evolves under low vitamin D availability, I have it, no need to look further
Sexual selectionists could cite the same genetic evidence to say lighter skin evolved under conditions where more sexually desired skin was no longer a health burden. They have it, no need to look further. Isn’t ignorance fun?
An ad hoc explanation which is in no way borne out by genetic evidence. Those freak large effect mutations do not exist in any population. Stop speculating about their potential existence, hundreds of thousands of people have had their genomes scanned and no such mutation ever popped out. You need to get this off your mind.
Who said anything about large effects? And Gaucher disease is an example of a freak genetic mutation that is correlated with engineering (a proxy for high IQ)
Nuuk, Greenland’s average yearly temperature is -0.5°C.
Average temperature != winter temperature.
Archaic hominids have lived in Northern Eurasia in much worse conditions as anything currently observed on earth.
I doubt it and it’s irrelevant because Neanderthals were the most cold adapted homo and they never got beyond 48 degrees North while modern humans have been more than 70 degrees North for tens of thousands of years.
You’re still not addressing the main points:
1) Which genotypes mediate your alleged correlations
We don’t know
2) Which experiment has proved the survival advantage provided by IQ at higher latitudes?
The natural experiment that took place over the last 25 million years of hominoid evolution.
The same way 99.9% of plausible evolutionary theories have yet to be confirmed by genomic data
Hahaha, no theory has yet to be confirmed, that’s pseudoscientific. Theories have to be tested, most evolutionary tales have have failed the test of genomics. The CWT has, the VDH hasn’t.
But darker Europeans live at lower latitudes and were getting rickets less in your sample. You need to compare the rickets rate of different skin colours while holding latitude constant in order to have coherent evidence.
Have you ever been to Europe? The darkest European phenotypes are also found in Northern Europe at lower frequency and are predicted to be more at risk of vitamin D deficiency at higher latitude, whereas light skinned Southern Europeans are more at risk of melanoma.
So while IQ differences between countries are related much more to a country’s health than to its DNA, the genomic legacy of the ice age still has some predictive power.
That’s only the mark of Lynn’s made up data, unless you’re dumb enough to believe China’s IQ is 105 and Jamaica’s is 70.
What genomic legacy are you referring to?
By causing a lower level of technological development.
How do you know IQ causes technological development and not the other way around?
You’re much less likely to get Malaria in the rich urban parts of Singapore than in the poor rural parts.
Singapore being a city-state, there are no rural areas to get malaria in. But how does IQ cause urbanization and not the other way around?
Rushton. And common sense.
Whoa! these are two impressive scientific sources!
Whites and black American are about the same size, yet differ in brain size
Most likely due to pathogen exposure.
One is not enough.
Not enough according to whom?
All five of the independent civilizations recognized by scholars were created by Mongoloids and Caucasoids and no one else.
All in the temperate subtropics. Why not first in North America, Northern Europe, and Siberia?
According to your bullshit maps that are based on modern technology and modern crops that have been domesticated for thousands of years in temperate climates. In prehistoric times, Africa was one of the best places for stuff to grow and that’s one of the reasons farming spread there late. Why farm on land so fertile it farms itself:
LMAO! My maps come from leading agricultural monitoring organisms. Africa’s soils aren’t suitable for intensive agriculture, they’re acid and nutrient-poor.
Sexual selectionists could cite the same genetic evidence to say lighter skin evolved under conditions where more sexually desired skin was no longer a health burden. They have it, no need to look further. Isn’t ignorance fun?
They aren’t mutually exclusive. However, that light skin synthesizes more vitamin D and that vitamin D deficiency increases mortality from multiple causes are well documented facts. That sexual selection for lighter skin would have been sustained long enough and following geographic and historic patterns perfectly matching those of vitamin D intake aren’t proven.
Who said anything about large effects?
You said something about large effects when you talk about “freak mutations”.
And Gaucher disease is an example of a freak genetic mutation that is correlated with engineering (a proxy for high IQ)
Oh really? Among non-Jews equally? FYI, the frequency of carriers among Jews is just 8%, that’s 92% short from fixation. At this point, it’s even laughable to talk about selection.
Average temperature != winter temperature.
Comparing the two average temperatures tells you that the extreme low is likely milder in the place that is on average warmer.
I doubt it and it’s irrelevant because Neanderthals were the most cold adapted homo and they never got beyond 48 degrees North while modern humans have been more than 70 degrees North for tens of thousands of years.
All these places were covered by ice sheets similarly to Antartica, so yes obviously there would have been no one there. But Denisovans were first discovered in Siberia, the so called Peking man was found near Beijing in China and it’s a Homo erectus.
We don’t know
Why don’t we know?
We know the genotypes that confirm the VDH, so the CWT should have similarly elegant genetic footprints.
The natural experiment that took place over the last 25 million years of hominoid evolution.
No, the natural experiment has proven that intelligence always evolved in Africa.
Theories have to be tested, most evolutionary tales have have failed the test of genomics. The CWT has, the VDH hasn’t.
The only genomic test VDH has passed is proving racial differences in skin colour are genetic. But seeing as everyone already knew that, it’s hardly ground-breaking.
The darkest European phenotypes are also found in Northern Europe at lower frequency
But the theory predicts dark skin + high latitude = rickets. All this shows is high latitudes = rickets, since as you just said, the darker skin people are less frequent in the North
That’s only the mark of Lynn’s made up data, unless you’re dumb enough to believe China’s IQ is 105 and Jamaica’s is 70.
The disease load theory is just as dependent on Lynn’s data as Lynn’s theory is
How do you know IQ causes technological development and not the other way around?
I think the causation works in both directions. It’s you who thinks it’s a one-way street.
Singapore being a city-state, there are no rural areas to get malaria in.
And Singapore has largely eliminated malaria, but you’re far more likely to get it in the less developed Burma, even though both are tropical countries in the malaria belt.
But how does IQ cause urbanization and not the other way around?
The causation works both ways
Most likely due to pathogen exposure.
Possibly, but seems implausible that races in the U.S. could differ dramatically enough in pathogen exposure to cause such large differences in phenotypes.
Not enough according to whom?
According to the scholarly experts on the topic
All in the temperate subtropics. Why not first in North America, Northern Europe, and Siberia?
Because stuff doesn’t grow as easily there. The best place for life is in the tropics:
For more than three centuries Western science has known that biodiversity is greatest in the tropics. European explorers and traders returned from Africa, Asia and the Americas with thousands of specimens of previously unknown kinds of animals and plants
LMAO! My maps come from leading agricultural monitoring organisms.
The maps are based on crops that have been artificially selected for certain climates for thousands of years. They have no relevance to the Neolithic transition 10 kya.
Africa’s soils aren’t suitable for intensive agriculture, they’re acid and nutrient-poor.
Then why does Africa have so much plant diversity?
They aren’t mutually exclusive. However, that light skin synthesizes more vitamin D and that vitamin D deficiency increases mortality from multiple causes are well documented facts.
And IQ allows you to learn new skills and new skills are required to survive new environments; equally well documented fact in support of Lynn’s theory
That sexual selection for lighter skin would have been sustained long enough and following geographic and historic patterns perfectly matching those of vitamin D intake aren’t proven.
The only good measure of a population’s ancestral vitamin D intake is their ancestral frequency of rickets, and the correlation is far from perfect.
You said something about large effects when you talk about “freak mutations”.
Freak means rare, not large
Oh really? Among non-Jews equally? FYI, the frequency of carriers among Jews is just 8%, that’s 92% short from fixation. At this point, it’s even laughable to talk about selection.
800 years of selection is not necessarily enough time to reach fixation
Comparing the two average temperatures tells you that the extreme low is likely milder in the place that is on average warmer.
Only if variability is equal in both places
All these places were covered by ice sheets similarly to Antartica,
Didn’t stop modern humans
But Denisovans were first discovered in Siberia,
Southern Siberia
the so called Peking man was found near Beijing in China and it’s a Homo erectus.
Still nowhere near as far North as modern humans travelled during ice age
No, the natural experiment has proven that intelligence always evolved in Africa.
Only because most species evolve in the tropics because it’s easier to live there. However the few hominoids that evolved outside the tropics (Neanderthals and Denisovans) are on average more intelligent than all the hominoids that evolved within the tropics.
In fact, how do you know that northern hunter gatherers don’t have more varied tools because their environments makes it easier?
The disease burden in the cold is low, predators are rare, fishing is a very easy way to get food especially fish is locked under frozen bodies of water, northern mammals aren’t fast or dangerous, they’re easy to spot in an open terrain, all this meat and fish are excellent sources of protein and fat energy, which is optimal for brain growth, the cold conserves food for months, animals provide warmth-keeping fur, the ice is a readily available material to build igloos etc.
Would all these advantages be cancelled out by greater challenges?
Infectious and parasitic disease burden.
Objectives. This study determined the degree to which Black–White differences in infectious disease mortality are explained by income and education and the extent to which infectious diseases contribute to Black–White differences in all-cause mortality.
Methods. A sample population of the National Longitudinal Mortality Study from 1979 through 1981 was analyzed and followed up through 1989.
Results. Infectious disease mortality among Blacks was higher than among Whites, with a relative risk of 1.53 after adjustment for age and sex and 1.34 after further adjustment for income and education. Death from infectious diseases contributed to 9.3% of the difference in all-cause mortality.
