[Please place off-topic comments in open threads like this one, and not in the main articles]
One of the ironies of the Friday the 13th movies is Jason is supposed to be mentally retarded, and yet he has the most creative kills of any slasher in the genre. Indeed comparing the way Jason kills people to the way any pre-1980s slasher kills people is like comparing humans before and after 50 kya (the date when some scientists think behavioral modernity blossomed).
Before 50 kya, humans generally could only make artifacts out of only stones. After 50 kya they suddenly started making them out of bone, antler, ivory and shell.
Similarly before 1980, U.S. slashers could only kill with knives, saws, and their hands. After 1980, they started killing with axes, pitch forks, machetes, cork-screws. You name it!
Of course the one killing weapon no self-respecting slasher will use is as a gun. Watching Halloween IV with a large group of people, there was one scene where it looked like Michael Myers was about to shoot someone with a rifle. People watching the movie were booing, moaning and hissing. “C’mon man” complained one black guy.
But when the crowd realized Michael had other plans for the gun besides shooting it, the crowd went wild with approval.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFbViuweg4s
The question is why don’t we want our slashers using guns? Here’s my just-so story: Guns have only existed for a short period of time, by contrast primates have been slabbed, slashed and hacked for millions of years, so there’s been far more time to evolve an innate fear towards these methods of violence, and so they better fit the scary atmosphere horror fans seek.
At the 47 minute mark in the below video (hat-tip to commenter Bruno), Richard Dawkins and Stephen Pinker talk about how what we fear has more to do with what was threatening in our prehistoric past than what is threatening to us today, implying these fears are not rational, but hardwired instincts. I think most of us fear even harmless snakes because our ancestors spent millions of years being eaten by snakes in the Africa Savannah:
Pumpkin Person 
Any object or abstract symbol can be used as a tool.
The combinations of tools and what a tool can do is a matter of intelligence.
What can I use this object/symbol for?
How many can I use together complexly?
What can I keep in mind at once?
Something remarkable is the incredible humility of Dawkins. He is so well mannered he makes himself look as a dummy . Pinker doesn’t seem to notice and answer as he were Joe Rogan …. Dawkins never try to brink the other into his territory. And when he is lectured on selfish gene metaphor, he does as he were an undergrad student even if he invented it !
Pinker answers to many RR like questions in this video too.
Pumpkin you are probably in European time zone now (of so I hope). I am one or the few French person working on Bastille day today. But tomorrow I am out for Holidays until September.
Vive la France 😉
“Pinker answers to many RR like questions in this video too.”
He’s a just-so storyteller, of course he “answers” many of them, but whether or not they’re sufficient “explanations” (like his storytelling) is a different matter altogether.
Dawkins? Humility? Are you fucking serious?
Is Sam Harris and Peterson worth going to see? Apparently they have this show that moves around Europe and if all they are going to ‘debate’ is religion and belief I’d rather watch football.
I genuinely think I’m at the point or nearly of not really being in a position to learn much from other people. Maybe its arrogance. But the vast majority of ‘public intellectuals’ don’t tell me anything I don’t already know or engage in a fake debate for stagecraft reasons.
As ive said, Peterson knows Linda gottfreidsson and have cited her.
I think pumpkin might be right about your mental faculties.
here is peterson citing Steve Sailer, how much further does he have to go not to be autistic in your opinion?
What is your analysis of jordan posting Steve sailor? if just one SJW gets too mad about this then maybe jordan will be responsible infront of a ton of people, and stev sailer get popular on reddit.
If a public intellectual was honest he would endorse, publicly, HBD and say this means that open borders and certain ethnic minorities will be more of an issue than others.
But because we live under a kind of secret occupation by high IQ trolls, we all have to walk around pretending people with intense autism like Peterson or Bill Gates or Buffet are ‘thought leaders’ or spend a few years in college having an autistic person tell us how the world works. Its quite comical, sad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_mKAjNC5SQ
This is the reason listening to Peterson might be a waste of time, even if he is actually right about things. Its quite funny a psychology professor has autism. But there you go. You’ve heard my explanation for why there are so many autistic people in academia despite them being a small % of the population.
There has to be a bell curve in social intelligence just as in IQ. So it is not just Autism that is the problem. High socially intelligent people will see people below them as more Autistic even if they are above average in the social intelligence curve. TV politics if for the middle of the bell curve. I don’t care at all so I don’t care about Soros or Finestein. Or anyone in elite power structures. I do not care who owns CNN or Fox. I have bare minimum above average IQ and Social intelligence. I hear Alex Jone name people and conspiracy terms but I don’t look into it. Your different because your IQ and SIQ are like 128. You don’t believe in lizard people David Icke style.
How much SIQ does it take to realize Alex Jone and David Icke it crap?
What does it say about a person that believes everything they say?
They are the mainstream conspiracy guys and others.
Not everyone in the middle of the curve is into them, bost most are.
The middle is autistic that way even if being into conspiracies is a sigh against autism.
there’s no evidence philosopher has a high social IQ. he’s better at spotting ethnic motives than everyone here except me, but he doesn’t understand the mechanics of how these interests are advanced and he doesn’t understand how nerds and non-psychopaths think.
PP is right when it comes to autism.
Most children fail the same test when they are young, for autist it tends to develop differently and slower, so its more nuanced thant what a false belief test could meassure.
“Mind Blindness” is what Professor Cohen calls it. This isn’t a problem when studying rocks or chemicals, but its a big problem when discussing even animals and especially humans and its an even bigger problem when watching the news and trying not to turn into Tom Parsons.
“Husband to Mrs. Parsons, and Winston’s neighbor and coworker. Tom is a heavy, sweaty, simple man whom Winston despises for his unquestioning acceptance of everything the Party tells him. Parsons is active in his community groups, and appears to truly believe Party claims and doctrine. However, his daughter eventually denounces him to the Thought Police, claiming he was saying “Down with Big Brother” in his sleep. Winston sees Tom while imprisoned in the Ministry of Love, and Tom is ironically proud of his seven-year-old daughter for having done her duty.”
IQ is a social construction.
Just like even and odd numbers.
But like even and odd numbers its useful to think about them that way just like its useful to know Bill Gates has a 170 IQ and the social intelligence of a small forest animal.
If Bill isn’t trolling, which I doubt he even knows how to do, then he is really in a bad way and I’d put him close to rain man levels of autism.
Actually bill has a very dry sense of humor, but nerd humor flies over your head because you’re not that bright.
Rain Man was a decent movie actually. I like Hoffman as an actor. He’s very good.
A lot of people believe Tom Cruise is legit autistic. Of course that term gets thrown around by people who have no idea what they’re talking about.
How can you be an actor and be autistic? Thats nonsense.
How can bill gates start a business with thousands of employees and know who to partner with and know how to ripoff IBM & apple and be autistic?
A lot of people who have interacted with Cruise in real life say he always acts like this:
https://youtu.be/qQgXEkL3NV4
In other words, over-the-top, phony, and insincere.
Of course that could just be sociopathy and not autism.
GondwanaMan, It might also be social isolation, all he knows is his career.
Pumpkin, Good comeback.
Well in the movie Tom Cruise brings rain man to a casino and rain man’s math IQ is so high he can count the cards instantly and all that.
And so, when I say a lot of tech billionaires are kind of like Rain Man who went to casino and did a moonshot bet programming some app or website, I don’t understand why people say Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates can be that much different Rain Mans situation.
I bet you never heard of all the other social media websites that failed who also had Rain Man people.
For some reason you see these moonshots as evidence they must be socially savvy and not just card counting cases.
I don’t understand why people say Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates can be that much different Rain Mans situation.
They’re like Rain Man in that their systems IQ > social IQ
They’re unlike Rain Man in that their overall IQ is 110 points higher, driving all their abilities way up
It’s like comparing a house cat to a tiger because they’re both cats and assuming they’re both equally ferocious.
Exactly, Rain Man’s IQ was retarded range. Like most savants his genius was extremely limited in scope. Bill Gate’s is at least 160 overall (I think you said???)….his social IQ would likely be in the average range, at least.
“his social IQ would likely be in the average range, at least.”
How many videos do i need to post? Its not like hes acting in them
Most people dont think africans have adhd and too stupid to do trigonometry.
of course, the high math IQ or whatever likely comes from the fact that autistic people repetitively practice whatever task leads to the highly developed skill — demonstrating yet again the practice effect, if true. IIRC it is ‘math/perfromance’ IQ that is most subject to improvement through practice.
When normal people watch this video, they see bill gates talking about social issues and that.
I see a dancing bear. And certain ethnic groups giggling or stifling laughter as Gates endorses DACA and makes the case these 800,000 latino children will all be nobel prize winners.
pill’s mind blindness prevents him from realizing Gates opposes immigration.