Conclusions. In the United States, infectious diseases account for nearly 10% of the excess all-cause mortality rates in Blacks compared with Whites.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24134867
Several different bodies of evidence support a link between infection and altered brain development. Maternal infections, such as influenza and human immunodeficiency virus, have been linked to the development of autism spectrum disorders, differences in cognitive test scores, and bipolar disorder; an association that has been shown in both epidemiologic and retrospective studies. Several viral, bacterial, and parasitic illnesses are associated with alterations in fetal brain structural anomalies including brain calcifications and hydrocephalus. The process of infection can activate inflammatory pathways causing the release of various proinflammatory biomarkers and histological changes consistent with an infectious intrauterine environment (chorioamnionitis) or umbilical cord (funisitis). Elevations in inflammatory cytokines are correlated with cerebral palsy, schizophrenias, and autism. Animal studies indicate that the balance of proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines is critical to the effect prenatal inflammation plays in neurodevelopment. Finally, chorioamnionitis is associated with cerebral palsy and other abnormal neurodevelopmental outcomes. In conclusion, a plethora of evidence supports, albeit with various degrees of certainty, the theory that maternal infection and inflammation that occur during critical periods of fetal development could theoretically alter brain structure and function in a time-sensitive manner.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4795171/
Neat.
Conclusions. In the United States, infectious diseases account for nearly 10% of the excess all-cause mortality rates in Blacks compared with Whites
10% is not much. If infectious disease accounts for nearly 10% of the 15 point black-white IQ gap in the U.S., that’s only 1.5 points.
10% of excess mortality because infectious diseases are much less lethal than cancer, cardiovascular disease and other leading causes of death. But everybody gets sick many times during childhood, if blacks get sick 50% more often than whites, it’s likely to cause a large difference in brain development.
Speaking in terms of odds ratios,
if US black IQ is 90, blacks are 40% more likely than whites to score below 100. So the difference in pathogen exposure would need to be just 40% to explain the whole difference.
Why doesn’t pathogen exposure cause a black-white difference in U.S. height?
It’s a different phenotype, infections affect fetal development the most in the womb and in very early infancy, height is dependent on later age health and nutrition.
Human settlement in the Harbin area dates from at least 2200 BC during the late Stone Age
All places on earth except the Greenland icesheet, Antartica and a few remote islands in the oceans were settled. But most of the planet’s landmass was just scarcely populated. It includes China’s far north.
The problem with you is that you constantly lie. I don’t know if you do it consciously. So long story short:
Do you agree that HBD isn’t supported by genetic evidence?
The problem with you is that you constantly lie.
Nope
Do you agree that HBD isn’t supported by genetic evidence?
Yes. But genomics is still in its infancy. I predict a weak version of HBD will be proven in the next five years.
Nope
Please, you’re fooling nobody. You lie by omission when you quote selectively and you do it all the time, you lie when you say things like “left-handed people are more likely to have extreme IQs”, you lie when you talk about Indian taxi drivers telling you bodybuilders are hated in India etc. I think you lie so much you’ve lost awareness of it.
Yes. But genomics is still in its infancy.
Not really, the techniques to detect selective sweeps are mature, I just showed you two examples on telomere length and cold perception/migraine. And you posted links that claimed to quantify the level of differential selection between populations. What is so special about intelligence that makes the selective sweeps invisible?
I predict a weak version of HBD will be proven in the next five years.
How weak?
Please, you’re fooling nobody. You lie by omission when you quote selectively and you do it all the time,
Just cause I don’t include everything you think is relevant, doesn’t mean there’s an intent to deceive or conceal, it just means I don’t think it’s directly relevant or I leave it out because it ruins the flow of the article by cluttering it with details, detracting from my larger point.
you lie when you say things like “left-handed people are more likely to have extreme IQs”,
No I read that in one of Jensen’s books (The g Factor?) and such findings are further stated here:
In both the U.S. and U.K., lefties are three or four percentage points more likely to be in the bottom tenth of test scores than righties. That finding — that lefties are disproportionately represented at the bottom — is consistent with several previous analyses.
What is most surprising in the new research is the picture at the top end of the skills distribution. Previous studies have found lefties to be more likely among very high scorers on the SAT, and more likely to have an IQ above 131. Goodman, though, finds that lefties in the U.S. are less likely to be in the top 10 percent of cognitive skills. And they are no more likely to be high earners than righties.
It is still possible that lefties are disproportionately represented among the very top of the skills distribution; the databases Goodman uses don’t contain enough detail about these extremes to say either way. The SAT study, for example, examined those in the top 1 out of 10,000, and IQs above 131 are found only in the top 2 percent of the population.
you lie when you talk about Indian taxi drivers telling you bodybuilders are hated in India etc.
The Indian women in this video must be lying too:
Not really, the techniques to detect selective sweeps are mature, I just showed you two examples on telomere length and cold perception/migraine. And you posted links that claimed to quantify the level of differential selection between populations. What is so special about intelligence that makes the selective sweeps invisible?
How would they know the sweep was for intelligence if so few of the genomic variants for intelligence have been identified
How weak?
I predict the ethnic IQ gaps we see among U.S. adults are only about half genomic in origin.
Just cause I don’t include everything you think is relevant, doesn’t mean there’s an intent to deceive or conceal, it just means I don’t think it’s directly relevant or I leave it out because it ruins the flow of the article by cluttering it with details, detracting from my larger point.
Whatever.
No I read that in one of Jensen’s books (The g Factor?) and such findings are further stated here:
Lol, muh Densen said…
The Indian women in this video must be lying too:
At no point in the video is anyone saying bodybuilders are dumb and fat and primitive. The tall and the muscular guy score equally, the scrawny guy isn’t even competing. So the women aren’t lying but you are lying about the content of the video.
How would they know the sweep was for intelligence if so few of the genomic variants for intelligence have been identified
How elegant is it? What does it tell you?
I predict the ethnic IQ gaps we see among U.S. adults are only about half genomic in origin.
I predict they’ll stop wasting funds on GWAS.
Lol, muh Densen said…
But you said I lied. You lied. Research has shown lefties are overrepresented at both IQ extremes
At no point in the video is anyone saying bodybuilders are dumb and fat and primitive. The tall and the muscular guy score equally, the scrawny guy isn’t even competing. So the women aren’t lying but you are lying about the content of the video.
LOL! You actually watch the whole thing. I must have fell asleep around the 5:13 mark when the tall guy had a 10 to 6 lead over the muscle guy.
But you said I lied. You lied. Research has shown lefties are overrepresented at both IQ extremes
You lied: quoting another liar is lying by association.
LOL! You actually watch the whole thing.
Yes, I was waiting for the moment that would corroborate you imaginary taxi driver story. Never came.
I must have fell asleep around the 5:13 mark when the tall guy had a 10 to 6 lead over the muscle guy.
What an amazing coincidence. My elegant guess is that you can never be honest.
You lied: quoting another liar is lying by association.
Provide evidence that he lied about handedness. I cited research backing him up.
More evidence you lied about genetic sweeps (emphasis mine):
Over the past 10,000 years, their data show, human evolution has occurred a hundred times more quickly than in any other period in our species’ history.
The new genetic adaptations, some 2,000 in total, are not limited to the well-recognized differences among ethnic groups in superficial traits such as skin and eye color. The mutations relate to the brain, the digestive system, life span, immunity to pathogens, sperm production and bones — in short, virtually every aspect of our functioning.
However because I’m so much more honest than you, I’ll also link to an article that does support your HBD denial:
The genome actually contains few examples of very strong, rapid natural selection. Instead most of the visible natural selection appears to have occurred over tens of thousands of years.
Provide evidence that he lied about handedness. I cited research backing him up.
Intellectual and performance measures were taken on 7688 school children tested on three behavioral measures of handedness and one measure of eyedness. Test results were compared against all combinations of handedness and eyedness and against a measure of socio-economic level. No relationships of any kind were found. Comparisons of the present results are made against 33 studies concerned with possible deficits associated with left-handedness. The results of the present study combined with a review of the majority of studies on deficit and handedness strongly suggest that the hypothesis of no difference in intellectual and cognitive performance between right- and left-handed subjects can be accepted as true.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1000995
More evidence you lied about genetic sweeps (emphasis mine):
I explicitly quoted two studies showing evidence for selection of genotypes affecting brain function. You probably ignored them because they were unfavorable for Eurasians.
The handedness study you cited is looking at the general population, not the extremes. For example a previous study found left-handedness was more common among people who score in the top one in 10,000 level on the (math?) SAT. Other fun facts:
While only between 10 and 15 percent of the global population identifies as being left-handed, a seemingly disproportionate number of world leaders, artists and icons live their lives southpaw style. Take, for example, U.S. presidents.
President Obama is a proud lefty and he’s far from alone. In fact, five of the United States’ last seven presidents favored the less favored hand: President Clinton, President George H.W. Bush, President Reagan and President Ford.
However because I’m so much more honest than you, I’ll also link to an article that does support your HBD denial:
The genome actually contains few examples of very strong, rapid natural selection. Instead most of the visible natural selection appears to have occurred over tens of thousands of years.
But since you’re pathologically dishonest, you can’t acknowledge that the “elegant” cold winter story can’t be validated without similarly elegant genetic evidence.
For example a previous study found left-handedness was more common among people who score in the top one in 10,000 level on the (math?) SAT. Other fun facts:
Which study?