Here is what Gates said:
‘On the one hand you want to demonstrate generosity and take in refugees. But the more generous you are, the more word gets around about this — which in turn motivates more people to leave Africa.Germany cannot possibly take in the huge number of people who are wanting to make their way to Europe.‘
Everything he said was good in my opinion.
Im against illegal immigration though. Phil, what do you think are the reason for all of these central americans moving to america, what if corporations wouldnt employ them? do you think corporations is the reason? it seems to me like a wall would be very expensive and hard to be usefull, what do you think the remedies should be.
Certain ex former commenters who are super irritating and really deserve lifetime bans would like this video.
BTW, Bills wife might have autism as well.
MYSTIC MEG: Look into the crystal ball my dahling, what do you see?
Bill Gates Wife: I see dilapidated schools and children sleeping in raw sewage. Why has this happened here?
MYSTIC MEG: It has come to be for many of the same reasons you came to be here in a position, and inclination, to ask this question, my dahling.
Bill Gates Wife: STOP TALKING IN RIDDLES!
“I think most of us fear even harmless snakes because our ancestors spent millions of years being eaten by snakes in the Africa Savannah”
Just-so stories. And even then, it’s not even a particularly good just-so story because the risk from spiders is exaggerated—there aren’t many venomous spiders in Africa, therefore only a few spiders “caused” this “innate fear of snakes.”
Quote from philosopher Robert Richardson’s book Evolutionary Psychology as Maladapted Psychology:
On this view, at least some human fears (but not all) are given explanations in evolutionary terms. So a fear of snakes or spiders, like our fear of strangers and heights, serves to protect us from dangers. Having observed that snakes and spiders are always scary, and not only to humans, but other primates, Steven Pinker (1997: 386) says “The common thread is obvious. These are the situations that put our evolutionary ancestors in danger. Spiders and snakes are often venomous, especially in Africa…. Fear is the emotion that motivated our ancestors to cope with the dangers they were likely to face” (cf. Nesse 1990). This is a curious view, actually. Spiders offer very little risk to humans, aside from annoyance. Most are not even venomous. There are perhaps eight species of black widow, one of the Sydney funnel web, six cases of brown recluses in North and South America, and one of the red banana spider in Latin America. These do present varying amounts of risk to humans. They are not ancestrally in Africa, our continent of origin. Given that there are over 37,000 known species of spiders, that’s a small percentage. The risk from spiders is exaggerated. The “fact” that they are “always scary” and the explanation of this fact in terms of the threat they posed to our ancestors is nonetheless one piece of lore of evolutionary psychology. Likeways, snakes have a reputation among evolutionary psychologists that is hardly deserved. In Africa, some are truly dangerous, but by no means most. About one quarter of species in Uganda pose a threat to humans, though there is geographic variability. It’s only in Australia—hardly our point of origin—that the majority of snakes are venomous. Any case for an evolved fear of snakes would need to be based on the threat from a minority. In this case too, the threat seems exaggerated. There is a good deal of mythology in the anecdotes we are offered. It is not altogether clear how the mythology gets established, but it is often repeated, with scant evidence. (pg. 28)
That the fear of snakes is “genetic” has no basis in reality; it seems to be learned, even in other primates:
For example, it seems logical that natural selection would result in the coding of a fear of snakes and spiders into our DNA, as the evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker thinks (1997: 386–89). But while Pinker may have genes that make him fear snakes, as the evolutionist Jared Diamond points out, such genes are clearly lacking in New Guinea natives. As Diamond says, “If there is any single place in the world where we might expect an innate fear of snakes among native peoples, it would be in New Guinea, where one-third or more of the snake species are poisonous, and certain non-poisonous constrictor snakes are sufficiently big to be dangerous.” Yet there is
no sign of innate fear of snakes or spiders among the indigenous people, and children regularly “capture large spiders, singe off the legs and hairs, and eat the bodies. The people there laugh at the idea of an inborn phobia about snakes, and account for the fear in Europeans as a result of their stupidity in being unable to distinguish which snakes might be dangerous” (1993: 265). Furthermore, there is reason to believe that fear of snakes in other primates is largely learned as well (Mineka, Keir, and Price 1981, Mineka and Cook 1993)>/strong>.
Click to access 8183538f8f39127e2a643cb3830976b147be.pdf
Remember:
P1) A just-so story is an ad-hoc hypothesis; an ad-hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis that is not independently verified (verified independently of the data that it purports to explain)
P2) The hypothesis that trait X is an adaptation is independently verified if and only if it successfully 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
And for good measure, see (he also discusses microcephalin and ASPM) this paper discussing adaptationism 30 years after Gould and Lewontin’s paper:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00799.x
Pinker should just retire already (along with Dawkins). The adaptationist paradigm they push is false (with the selfish gene as one of the centerpieces of the adaptationist paradigm). EP is refuted, as is the selfish gene theory (fitting for two philosophers of biology to rebut Dawkins and Pinker—I’m speaking of Richardson and Noble). Pinker has been pushing the EP/modular mind BS for almost 40 years (same with Dawkins and his rebutted theory). Pinker’s view of the mind rests on the massive modularity hypothesis—it’s false. (Nevermind that it’s impossible for the mind to have been naturally selected because the mind is not physical—the mind is not the brain—because there are no psychophysical laws. Brains can be the target of selection; minds can’t.) Jerry Fodor—among others—have rebutted the massive modularity hypothesis (our plastic brains, too, refute the hypothesis).
You can make up stories to fit any data—like a puzzle piece—and then say “Wow!! Do you see how coherent and parsimonious my hypothesis is, it explains X, Y, and Z!” That’s irrelevant; the argument against just-so stories identifies a way to show that EP hypotheses are not just-so stories—it’s a conceptual, not empirical, objection too, by the way.
EP has been dragged through the dirt and taken out back to be shot already. But it’s still on life support because Pinker et al won’t give up their nice-sounding stories.
It’s been independently verified
And being killed or eaten by snakes is a huge cause of death for primates wandering through African Savannahs
What’s the independent verifier (see P2)? Read the quotes I’ve provided. It seems to be a learned fear in non-human primates. Richardson did a solid job of rebutting Pinker’s EP woo.
Why, then, are New Guineans not scared of snakes when one-third pose a risk to humans? It’s a just-so story, a story that “seems right” because “everybody knows that” snakes are scary so there must be a fear-of-snakes module in the brain (since Pinker et al believe the mind is modular). So there is no “snake fear” module in the brain; Pinker’s “explanation” is a just-so story.
You wrote: an adaptation is independently verified if and only if it successfully 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)
The study I cited showing babies are scared of snakes fits this criteria
New Guineans are the exception that proves the rule and they haven’t lived there long enough to evolve a local fear of snakes, unlike Africa where our ancestors lived for 25 million years.
Even as a kid it was obvious to me that we evolved to fear snakes, even before I knew this was an actual theory. Sometimes you need to just throw away your books and use your common sense.
“The study I cited showing babies are scared of snakes fits this criteria”
Results support the notion of an evolved preparedness for developing fear of these ancestral threats.
Just-so stories. (And clearly BS as seen with the Richardson quote.)
That’s not an independent verification, because the ‘selection’ could have been to due adaptation or it could be a byproduct.
Either way, there are problems with that paper:
Secondly, their interpretation of pupil dilation measurements to support their hypothesis is prone to criticism. In both of their experiments in Study 1 (within-participant study) the items are color-matched but they are not matched for shape. Fish are presented in a lateral view and flowers mainly in a frontal view. In contrast, the pictures of spiders are more complex than those of flowers and fish. The same is true for at least two of the snake pictures, both of which have their head pointing toward the observer (striking position).
[…]
The data presented by Hoehl et al. only partially support their hypothesis and certainly do not provide proof that the observed results can be related to an “evolved [my emphasis] preparedness for developing fear of these ancestral threats.”
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00393/full
“Even as a kid it was obvious to me that we evolved to fear snakes, even before I knew this was an actual theory. Sometimes you need to just throw away your books and use your common sense.”
So? I believed a lot of things when I was a kid; just because you believe something when you were a kid doesn’t make it ‘right’ or ‘close to right’ or anything like that.
That’s not an independent verification, because the ‘selection’ could have been to due adaptation or it could be a byproduct.
If you think it’s caused by a byproduct, the onus is on you to explain what adaptation it’s a byproduct of.
Either way, there are problems with that paper
Every paper can be criticized, but evolved fear of snakes theory now has independent verification, even if it’s not verified to everyone’s satisfaction.
“the onus is on you to explore what adaptation it’s a byproduct of”
Any locally coextensive trait.