5 out the last 7 presidents? How many out of the 45 presidents overall?
it’s not about cold but tempered climates, seems, logically speaking, more demanding than others. Tempered climates have different and very marked seasons.
If earlier humans were strongly affected by environments, to adapt, so just like any other living beings, a tempered climate appear more related with complex and self-control behaviors.
Adaptation is often a connective mimic of environment by the organism.
Extreme climates cause R-selection to combat higher mortality and in colder climates maybe with the advantage of lower pathogen exposure.
Colder climates also cause higher mortality and pressure for R-selection.
The appearance of the first known human civilizations and before agriculture was mostly in tempered climates.
PP call nonhuman animals ”beasts” while deify a sociopathic entertainer…
Remember PP, it’s already time to learn this:
ALL lifes are intelligent.
Intelligence IS the life behavior to survive.
No have a abrupt discontinuity between nonhuman and human intelligence, but a sophistication.
Pathogen exposure in intertropical places don’t cause reduction of intelligence [whatever it is] but creates a selective pressures to economic organism, including a comparative little brain. Colder climates as well happens specially in EXTREME environments tends to reduce phenotypical diversity [often mean ”variation of robustness of phenotypes”] but without a big pathogen exposure, it’s may be advantageous at least to increase intelligence but not it’s complexity. Complexity is disadvantageous in extreme places and advantageous in… complex places as tempered ones.
“Do you agree that HBD isn’t supported by genetic evidence?”
Such a hack.
“FALSE! Mug of Pee proposed a byproduct explanation for the IQ-climate correlation (i.e. cold climates selecting for big heads because they lose less heat, and IQ just being a spandrel) and this could be debunked by doing experiments showing high IQ is helpful in the cold independently of head size”
How would this disconfirm an adaptation explanation? No possible observation could confirm or disconfirm either story.
Byproduct explanations are just-so stories too if the can’t be independently verified. This is a just-so story too. Also how is ‘IQ’ useful for survival? Why conflate “IQ” and “intelligence”?
“We know the mechanism by which cold winters might select for intelligence. Cold climates require more technology. More technology requires more intelligence. WTF is the difference?”
It’s a just-so story.
“We are not arguing that people in warmer climates did indeed develop higher intelligence but, rather, that one could create speculative arguments supporting greater intellectual growth in such climates, as has been done to support the notion that there was greater intellectual growth as a result of challenges up north. Indeed, post hoc evolutionary arguments made in the absence of fossils at times can have the character of ad hoc “just so” stories designed to support, in retrospect, whatever point the author wishes to make about present-day people.”
Click to access 10.1037%400003-066x.60.1.46.pdf
“And human intelligence may have evolved to provide more technology to people in climates that needed it. Again WTF is the difference?”
It’s a just-so story, that’s the difference.
“You don’t need a time machine for Lynn’s theory: only knowledge that cold climates need more technological skill”
Sure you need a time machine; if one of the ad-hoc hypotheses is disproved, the one who pushed CWT won’t concede; they’ll just think up a new ad-hoc explanation. CWT is pseudoscience.
“The fact that our hominoid ancestors have had 25 million years to become perfectly adapted to Africa, but only about 40,000 years to become adapted to extreme cold”
Life is “easy” nowhere and all of the Lynn/Rushton/Kanazawa pseudoscience has been debunked.
Lynn: “There is widespread consensus on this thesis, e.g. Kanazawa (2008), Lynn (1991, 2006), and Templer and Arikawa (2006).”
Click to access an-examination-of-rushton_s-theory-of-differences-in-penis-length-and-circumference-and-r-k-life-history-theory-in-113-populations.pdf
How funny is that? You can change the sentence to “There is widespread consensus on this thesis, including two of my publications, a paper where the author assumes that the earth is flat: “First, Kanazawa’s (2008) computations of geographic distance used Pythagoras’ theorem and so the paper assumed that the earth is flat (Gelade, 2008).” https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncom.2012.00020/full and another publication where the authors assume hot weather leads to lower intelligence. Oh yea, they’re all PF members. Weird.”
They’re hacks. They engage in a neverending cycle of self-citing and citing each other as “agreement”. What a joke.
“P1) Cold climates demand more technology
P2) Technology requires intelligence
C) The evolutionary demands of cold climates may help explain the higher IQs of Northern peoples”
Both premises and the conclusions are unverified assumptions.
“Maybe white skinned people were better camouflaged in the snow. Polar bears are white too”
Glad to know we agree that the vitamin D theory made a correct prediction. Vitamin D hypothesis is science; CWT is pseudoscience, especially to those who push it, because they’d never let it die. It is therefore unfalsifiable in the eyes of its proponents but to rational people, it’s been dead for years.
“FALSE! Mug of Pee proposed a byproduct explanation for the IQ-climate correlation (i.e. cold climates selecting for big heads because they lose less heat, and IQ just being a spandrel) and this could be debunked by doing experiments showing high IQ is helpful in the cold independently of head size”
How would this disconfirm an adaptation explanation?
Because if high IQ people only perform better in the cold when they have big heads, then it’s the head size, not the IQ per se that is cold adaptive (since big heads lose less heat).
No possible observation could confirm or disconfirm either story.
I just told you what observations could confirm or disconfirm. Now tell me what observations can disconfirm the vitamin D theory.
Also how is ‘IQ’ useful for survival? Why conflate “IQ” and “intelligence”?
It doesn’t matter what you call it.
“We know the mechanism by which cold winters might select for intelligence. Cold climates require more technology. More technology requires more intelligence. WTF is the difference?”
It’s a just-so story.
Then so is vitamin D and light skin
“And human intelligence may have evolved to provide more technology to people in climates that needed it. Again WTF is the difference?”
It’s a just-so story, that’s the difference.
Assertions aren’t arguments
Sure you need a time machine; if one of the ad-hoc hypotheses is disproved, the one who pushed CWT won’t concede; they’ll just think up a new ad-hoc explanation. CWT is pseudoscience.
You mean like how the vitamin D people didn’t concede when arctic people were found to have dark skin. The theory went from high latitude causing light skin to high latitude causing light skin unless you live in the artic cause muh sea food and muh sunlight bouncing off the snow; can’t decide which so I’ll cover muh ass and argue both in case one gets debunked.
“P1) Cold climates demand more technology
P2) Technology requires intelligence
C) The evolutionary demands of cold climates may help explain the higher IQs of Northern peoples”
Both premises and the conclusions are unverified assumptions.
Nope! The link between technology and cold climate has been verified by research with hunter-gatherers and by the historical and contemporary record. The fact that technology requires intelligence is verified by the fact that high tech by definition is the application of knowledge which is the definition of intelligence, and by the fact that animals with the most cortical neurons engage in elaborate tool use and by SETI scientists who identify alien intelligence via alien technology.
It’s over.
“Because if high IQ people only perform better in the cold when they have big heads, then it’s the head size, not the IQ per se that is cold adaptive (since big heads lose less heat).”
It’s big heads that are the adaptation; ‘IQ’ is neither because it’s not a real thing. Big heads are cold-adaptive.
“I just told you what observations could confirm or disconfirm. Now tell me what observations can disconfirm the vitamin D theory.”
It’s already been independently verified.
“Then so is vitamin D and light skin”
The vitamin D hypothesis has been independently verified and made a novel prediction.
“Assertions aren’t arguments”
P1) A just-so story is an ad-hoc hypothesis; an ad-hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis that is not independently verified
P2) The hypothesis that trait X is an adaptation is independently verified if and only if it sucessfully predicts a novel fact (an observation that was not used in the construction of the hypothesis and would be expected if the trait were an adaptation and unexpected if the trait were a byproduct).
P3) No prediction of this nature is possible because the hypothesis that trait X is an adaptation is underdetermined by all possible observations (meaning there are no hallmarks of adaptation).
P4) EP hypotheses cannot be independently verified (they are inherently ad-hoc)
C) Therefore EP hypotheses are just-so stories.
“You mean like how the vitamin D people didn’t concede when arctic people were found to have dark skin. The theory went from high latitude causing light skin to high latitude causing light skin unless you live in the artic cause muh sea food and muh sunlight bouncing off the snow; can’t decide which so I’ll cover muh ass and argue both in case one gets debunked.”
Not at all. The hypothesis is that light skin is actively selected in areas where UVB is seasonal, absent or more variable and that dark skin is actively selected for in the presence of strong UVB. Arctic people, by virtue of being exposed to ice and a vitamin-D-heavy diet, evolved darker skin due to this. It is completely consistent with the UVB/skin color hypothesis.
Are you defending a byproduct or adaptation explanation?
“The link between technology and cold climate has been verified by research with hunter-gatherers and by the historical and contemporary record. The fact that technology requires intelligence is verified by the fact that high tech by definition is the application of knowledge which is the definition of intelligence, and by the fact that animals with the most cortical neurons engage in elaborate tool use and by SETI scientists who identify alien intelligence via alien technology.”
That high tech is “by definition” the application of knowledge which is the definition of intelligence is circular. High tech means more intelligence because “by definition” the application of knowledge … is the definition of intelligence.
The reason why SETI uses “evidence of technological civilizations that may exist elsewhere in the universe, particularly in our galaxy” as their evidence for alien life doesn’t mean anything for cold winter theory.
I’ve already falsified it.
lmao not bad RR
“Because if high IQ people only perform better in the cold when they have big heads, then it’s the head size, not the IQ per se that is cold adaptive (since big heads lose less heat).”
It’s big heads that are the adaptation; ‘IQ’ is neither because it’s not a real thing. Big heads are cold-adaptive.
IQ can be measured. Anything that can be measured reliably is a real thing.
“I just told you what observations could confirm or disconfirm. Now tell me what observations can disconfirm the vitamin D theory.”
It’s already been independently verified.
False. Peter Frost writes:
To test this hypothesis, Osborne et al. (2008) measured skin color and bone strength in a hundred white and Asian adolescent girls from Hawaii. Skin color was measured at the forehead and the inner arm. Bone strength was measured by section modulus (Z) and bone mineral content (BMC) at the proximal femur. A multiple regression was then performed to investigate the influences of skin color, physical activity, age, ethnicity, developmental age, calcium intake, and lean body mass on Z and BMC. Result: no significant relationship between skin color and bone strength.
The vitamin D hypothesis has been independently verified and made a novel prediction.
A novel prediction which was falsified. See above.
P1) A just-so story is an ad-hoc hypothesis; an ad-hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis that is not independently verified
False: According to Wikipedia, In science and philosophy, an ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. Often, ad hoc hypothesizing is employed to compensate for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form.
So the skin color hypothesis was Northern people needed light skin because high latitudes provide less vitamin D. To save this theory from being falsified by the dark skin of arctics, they came up with the theory that arctics get their vitamin D from sea food and sun bouncing off ice. This is textbook ad hoc.
“You mean like how the vitamin D people didn’t concede when arctic people were found to have dark skin. The theory went from high latitude causing light skin to high latitude causing light skin unless you live in the artic cause muh sea food and muh sunlight bouncing off the snow; can’t decide which so I’ll cover muh ass and argue both in case one gets debunked.”
Not at all. The hypothesis is that light skin is actively selected in areas where UVB is seasonal, absent or more variable and that dark skin is actively selected for in the presence of strong UVB. Arctic people, by virtue of being exposed to ice and a vitamin-D-heavy diet, evolved darker skin due to this. It is completely consistent with the UVB/skin color hypothesis.
A hypothesis blaming UVB for skin colour variation would predict skin colour gets lighter the further you move from the equator.
That prediction is falsified by arctic people, so they had to come up with ad hoc theories for how they get UVB. Sunlight reflecting off snow? So why don’t Northern Europeans have dark skin? Last time I checked Northern Europe has snow? There’s nothing predictable about the hypothesis, it’s just-so stories rationalizing data that doesn’t fit. And even the ad hoc rationalizations fail to make novel predictions. Peter Frost writes:
Proponents of the vitamin D hypothesis will point to the Inuit and say that non-Europeans get enough vitamin D at high northerly latitudes from fatty fish. So they don’t need light skin. In actual fact, if we look at the indigenous peoples of northern Asia and North America above 47º N, most of them live far inland and get little vitamin D from their diet. For instance, although the Athapaskans of Canada and Alaska live as far north as the Inuit and are even somewhat darker-skinned, their diet consists largely of meat from land animals (caribou, deer, ptarmigan, etc.). The same may be said for the native peoples of Siberia.
Conversely, fish consumption is high among the coastal peoples of northwestern Europe. Skeletal remains of Danes living 6,000-7,000 years ago have the same carbon isotope profile as those of Greenland Inuit, whose diet is 70-95% of marine origin (Tauber, 1981). So why are Danes so light-skinned despite a diet that has long included fatty fish?
“The link between technology and cold climate has been verified by research with hunter-gatherers and by the historical and contemporary record. The fact that technology requires intelligence is verified by the fact that high tech by definition is the application of knowledge which is the definition of intelligence, and by the fact that animals with the most cortical neurons engage in elaborate tool use and by SETI scientists who identify alien intelligence via alien technology.”
That high tech is “by definition” the application of knowledge which is the definition of intelligence is circular. High tech means more intelligence because “by definition” the application of knowledge … is the definition of intelligence.
Arguments by definition are not circular. Example:
P1) The continental U.S. is defined as the landmass bordering both Canada and Mexico
P2) RR lives in the landmass bordering both Canada and Mexico
C) RR lives in the continental U.S.
Nothing wrong with that argument
The reason why SETI uses “evidence of technological civilizations that may exist elsewhere in the universe, particularly in our galaxy” as their evidence for alien life doesn’t mean anything for cold winter theory.
It means there’s a scientifically recognized relationship between technology and civilization and since cold climate people used more technology, it’s logical to infer they used more intelligence.
“IQ can be measured. Anything that can be measured reliably is a real thing.”
Doesn’t mean it’s “real”.
“False. Peter Frost”
The independent verification was the molecular genetic evidence showing that hominins that trekked OoA had light skin, too.
“A novel prediction which was falsified. See above.”
The novel prediction that the VDH made was not falsified.
“False: According to Wikipedia”
I don’t care what Wikipedia says; a just-so story is an ad-hoc hypothesis that has not been independently verified. The premises are true and the conclusion is sound therefore the argument is valid.
The argument is sound, the premises are true. Read some phil sci and not Wikipedia.
“A hypothesis blaming UVB for skin colour variation would predict skin colour gets lighter the further you move from the equator.”
Reread what I wrote again. Variable, seasonal UVB exposure. The explanation is apt, and is not ad-hoc in the slightest, it perfectly goes with the VDH.
“That prediction is falsified by arctic people, so they had to come up with ad hoc theories for how they get UVB. Sunlight reflecting off snow? So why don’t Northern Europeans have dark skin? Last time I checked Northern Europe has snow? There’s nothing predictable about the hypothesis, it’s just-so stories rationalizing data that doesn’t fit.”
False. I’ve provided evidence that a novel prediction was made. Reread my comments in this thread.
Frost is unconvincing; the objections he raises have been addressed and that article is now ten years old.
“Arguments by definition are not circular. Example”
Arguments can never be circular?
“It means there’s a scientifically recognized relationship between technology and civilization and since cold climate people used more technology, it’s logical to infer they used more intelligence.”
No it isn’t.
“IQ can be measured. Anything that can be measured reliably is a real thing.”
Doesn’t mean it’s “real”.
Then by what scientific standard do you decide if something’s real?
The independent verification was the molecular genetic evidence showing that hominins that trekked OoA had light skin, too.
That doesn’t verify anything because out of Africa there’s also more snow and ice which you claim selects for dark skin.
Reread what I wrote again. Variable, seasonal UVB exposure.
And how do you know how much UVB exposure someone’s ancestors got? Are you measuring UVB light from the sky or UVB light reflecting from the snow, sand, or sea? And what about dietary sources of vitamin D like fish, cheese and eggs?
All that’s been proven is an imperfect correlation between skin colour and distance from equator. You can’t claim that vitamin D is mediating this correlation unless controlling for ancestral sources of vitamin D reduces said correlation, and you’ve provided no measure of ancestral vitamin D sources, only just-so stories about fish and ice reflectors. If the Danish had black skin you could cite their high sea-food diet (much higher than Inuit’s) and all the UVB reflecting from the North Sea. A theory that can explain anything, can explain nothing.
This theory is every bit as ad hoc as Lynn’s, if not much more so; you’re just in denial.
“Arguments by definition are not circular. Example”
Arguments can never be circular?
Arguments based on definitions are not circular, which is different from saying by definition, arguments are not circular.
“It means there’s a scientifically recognized relationship between technology and civilization and since cold climate people used more technology, it’s logical to infer they used more intelligence.”
No it isn’t.
Yes it is
Also:
“P2) The hypothesis that trait X is an adaptation is independently verified if and only if it sucessfully predicts a novel fact (an observation that was not used in the construction of the hypothesis and would be expected if the trait were an adaptation and unexpected if the trait were a byproduct).
P3) No prediction of this nature is possible because the hypothesis that trait X is an adaptation is underdetermined by all possible observations (meaning there are no hallmarks of adaptation).”
well…?
You can “according to Wikipedia”, I’ll “according to philosophy”:
ad hoc hypothesis: A hypothesis, or theory, that cannot be verified independently of the phenomenon it’s supposed to explain. Ad hoc hypotheses always make a theory less simple–and therefore less credible.
https://quizlet.com/17576375/phil-103-chapter-9-flash-cards/
that’s the basic definition in philosophy of science.
“Then by what scientific standard do you decide if something’s real?”
Construct validity.
“That doesn’t verify anything because out of Africa there’s also more snow and ice which you claim selects for dark skin.”
Not at all. It was verified independently, the prediction was borne out by molecular genetic evidence. A novel fact was predicted therefor it was independently verified.
“And how do you know how much UVB exposure someone’s ancestors got? Are you measuring UVB light from the sky or UVB light reflecting from the snow, sand, or sea? And what about dietary sources of vitamin D like fish, cheese and eggs?”
See the map in Chaplan and Jablonski 2000.
Would you publish my arguments on CWT and VDH here so we can discuss more in depth?
“You can’t claim that vitamin D is mediating this correlation”
I definitely can with the knowledge I have regarding physiology.
“A theory that can explain anything, can explain nothing.”
The phrase is “a theory that can explain everything predicts nothing” and you should keep that in mind regarding the CWT because it didn’t predict a novel fact.
“This theory is every bit as ad hoc as Lynn’s, if not much more so; you’re just in denial”
No it’s not. How can something be “more ad hoc”?