“evolved fear of snakes theory now has independent verification”
No, it doesn’t. At all. The “threat” from snakes is low in Africa, and not many are venomous to humans. Again, I was very clear by what I meant by “independent verification”, and it’s not what you think it means.
It is a learned fear in other primates.
Any locally coextensive trait.
Such as?
“evolved fear of snakes theory now has independent verification”
No, it doesn’t. At all. The “threat” from snakes is low in Africa,
Not when you’re a small primate walking in the Savannah as our ancestors supposedly were
and not many are venomous to humans.
Doesn’t mean they couldn’t swallow our small primate ancestors
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKs-dvtkG0s
Again, I was very clear by what I meant by “independent verification”, and it’s not what you think it means.
It means evidence not used to form the theory in the first place. The study showing babies fear snakes post-dates the snake fear adaptation theory yet is perfectly consistent with it, and is not consistent with any byproduct theory you can articulate.
“Such as?”
I don’t need to name one.
“Not when you’re a small primate”
These adaptations supposedly occurred in the Pleistocene.
“Doesn’t mean they couldn’t swallow our small primate ancestors”
Irrelevant.
“The study showing babies fear snakes post-dates the snake fear adaptation theory”
Which study?
“not consistent with any byproduct theory you can articulate”
I don’t need to articulate one.
“Such as?”
I don’t need to name one.
Yes, actually you do. You asserted that babies fearing snakes is not independent verification of the adaptation theory because it could be a byproduct not an adaptation. A byproduct of what? If you can’t backup your claim withdraw it.
“Not when you’re a small primate”
These adaptations supposedly occurred in the Pleistocene.
They occurred over the past 25 million years our primate ancestors have been killed by snakes, but especially in the past 6 million years since we left the trees.
“Doesn’t mean they couldn’t swallow our small primate ancestors”
Irrelevant.
Completely relevant. Snakes were swallowing our ancestors so those who didn’t fear them would get killed first, leaving snake phobic primates as the survivors.
Which study?
This study
I don’t need to articulate one.
Yes you do RR, otherwise anyone can claim any adaptation theory is better explained by some byproduct theory no one can articulate, and nothing becomes independently verifiable. A criticism that debunks everything debunks nothing.
“A byproduct of what?”
Any locally coextensive trait. I don’t need to be specific, I don’t need to withdraw it. It’s a general adaptationist critique.
“They occurred over the past 25 million years”
Right, it’s a just-so story.
“This study”
Pinker articulated it in his 1997 book How the Mind Works and it was articulated before then. So the study isn’t independent verification.
“Completely relevant”
It’s a just-so story. Adaptiveness isn’t evidence for adaptation.
“A critical that debunks everything debunks nothing.”
It debunks selectionist explanations that cannot be independently verified.
You need an observation that the supposed adaptation in question is not due to drift, exapation, pleiotropy, etc.
The snake-fear hypothesis is a just-so story.
Any locally coextensive trait. I don’t need to be specific,
So by that standard, you must summarily dismiss every adaptionist theory you’ve ever advanced: light skin has nothing to do with vitamin D, human running ability has nothing to do with hunting, Neanderthal short limbs and robust build had nothing to do with cold adaptation, large arctic heads have nothing to do with thermoregulation. As you say, no need to be specific, all might be explained by coextensive traits and thus are just-so stories.
It’s a general adaptationist critique.
So general it applies to every adaptionist argument you’ve ever made.
Pinker articulated it in his 1997 book How the Mind Works
What did he articulate?
It debunks selectionist explanations that cannot be independently verified.
And since you’re unable to articulate which ones those are, that’s a circular definition
You need an observation that the supposed adaptation in question is not due to drift, exapation, pleiotropy, etc.
The adaptionist theories you’ve endorsed are just as likely to be due to drift, exaption, pleiotropy etc.
The snake-fear hypothesis is a just-so story.
So is all of evolution by your “don’t need to be specific” logic
I was very clear when I said “The hypothesis that trait X is an adaptation is independently verified if and only if it successfully 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)”.
i have a module in my brain that makes me fear satin track suits and gold chains.
“light skin has nothing to do with vitamin D”
I’ve spent thousands of words showing that light skin has a ton to do with vitamin D.
“So by that standard, you must summarily dismiss every adaptionist theory you’ve ever advanced”
Appeal to consequences.
“So general it applies to every adaptionist argument you’ve ever made.”
Everyone but UV rays and body type for climate.