“Arguments based on definitions are not circular, which is different from saying by definition, arguments are not circular.”
If you assume the conclusion in the premise then your begging the question.
“Yes it is”
The inference isn’t valid at all.
Just to be clear here, you deny that the VDH successfully predicted a novel fact?
Do you admit that I was right about an ad hoc hypothesis being a hypothesis that cannot be independently verified?
What is your response to my argument regarding EP hypotheses being just-so stories? Your objection to P1 wasn’t an objection at all.
Would you publish my arguments on CWT and VDH here so we can discuss more in depth?
Okay when i get home later today
Actually I think an article on the arctic skin color would be better. I’ll write something up and send it to you tonight. Thank you. So don’t publish the article I just showed.
Ok
“Genetic evidence shows white skin was selected. It can’t tell us whether the selection was natural or sexual.”
Now we’re getting somewhere.
The selection was natural. Sexual selection wouldn’t cause differential fitness regarding mortality and skin color. That was Diamond’s and Darwin’s view.
Sexual selection wouldn’t cause differential fitness regarding mortality and skin color
Evidence of genetic sweeps can’t tell you whether they were caused by differential mortality.
Their view that light skin evolved due to sexual selection. The VDH is king though.
There are rumous George Clooney is gay and his wife is a beard. I don’t get any sense looking at him that hes gay to be honest. He keeps it very well hidden if he does.
Will Smith I would suspect. The rumours are thats hes bisexual and a madame in new york has said to the media the smith ordered men for sex.
Tom Cruise….I think him and Zac Efron have seen carpet in a jewish producers bedroom up close…A LOT.
I could see will smith being gay. philosopher, were your parents born into poverty or are they self-made poor?
Both born into massive poverty.
Have you been sexually or physically abused? Or neglected? Have you had accidents or substance exposures that could explain your deep intellectual disability?
Afro, he would only describe his disability as hereditary.
True, be what he thinks has no sort of relevance.
The most interesting person to me of the 20th century is Dulles, or at least the work Dulles did from the ‘debunking’ of the Protocols of Zion, through the russian revolution, helping nazis in WW2 and the Cold War and the assassination of Kennedy.
Dulles is the beria of the West. Its a pretty direct comparison.
Beria killed Stalin once Stalin started talking about final solution type stuff for the jews, especially after the so called Doctor Scandal.
Dulles boss was McCloy, Rockefeller, Dillon and these other guys.
America hasn’t been a democracy in any sense of the word since JFKs death.
About 0.5% of the population of America or the West in general knows this. And if they do they think its just ‘corporations’ or ‘media/financial elites’ influencing politicians and voters. They don’t know that america is fundamentally in a structure where an oligarchy rules no matter who the president is.
This is why the downfall of Nixon is the greatest mystery of 20th century politics. He was their man. I don’t understand why they got rid of him.
Look at how Michael Forman from Citygroup named Obamas cabinet for him.
Why do you think Rahm Emmanual was made obamas chaperone?
Given enough time, all systems revert to an oligarchy. Even monarchies have magna carta moments. You will always get an idiot king and the other nobles will want to create a senate or chamber of lords type structure to make sure you don’t have another King John.
I would imagine given enough time, the Kim dynasty will be similarly neutered. Youll get an idiot king eventually and the generals will ask for a senate or something along those lines. People thinking N Korea will collapse are delusional. Because it suits the US (((elites))) to have an impotent bogeyman there.
It even suits the japanese and south korean elites to an extent.
But I do see a magna carta moment. Kind of like what the army generals did in Eygpt and Thailand.
Army generals are a direct descendant in theory to knights of the table..
I havent followed economics or finanical news in a long while. But of all the media, along with sport, weather, celeb gossip and local news, it would be the most accurate.
But sometimes you can still read between the lines. What that judge Griesa did for the argentinian bonds for Elliot was bribery to me. You don’t go back on decades of international law and practice and pretend parri passu now applies to junior bondholders who have previously accepted a payout.
That is one of the worst decisions I’ve seen. Very crooked. Reminds me of italian football refereering.
2 night ago a guy bruce lee kicked a guy and the referee booked the guy for complaining about it. HAHAHAHAHAH.
Theres a giant controversy in Italy over that game. GO on youtube and watch pjanic’s bruce lee impression.
pretty sure this is a video of afro.
who’s “pjanic”?
Im not a lawyer, but citizens united does make sense in a weird way if you suggest groups of people should be allowed advertise. The judges basically said corporations are collectives of people too. Ergo, they should bribe politicans all they want.
IMO, the judges are not autistic like that. Judge Roberts knows this is basically allowing corporate bribery. He can pretend its about free speech all he wants.
The judges are crooked.
If you believed in democracy, and not oligarchy you would find a reason to not allow it. As it wasn’t allowed before based on precedent decisions either.
Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and co are toadies.
In the same way, nothing in the original constitution is antagonistic to jim crow. But the Warren court found ‘reasons’ to ‘do the right thing’ and put ADD low IQ barbarian black kids with white kids.
Judges should use common sense. We all know the law is a joke. Show some courage and make the right call for posterity. These people are smart enough to know right from wrong.
Citizens United makes perfect sense. To say otherwise is to say a media corporation can be censored in what it prints and distributes, which makes no sense. It’s not ‘bribing.’ And what difference is there between a single, rich individual doing the same thing and a corporation doing so? None. Direct campaign contributions are already tightly regulated…
And no, Citizens United is well-grounded in precedent. If anything Citizens United moved away from more recent, restrictive precedent.
And while nothing in the original constitution is antagonistic to Jim Crow, the 14th amendment certainly is — even from its inception. Not only that, but people bitch and moan about “judicial activism” and how judges aren’t supposed to do the right thing:
The judicial power in the constitution explicitly extends to all cases arising in law and equity.
Equitable relief typically is limited to injunctive remedies (such as integration!), and equity concerns matters of fairness where application of the rigid rules of the common law would work an injustice.
Brown v. Board is just the court using its constitutionally granted equitable power.
So while the law is a joke, it’s a joke you don’t get 😀
rich individual doing the same thing and a corporation doing so?
Look at bill gates balance sheet. Look at microsoft’s balance sheet.
oh…okay, so by that yardstick i guess we shouldn’t let rich individuals advertise and instead let poor individuals do so. one’s freedom of speech should be limited by the amount of influence they have.
such a joke, but you seem unable to come up with a good rule 🙂
You honestly dont see any difference between a corporation or a wealthy individual?
No?
Hahahahahahaha.
Direct campaign contributions are already tightly regulated…
100% meaningless.
how judges aren’t supposed to do the right thing:
yes you loser. they’re there to apply the law whether right or wrong.
whoever defends activist judges cannot be italian.
stop lying nastyswank.
Hahaha….so where is the line?
I guess the government should draw an arbitrary “too much power” point for free speech, thus making precedent for it having the power to explicitly strip disfavored entities and groups of free speech….?
Lol such a joke and yet the punchline is you, Ronnie.
yes you loser. they’re there to apply the law whether right or wrong
100% meaningless.
whoever defends activist judges cannot be italian.
there is no such thing as a “non-activist” judge.
you’re confusing Scalia’s rhetoric with the reality of Scalia — tell me Gonzalez v. Raich isn’t activist-as-fuck.
swank thinks umpires and referees should call the game for whoever pays them more.
Swank knows that that’s how world works anyway. And it’s less about who pays and what results the players believe in. They. believe in whatever they do.
There is no application of law without a personal value judgment.
Posner is the most honest judge. One of the few to see through Scalia.
But Scalia was probably the greatest justice. Unrivaled talent.
There was a situation before Citizens United with no mass bribery. There is a situation after. Corporations are a different ballgame to Sheldon Adelson. Evenwealthy individuals are not as fearsome without the ruling. They knew what they were doing. You even say yourself that they know what theyre doing. I simply said the judges are crooked. And its true.
the law is for amoral pseudo-intellectuals.
the common law system in particular is a crime against humanity.
every new law is just a jobs program for lawyers written by lawyers and voted on by lawyers.
DICK: The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.
https://goo.gl/images/fo4c3q
posner is a psuedo-intellectual and stupid.
as are ALL law professors.
and he’s a jew.
No, Phil, there was no such situation…it has always been an investor’s democracy.
Civilization is a crime against humanity. Civilization needs lawyers and laws.
The law is for people who understand how the world is and can extract justice from it, or in other cases, more suffering.
Most people don’t get it, though. It’s true.
I mean honestly….treating the law as an objective thing that is “known.” silly. But natural law, and theories of an objective law are also rhetorical gambits.
It’s all just arguing in favor or again at different ways of moving in a cultural space.
swank is SAD!
civil law = roman law.
(for the in-cognescenti: “common law” is the law of the anglosphere. “civil law” is the legal system of everywhere else and it’s ROMAN.)
swank != an italian.
the law may SOMETIMES require extensive special training and a high IQ for reasons of economic efficiency…
but these sometimes (possibilities) are few or non-existent.
and so far as they exist the point is…
the lawyers and judges are experts…NOT advocates.
enough!
swank’s pretending to be italian is TIRESOME.
and andrey vyshinsky is sufficient proof that the law can be IMMORAL.
and what about the “great jurists” of nazi germany?
if i were one of them i’d probably NOT quit.
but i’m a nazi.
those who believe that the NSDAP is the single worst thing ever…they should’ve quit.
rather than pretend they were judges.
and the YUGE thing about FEDERAL judges, left or right, is that they are…
NOT elected.
of course if one were opposed to the regime and had the power to subvert it…
the best thing to do would be to remain and subvert.
but the stress would be so great…
no nobleman or gentleman would ever endure such.
I THINK ITALIAN AMERICANS AND ITALIANS ARE STILL “FIGURING OUT” HOW THEY STAND TO THE NSDAP.
THEY’RE CONFLICTED.
FOR SO MANY REASONS:
1. ITALIAN-AMERICANS ARE STILL “DIFFERENT”.
2. ITALY IS THE BUTT-BOY OF THE EU.
3. BUT ROME DID HAVE A FEW NON-ITALIAN EMPERORS.
AND THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE WAS MOSTLY GERMANY.
roman law is not civil law. roman law influenced both the civil and the common law.
so…all law is roman law.
case in point: as if the Empire’s influence wasn’t enough…the principles and jurisprudence underlying equity courts (really, all courts now, since law and equity were merged) that you seem to despise comes from…
…
…
canon law.
and andrey vyshinsky is sufficient proof that the law can be IMMORAL.
no, he’s proof that people are mostly ruled by bias and prejudice and awed by power.
by the time a judge gets around to the ‘logic’ of a legal argument — if he views it as anything other than an excuse to do what he already wants to do, you lose. you’re a loser.
the law may SOMETIMES require extensive special training and a high IQ for reasons of economic efficiency…
but these sometimes (possibilities) are few or non-existent.
i disagree in the context of the modern State.
go try to hold a powerful institution responsible for wrongdoing and you’ll see what i mean.
there are too many lawyers, though, because most people aren’t cut out for it.
the lawyers and judges are experts…NOT advocates.
this doesn’t exist.
it’s just a convenient fiction.
make no mistake about it — lawyers are either saints fighting evil or demons upholding it. whether they know it or not.
Well, there certainly can be other reasons. But it certainly favors the Devil’s desires. I mean, c’mon, that’s the explanation for why there’s not demonic possession all over the place. That always puzzled me. What happened to the Devil, you know? He used to be all over the place. He used to be all over the New Testament.
He got wilier.
You’re looking at me as though I’m weird. My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the Devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the Devil! It’s in the Gospels! You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the Devil! Most of mankind has believed in the Devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the Devil.
if you’re a prosecutor or a judge and you believe the law is immoral the honorable thing to do is stop being a prosecutor or a judge not. the dishonorable thing is to deliberately misinterpret the law.
The law is neither moral or immoral. There is no such thing as deliberate misinterpretation. There are acts and arguments for why those acts are or are not prohibited..
and in this society the only chance most have at justice is one of those arguments.
When someone has lost everything because they were defrauded “legally” by a powerful financial institution….and the people you have to convince to hold those people accountable are in many ways in bed with those people….whining about the shitty system isn’t going to do anything.
^^^MORON^^^
subjectivity is not an element of the law at all.
that’s 100% jewish lies.
every single judge comes to the EXACT same conclusion if he follows the law and knows what it is.
original intent is the ONLY conceivable jurisprudence.
those who disagree are jews.
I would have been a terrible lawyer. I don’t believe in the law. As I said I dont even believe in presumption of innocence philosophically.
Au contraire ! Disbelieving law and innocence is the best start for being a superb lawyer.
so then you also don’t believe in a burden of proof, at all….
Law is all about proof and knowledge. But it is purely normative and procedural. You only have to prove or refutes that some laws apply to a given situation, and there can be plenty of reasons. It has nothing to do with believing the rule of law is a good thing and what determination would be fair or not.
Speaking about my burden of proof criticism, I would like to make some poit about the « just son theory » theory I ve just discovered through your debates .
If someone comes with what he believed is a proof of a given set of hypothesis, you can disprove him by :
– showing a contradiction in the theory by any logical rule
– illustrating that the theory is contradicted by certain facts
– coming with another theory wich is better, meaning either simpler or more general.
That’s good and well. But if for any science, say physics, you come and say the math formalism you employ is pure tautology and there is no proof it applies to reality, then you are doing a meta-critic of the science itself. It’s fair in general. But it’s a total fallacy in terms of your burden of proof for refuting an hypothesis .
So throwing « just so theory » predicate is just that . I don’t understand why people feel they have to answer anything else, to this kind of fallacy and inversion of the burden of proof, that They don’t have to answer any « just so argument » to defend their hypothesis.
Bruno, good point. The onus is on HBD deniers to come up with a better story, if they think HBD is a just-so-story.
Law is all about proof and knowledge
law is all about persuasion.
But it is purely normative and procedural.
no.
It has nothing to do with believing the rule of law is a good thing and what determination would be fair or not.
without those beliefs there’s no reason to have law or follow it at all.
see also: legitimacy
But if for any science, say physics, you come and say the math formalism you employ is pure tautology and there is no proof it applies to reality,
if it ‘doesn’t apply to reality’ then it isn’t science, dummkopf.
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” Richard ‘Apparently Knows Less About Physics Than You’ Feynman
The onus is on HBD deniers to come up with a better story, if they think HBD is a just-so-story.
No, it isn’t.
A theory stands and falls on its own merit.
Bruno, good point. The onus is on HBD deniers to come up with a better story, if they think HBD is a just-so-story.
No, that’s a very bad point actually. It’s like saying the role of a defense lawyer is to find another suspect. Wrong, The job of a defense lawyer is to deny the veracity of an accusation, and if he’s successful, there is no conviction.
The burden of proof is always on claimants. Exposing the flaws of a claim is not making another claim. One principle of the philosophy of science is that we get closer to truth by ruling out hypotheses rather than by working to confirm hypotheses, which can help rationalizing anything.
Science isn’t court. The job of a hypothesis is not to prove beyond a reasonable doubt but to come up with the best explanation currently available.
No, the role of science is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt because the main role of science is to find out how we can change things. Just-so stories can’t lead to applied science.
No, the role of science is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
False. Who killed the Neanderthals? Modern humans, the ice age, a volcano, or were they not killed at all but absorbed through outbreeding. None of these suspects are even close to proven guilty, yet some of these hypotheses enjoy far more scientific support than others.
Just-so stories can’t lead to applied science.
Just-not so stories can’t either.
False. Who killed the Neanderthals? Modern humans, the ice age, a volcano, or were they not killed at all but absorbed through outbreeding. None of these suspects are even close to proven guilty, yet some of these hypotheses enjoy far more scientific support than others.
This is not a scientific question, it is a historical question that is probably unsolvable. So agnosticism is the sole reasonable option.
Just-not so stories can’t either.
These aren’t stories.
All evolutionary theories are historical.
Yes, and history is not a science.
Learn the difference between “THE” theory of evolution, which is scientific, and trait-specific evolutionary stories which are more often than not purely conjectural.
Yes, and history is not a science.
They’re not mutually exclusive. Science is a tool for gaining knowledge about almost any subject, including history. Ever heard of archeology? The scientific study of our past? The theory of evolution is the ULTIMATE history. Make up your mind: Is HBD pseudoscience or pseudohistory?
And history’s not court either. Historians adopt theories, not because they’re proven beyond reasonable doubt or even because they’re more likely than not, but because they’re better than alternative theories.
They’re not mutually exclusive. Science is a tool for gaining knowledge about almost any subject, including history. Ever heard of archeology?
Archaeology isn’t a science, it’s an investigation technique. History is the interpretation of archaeology and other clues.
The theory of evolution is the ULTIMATE history.
No, the theory of evolution just tells us how traits can evolve, it doesn’t explain why traits are the way they are.
And history’s not court either.
History and criminal investigation are very much the same thing, trying to find out who did what. The only difference is that historical facts don’t go to trial, and there is no judge to settle historical controversies.
Make up your mind: Is HBD pseudoscience or pseudohistory?
“pseudohistory” = mythology. HBD is a pseudoscientific mythology.
Historians adopt theories, not because they’re proven beyond reasonable doubt or even because they’re more likely than not, but because they’re better than alternative theories.
Whatever, historical narratives are all filled ideology and almost none is non-controversial.
Swank, slicing two independent arguments, mixing them, and invoking a physisist name auctoritas, is a joke
I didn’t say the only critic is internal inconsistencies. Show facts that contradict the hypothesis is the main option. Coming with a better theory is another one. The first one is the true realm of math. It’s also good for spotting failures and improving theories. But meta-critic is not a way to go and doesn’t need to be answered . Science can’t work if you’re always going back to ontology and metaphysics questions . Even math wouldn’t advance it it bothered answerering all foundations questions ( Gödel, Kantor, Intuitionism etc )
You show a contradiction. You show a fact that doesn’t fit. You show a better hypothesis.
If you only say « just so », you should be answered « just so »
And yet another option is showing that the evidence offered in support of the original theory or hypothesis is insufficient.
If you believe god created the earth in seven days because there are seven days of the week…it’s fine to point out that the fact that there are seven days in the week doesn’t really support the claim.
You need to meet your initial burden before anyone is obligated to present counter evidence.
Math isn’t science, first of all.
And meeting the burden of proof != foundational anything.
Bruno,
“If someone comes with what he believed is a proof of a given set of hypothesis, you can disprove him by:
– coming with another theory wich is better, meaning either simpler or more general.”
You don’t need another theory to reject just-so stories (ad-hoc hypotheses).