“What did he articulate?”
Steven Pinker (1997: 386) says “The common thread is obvious. These are the situations that put our evolutionary ancestors in danger. Spiders and snakes are often venomous, especially in Africa…. Fear is the emotion that motivated our ancestors to cope with the dangers they were likely to face.”
“And since you’re unable to articulate which ones those are, that’s a circular definition”
The argument is sound.
“The adaptionist theories you’ve endorsed are just as likely to be due to drift, exaption, pleiotropy etc.”
Not light skin.
“So is all of evolution by your “don’t need to be specific” logic”
Appeal to consequences.
“light skin has nothing to do with vitamin D”
I’ve spent thousands of words showing that light skin has a ton to do with vitamin D.
No amount of words can defend against byproduct theory that isn’t specified, because you can’t know what you’re defending against.
“So by that standard, you must summarily dismiss every adaptionist theory you’ve ever advanced”
Appeal to consequences.
And the consequence is double standards. You’re applying absurdly high standards to theories you don’t like and ignoring them for theories you like. That’s completely hypocritical, intellectually dishonest, and anti-scientific.
“So general it applies to every adaptionist argument you’ve ever made.”
Everyone but UV rays and body type for climate.
Even for climatic body type you can’t rule out unspecified byproduct effects, precisely because they’re unspecified
Steven Pinker (1997: 386) says “The common thread is obvious. These are the situations that put our evolutionary ancestors in danger. Spiders and snakes are often venomous, especially in Africa…. Fear is the emotion that motivated our ancestors to cope with the dangers they were likely to face.”
That’s the hypothesis, and the baby study provided independent verification for it. I agree that the independent verification can’t rule out unspecified byproduct theories, but NO VERIFICATION CAN RULE OUT AN UNSPECIFIED THEORY so it’s a DUMB STANDARD.
“The adaptionist theories you’ve endorsed are just as likely to be due to drift, exaption, pleiotropy etc.”
Not light skin.
Yes light skin. Light skin might be pleiotropically linked to some other trait that helped us to adapt to cold climates, and one that has nothing to do with vitamin D.
“because you can’t know what you’re defending against”
You can’t defeat the empirical logic that light skin synthesizes more vitamin D in low UVB areas.
And it was independently verified, in East Asians and Neanderthals. See Jablonka and Chaplin, 2000.
“The consequence is double standards”
No, you’re appealing to consequences.
“you can’t rule out unspecified byproduct effects”
I’ve been through the logic before on body type and climate. Shorter stockier bodies for cold, longer, slimmer bodies for heat. See the Inuit and Bushman.
“the baby study provided independent verification”
No it didn’t.
“one that has nothing to do with vitamin D”
Vitamin D is clearly a factor.
You can’t defeat the empirical logic that light skin synthesizes more vitamin D in low UVB areas.
You can’t defeat the empirical logic that snakes are dangerous to primates wandering through African savannas
And it was independently verified, in East Asians and Neanderthals. See Jablonka and Chaplin, 2000.
Evolved phobias have been independently verified for snakes, spiders and heights and in babies in addition to adults
No, you’re appealing to consequences.
Yes, and the consequence is you’re being hypocritical and intellectually inconsistent
I’ve been through the logic before on body type and climate. Shorter stockier bodies for cold, longer, slimmer bodies for heat. See the Inuit and Bushman.
And Pinker, Dawkins and I have been through the logic of snake phobias.
“that snakes are dangerous”
Richardson 2007 took care of it.
“Evolved phobias have been independently verified”
No they haven’t.
“you’re beginning hypocritical and intellectually dishonest”
I’ve laid out the evidence for the hypothesis. The logic is sound in regard to light skin evolving to synthesize vitamin D.
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/10/5/554/htm
“And Pinker, and Dawkins and I have been through the logic of snakes phobias”
Taken care of by Richardson and the other citation provided in the original comment in this thread.
“you’re beginning hypocritical and intellectually dishonest”
I’ve laid out the evidence for the hypothesis. The logic is sound in regard to light skin evolving to synthesize vitamin D.
The logic for snake phobias is at least as sound. If you fear snakes you’ll be more likely to avoid them and survive. What’s wrong with that logic? Please explain. Forget about Richardson and just use your common sense.
Yea the logic is sound but that’s not evidence for an evolved fear-of-snakes module in the brain like Pinker et al propose. Just because the story “fits the data” that we’re “supposedly so afraid of snakes” means there are evolutionary roots behind the fear?