“They don’t have to answer any « just so argument » to defend their hypothesis.”
The onus is on the EPer. What observation would disconfirm the notion that a hypothesized adaptation is a byproduct and vice versa? No observation can disconfirm either the adaption or byproduct explanation so both explanations are just-so stories.
That’s the crux here. There’s no non-ad-hoc EP hypothesis.
PP,
“The onus is on HBD deniers to come up with a better story, if they think HBD is a just-so story.”
No the onus is not on the skeptics. The onus is on the EPer to show that the hypothesized adaptation isn’t a byproduct. What observation can confirm or disconfirm said hypothesis? No observation can confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis therefore all EP hypotheses are just-so stories.
“The job of a hypothesis is not to prove beyond a reasonable doubt but to come up with the best explanation currently available.”
You don’t need another hypothesis to reject just-so stories.
Afro,
“No, that’s a very bad point actually. It’s like saying the role of a defense lawyer is to find another suspect. Wrong, The job of a defense lawyer is to deny the veracity of an accusation, and if he’s successful, there is no conviction.”
Good point. That analogy shows the ridiculousness of them clamoring for a” better story “.
To take your (weak) analogy with criminal law, if someone gives you evidence that a suspect is the criminal , you can 1) show that the evidence is contradictory 2) show a fact that the evidence can’t explain wich is an alibi or any exculpatory reason or 3) have a better suspect identified by another hypothesis .
So it applies perfectly . Each case allows to disprove the evidence. But your a guy coming with a claim like the court not being able to prove it is not biased against the working class and that the court procedure is a isomorphism with truth and fairness, all evidence is a just so theory …. You re argument is a just so argument RR.
Then , I consider interesting that you pick up some facts to challenge theories presented here but you shouldn’t put those facts you ve been collecting or thinking about by yourself in fallacious arguments nor conclude with some Pavlovian just so argument
« If you believe god created the earth in seven days because there are seven days of the week…it’s fine to point out that the fact that there are seven days in the week doesn’t really support the claim. »
—> here you can show the argument is contradictory because you could say God created the world in 3 652 422 days because there are the days in a century of centuries. You don’t have a because here because it’s inconsistent. So it’s the easiest way to falsify the claim.
“You re argument is a just so argument RR.”
What’s my argument? How is is just so?
Bruno, “just-so” = “juste comme ça”. Just so stories refer to hypotheses that explain things “just comme ça”, because they sound good.
To take your (weak) analogy with criminal law, if someone gives you evidence that a suspect is the criminal , you can 1) show that the evidence is contradictory 2) show a fact that the evidence can’t explain wich is an alibi or any exculpatory reason or 3) have a better suspect identified by another hypothesis .
N°3 isn’t necessary. You don’t need an alternative explanation to prove that something is true or false. You don’t need to find a suspect to prove the innocence of someone.
Afro, I know, that’s why it is a disjunction . You can do any of the 3 . Maybe there are other ways , I don’t see yet, but I am pretty sure that « not enough » and « your science isn’t a science « are meta-critics that are not udefull. They have a place in a foundational debate – like saying special sciences aren’t real sciences because they don’t have non cp laws – but that’s not a valid argument against an hypothesis made in the context of one of those special sciences (or any science or math ) . Here, in this site, the burden of the proof is so upside down, that I understand that it can seem counter-intuitive . And then, it’s ok to say population genetics or evolutionary psy is bullshit for X,Y and Z but it is another level .
“You re argument is a just so argument RR.”
What’s my argument? How is is just so?
—->
Each time you say « bla bla just so theory » you make a « bla bla just so argument » that just be treated like what it is, a « bla bla just so argument »
Even if Lewontin has made good science , when he came up with this tag, it was just a fallacy that should be treated as such in my opinion .
How is it fallacious to call EP hypotheses just-so stories when they can’t be independently verified?
Bruno: things are very simple, a hypothesis isn’t valid because it “sounds good”, it’s valid if it can be tested in agreement with the scientific method. Nothing in evolutionary psychology meets these requirements. It can be frustrating to some but that’s just how it is.
How is it fallacious to call EP hypotheses just-so stories when they can’t be independently verified?
—> if you can prove an hypothesis is unfalsiable, it s per se an inconsistency, and then you got my point 1, you have refuted the theory. But you have to prove that showing the theory would be consistent with mutually exclusive related propositions . Saying it’s a just so theory , doesn’t prove anything , because it’s a just so argument .
I didn’t see any such demonstration in your critic .
Is this a just-so argument?
P1) A just-so story is an ad-hoc hypothesis
P2) A hypothesis is ad-hoc if it’s not independently verified (verified independently of the data the hypothesis purports to explain)
P3) EP hypotheses cannot be independently verified
C) Therefore EP hypotheses are just-so stories
“But you have to prove that showing the theory would be consistent with mutually exclusive related propositions”
I only need to show that they can’t be independently verified; if the hypothesis explains what it sets out to explain and nothing else, it it makes no testable, risky, and correct novel predictions it’s a just-so story.
The just-so argument is a conceptual, not empirical, argument.
Is everything you believe Race independently empirically verified and stamped ‘approved by unbiased scientists’ out of interest?
“THE” theory of evolution, which is scientific
not by popper’s definition of “science”.
“Make up your mind: Is HBD pseudoscience or pseudohistory?”
What would falsify the broad terminology of “HBD”? Because Humans are Biologically Diverse, no one denies that.
How do you define “history”? “Psuedohistory”? “Science”? “Pseudoscience”?
HBD will be falsified if genomic predictors (based on sample sizes of at least 1 million people taking a highly g loaded test) fail to predict at least a 5 point IQ gap between races.
Genomic predictors are impossible. The “Hsu boundary” will be hit with, still yet ~15 percent variance explained, if that, and then he’ll up it to 10 million. Then 100 million. Then 1 billion. Then 10 billion. Whoops.
What do you define as pseudohistory? Pseudoscience? Science? History?
Even 15% of the variance will be enough to detect racially genetic IQ differences if they exist, especially between the most disparate groups like Ashkenazi Jews vs Bushmen
It’d be a huge failure. I’m talking about just individual differences and variance explained, not “IQ-test-genes”, “real intelligence”, because IQ tests test learned skills and knowledge, not “intelligence”.
There would be genetic differences between them. Then what? Functional trait analysis to ascertain molecular genetic pathways how the variance is caused between the genes that make the proteins that eventually lead to the trait in question?
And you’re talking about IQ, it isn’t construct valid so you can’t logically say that IQ tests test “intelligence”.
On what planet is IQ not construct valid? What nonsense have you been reading?
On planet earth. Source that it’s construct valid?
What is “HBD” to you? You can “believe in” “HBD” by my definition without believing just-so stories and reductionist paradigms.
You only believe in genetic diversity from the neck down. For anything in the brain, you believe in just-not so stories.
Any hypotheses that are not independently verified are just-so stories. You’d be correct to say physical appearance, not ‘the neck down’.
There’s no evidence that ‘intelligence’ needs differ between continents, nor for any “intelligence-enhancing” genes within or between continents.
Just-so stories are hypotheses that cannot be independently verified. I “believe in” hypotheses that can be independently verified. Therefore I would “believe in” hypotheses “from the neck up” if they were independently veritable but all EP hypotheses are just-so stories.
No RR literally said a few days ago he only believes in HBD in so far that people have genes that make a certain phenotype appear in appearence only. He doesn’t exact the various races have differing IQs, athletic abilities, personalities, schiz/autist lean or anything else. Am I wrong race?
Basically hes an academic sociologist in terms of how he thinks human beings are because even most sociologists would accept that certain races have genes for black hair, brown eyes etc etc. But don’t buy my theory that these appearences can be read into. This is ‘stereotype threat’. So when I saw blacks look like the orcs in the lord of the rings they go mental.
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.weapons-universe.com%2FBrands%2FUnited_Cutlery%2FLord_of_the_Rings%2FUruk_Hai_Swords.jpg&f=1
Come on. Seriously? You don’t think that looks like an african?
People were saying in Harry Potter how racist JK Rowling was to make the goblins a very thinly veiled overture to jews.
The goblins owned the wizard banking system by the way.
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-MoRQV8tFT-Q%2FTrO399JigtI%2FAAAAAAAATcI%2F8BWug26xTT4%2Fs1600%2FHarryPotterStone_077Pyxurz.jpg&f=1
HAHAHAHA.
If Mel Gibson did that in his movies, the jews would [redacted by pp, May 2, 2018]
PP re construct validity.
In scientific method, generally, we accept external, observable, differences as a valid measure of an unseen function when we can mechanistically relate differences in one to differences in the other (e.g., height of a column of mercury and blood pressure; white cell count and internal infection; erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and internal levels of inflammation; breath alcohol and level of consumption). Such measures are valid because they rely on detailed, and widely accepted, theoretical models of the functions in question. There is no such theory for cognitive ability nor, therefore, of the true nature of individual differences in cognitive functions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557354/
Do you have a source that satisfies these requirements?
Phil, the orcs look like europeans since they have very little to no prognathism, rectangular light coloured eyes, pointy noses and tend to be of ligher complexion. The goblins are obiously jews though 🙂
Afro.
“No, the role of science is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt because the main role of science is to find out how we can change things.”
That’s patently false. Nothing in science is right it’s only less wrong than the next theory. Not even physical laws are immune to this.
“No, the theory of evolution just tells us how traits can evolve, it doesn’t explain why traits are the way they are.’
A big part of evolution’s evidence is the archaeological record, which is obviously a historical interest.
“Nothing in evolutionary psychology meets these requirements.”
That’s also not true. Most theories on encephaliztaion are by extension EP theories. The only requirements for a hypothesis’ validity is that:
1) it be falsifiable
2) that it survives falsification attempts
The instruments used to analyse these studies naturally progress, soft sciences depend on applied ones.
RR,
“No observation can confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis therefore all EP hypotheses are just-so stories.”
Probabilistic causation:
“interpreting causation as a deterministic relation means that if A causes B, then A must always be followed by B. In this sense, war does not cause deaths, nor does smoking cause cancer. As a result, many turn to a notion of probabilistic causation. Informally, A probabilistically causes B if A’s occurrence increases the probability of B. This is sometimes interpreted to reflect imperfect knowledge of a deterministic system but other times interpreted to mean that the causal system under study has an inherently indeterministic nature. (Propensity probability is an analogous idea, according to which probabilities have an objective existence and are not just limitations in a subject’s knowledge).”
Theories are not static objects, neither are they all equal in validation. Swank is right, Science is not math.
“In scientific method, generally, we accept external, observable, differences as a valid measure of an unseen function when we can mechanistically relate differences in one to differences in the other (e.g., height of a column of mercury and blood pressure; white cell count and internal infection; erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and internal levels of inflammation; breath alcohol and level of consumption). Such measures are valid because they rely on detailed, and widely accepted, theoretical models of the functions in question. There is no such theory for cognitive ability nor, therefore, of the true nature of individual differences in cognitive functions.”
It’d probably help if you didn’t take your information form outdated sources:
https://www.clinph-journal.com/article/S1388-2457(17)31188-4/fulltext
Their cognitive reserve measure indexed education, occupation, leisure activities, as well as IQ. They also generated a neural efficiency measure that is based on a neurophysiological measure, P300, and performances measures, all captured during the attention task. They found that among older healthy adults, higher cognitive reserve was associated with higher neural efficiency during their performance on the attention task. In contrast, this advantage that cognitive reserve imparts on older healthy adults is compromised among older adults with aMCI as they found no association between cognitive reserve and neural efficiency in performing the attention task among aMCI participants. More importantly, neural efficiency accounted for 34% of the relationship between cognitive reserve and performance on the attention task.”
“Recently, a neurophysiological study in vivo demonstrated that while neuroplasticity is impaired in the frontal lobes of patients with early Alzheimer’s dementia, it is still present (Kumar et al., 2017). Further, there was an association between the neurophysiological measure of neuroplasticity and working memory performance. Taken together, these studies suggest that enhancing neuroplasticity and, consequently, cognitive reserve could be a promising strategy to prevent cognitive decline and dementia among subjects with early Alzheimer’s dementia or at risk of developing.”
What observation can disconfirm a byproduct hypothesis for any so-called adaptive trait since byproduct hypotheses can explain the data just as much, if not better, the adaptationist stories? Probabilistic causation is not relevant to the objections about EP hypotheses posed.
“It’d probably help if you didn’t take your information form outdated sources”
a cohort of 39 aMCI patients and 46 HC
Guo et al (2018) call IQ and “environmental factor” for the record.
Small sample, old population, a few large limitations. Yawn.
The concept of mechanistically relating one variable to the other is how a measure becomes construct valid—along with an agreed-upon theory, and no, P-FIT is not that theory nor is it “subsequent evidence for construct validity.
That’s patently false. Nothing in science is right it’s only less wrong than the next theory. Not even physical laws are immune to this.
A lot of things are right in science, try to inhale some carbon monoxide or throw yourself from the top of the Empire State Building, what will happen to you will leave no room for interpretation.
A big part of evolution’s evidence is the archaeological record, which is obviously a historical interest.
And? History is not a science. History is even non-scientific by principle, because science is only scientific when it allows to make predictions about future or unknown events, and pseudoscience can only rationalize past and present patterns without making accurate predictions about unknown facts.
That’s also not true. Most theories on encephaliztaion are by extension EP theories. The only requirements for a hypothesis’ validity is that:
And no theory of encephalization is falsifiable, that’s why there are so many of them and why they are exclusive to each other to some degree.
“what will happen to you will leave no room for interpretation.”
My point, is that science is not static. Mercury was once a contradiction to Netwon’s theory of Gravity, until Lorentz ad Albert Einstein came along.
“And?”
And, Evolution explains Future and past events, it’s validity absolutely hinges on it’s ability to predict the past. Fossil evidence is important, other wise long term evolution cannot be a tenable concept. All 3 scientists I named above attempted to explain past events. Sorry, but you can’t handwave this time.
“And no theory of encephalization is falsifiable”
They are all falsifiable, and almost all mutually inclusive.
My point, is that science is not static. Mercury was once a contradiction to Netwon’s theory of Gravity, until Lorentz ad Albert Einstein came along.
Not all scientific theories are equally mature, but they are all based on methodology that agrees with the scientific method.
And, Evolution explains Future and past events, it’s validity absolutely hinges on it’s ability to predict the past.
Nope, the sole validations of the theory of evolution are breeding and eugenics.
Fossil evidence is important, other wise long term evolution cannot be a tenable concept.
Fossil evidence can only lead to interpretation, it can’t be the basis for experiments.
All 3 scientists I named above attempted to explain past events. Sorry, but you can’t handwave this time.
No, quite the opposite actually, their theories were validated when the risky predictions they made were found to be accurate.
They are all falsifiable, and almost all mutually inclusive.
No.
“but they are all based on methodology that agrees with the scientific method.”
Right and no concept i’ve produced has ignored this methodology. If you disagree provide examples.
“Nope, the sole validations of the theory of evolution are breeding and eugenics.”
…..no, if we found a rabbit in the layers of rock that we usually find Cambrian fossils, it would falsify evolution. Evolution=/= Natural selection. Making sure the fossil record lines up with our understanding of evolution is imperative.
“it can’t be the basis for experiments.”
How so?
“No, quite the opposite actually, their theories were validated when the risky predictions they made were found to be accurate.”
I wasn’t talking about what validated them, you stated:”pseudoscience can only rationalize past and present patterns without making accurate predictions about unknown facts.”
Only***** This is crucial, because rationalizing the past doesn’t make it unscientific as long as there is some form of independent verification.
“No.”
How is the SBH, CLASH, or CIH unfalsifiable? Propensity probability, allows Correlates to be falsifiable.
“The job of a hypothesis is not to prove beyond a reasonable doubt but to come up with the best explanation currently available.”
that’s not science though
the prediction itself is science [eg, negroes are dull in the mind]
the just-so story isn’t [the negro brain has two bumps in the back of the skull causing his genetic stupidity]
Fenoopy, the point is RR arbitrarily accepts some evolutionary theories as valid (distance from equator selecting for light skin) but dismisses others as just-so stories (distance from equator selecting for high IQ).
“Fenoopy, the point is RR arbitrarily accepts some evolutionary theories as valid (distance from equator selecting for light skin) but dismisses others as just-so stories (distance from equator selecting for high IQ).”
It’s not ‘arbitrary’; I accept hypotheses/theories that can be independently verified; ad-hoc hypotheses are not independently verified.
Sans independent verification, the hypothesis that trait X is an adaptation is underdetermined by all possible observations (meaning there are no hallmarks of adaptation).
Therefore, any adaptationist explanations that are not independently verified and do not predict novel facts are just-so stories. The argument is flawless.
light-skin in the intense light [present at the equator] leads to higher rates of skin cancer and an early death.
certain factors present at the equator [intense light] kill those with light skin [reproducible scientific fact].
i dont see how this is a just-so story? bumps on the back of the negro skull causing low-iq is a just-so story
Fenoopy, that doesn’t explain why every race except Inuit turned white when they entered the cold
yeah i just read part of the debate and tbh to me the vitamin d hypothesis is 100% just-so story
dark skin necessary for survival in intense light is science
light skin necessary for survival in the cold [vitamin d] is evidently a just so story in my humble opinion
the simple answer to why is white people skin white is: we don’t fucking know, but probably: [list of stuff]
It’s not a just-so story, a novel prediction was made, that UVB exposure would show that hominin that migrated OoA would have light skin. This was borne out by genomic evidence (see Chaplan and Jablonski 2009), thus, it successfully predicted a novel fact, therefore it’s not a just-so story.
lmao inuit being darker skin than euros because they eat fatty fish made me laugh, trying so hard to jam the wrong puzzle piece into the wrong spot
It’s not temperature or distance from the equator that predicts skin color but local ultraviolet exposure. And that snow reflects UV rays is a basic fact of physics that we learn in middle school. It’s 100% scientific.
(RR) Temperature does not predict intelligence because there are no markers connecting the cold with its increase. What RR is saying is correlation vs causation. A prediction has causal markers. Currently, he says cold is correlated with intelligence and that’s not a prediction. They need causal A predict B stuff as proof. And what not, such and such. blah, blah. He says he doesn’t see any prediction.
(I still think the cold thing works out, stronger group intelligence to survive the cold)
I would have been a terrible lawyer.
You’ve been fired 15 times, so you’re basically good for nothing.
at least he’s not black.
Law is a joke. It doesn’t apply to powerful people. You can run a peadophile ring on behalf of a foreign power to entrap politicans, and the law won’t apply.