And the main tenets of evolutionary theory have been independently verified.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
the rotten banana spider is the deadliest. it carries AIDS.
Its kind of bizarre a mainstream news channel can be so hostile to native whites. The woman actually looks angry that Trump said immigration was bad.
[redacted by pp, july 14, 2018]
Sadiq Khan says he loves the constitution.
No he doesn’t.
He doesn’t know what the consitution really means.
He likes it, in the same way [redacted by pp, july 14, 2018] Swanky, ‘likes’ the consitution. As a rhetorical device to pretend hes on the same team as us.
If i was Saqid i would also add that america have faced a larger share of casualty from terrorism than Britain.
You must remember that these people assume tabula rasa, so the culture you assume to be an expression of european genetics is in most peoples view just customs that are trained, and in the case of trump, bad.
Bill Gates is such an easy target because hes probably the one man in world history that is the most ‘cucked’ in terms of handing his entire fortune to barbarians of his own free will.
Im going to stop bullying Bill for being an idiot. He might be retarded, but hes not evil. There are people manipulating his thoughts that deserve my ire.
Bill Gates is such an easy target because hes probably the one man in world history that is the most ‘cucked’ in terms of handing his entire fortune to barbarians of his own free will.
What’s wrong with helping the less fortunate? Last time I checked that was the point of charity. Or should he be more like Trump and give all his money to Israel?
Im going to stop bullying Bill for being an idiot.
How is charity idiotic? Explain
He might be retarded, but hes not evil.
You’d have to be retarded to think someone so rich is retarded
There are people manipulating his thoughts that deserve my ire.
Nobody is manipulating his thoughts. You’re just too evil to understand that non-psychopaths have compassion for the extreme suffering of others.
Because he literally gives it explicitly to non whites and says its only for non whites.
Not true. I just saw an episode of 60 minutes last week where a convicted white criminal got out of jail and became a lawyer thanks to a scholarship from the bill & melinda foundation. Non-whites may generally get preferential treatment because the point of charity is to help the less fortunate and even in the U.S., whites own 90% of the wealth and blacks own 2%.
He is 62, i think he is satisfied. Also he seems more of a robin hood type. Steal from the rich and give to the poor. He stole tech from IBM.. made money and now he is giving to the poor. And he also got to enjoy it in between. Plus he still has enough enough to live a super luxurious life.
He is a geek as much as he is a businessman. He has enough tech to play with too and find fulfillment also.
Has anyone ever noticed the way Swanky, [redacted by pp, july 14, 2018], doesn’t actually argue with people but just finds different ways of saying the same nonsense.
Normally, even with RR, you’ll say something, and the person responds to it.
But Swanky never actually counters a point. He just restates his opinion, in a different words.
Very clever.
Very ‘lawyerly’.
Maybe thats what he learned in law school. To never engage in a debate.
I counter your points, you just don’t understand.
For example, you whine about AA and whine about the Founders and I counter by saying the arguments for AA, etc., whatever come from the 13th and 14th amendment, which renders what the Founders believe about the matter irrelevant. You have yet to even understand this.
Swanky on the one hand says blacks should be given reperations and that being black its very hard to get a job in a white collar firm in an era where people import blacks from africa who never even had ancestors who were slaves, just to meet the [redacted by pp, july 14, 2018] mandated quotas of corporate office furniture, then turns around and wags his finger at me for saying the NSA and CIA are abominations on the constitution and obviously weren’t meant, if it took 250 years after the people that wrote these documents for interlopers to found these entities.
Swanky literally said: “Of course they wouldn’t mind about the NSA”.
Well then Brofessor, why didn’t create it? Or anything similar to it. They had the post office back then. Why didn’t the post agents to all the post offices to open everyones mail?
I dont understand swanky. If they wouldn’t mind it, then why wouldn’t they mind AA or reparations. They had blacks back then. Why didn’t they make AA or reparations? I want a full explanation. I don’t want you to just say what you want to say – address these two questions. Not the imaginary questions in your [redacted by pp, july 14, 2018] mind I asked.
I dont understand swanky.
So iafter his bar mitvah, Swanky decided the founders were A OK with AA and reparations but drew the line at civil liberties and unwarranted search of private citizens and 24/7 monitoring being bad.
Yeah.
Someone should burn his law degree. Hes a danger to people.
I bet if Lincoln actually said blacks were ‘subhuman’ (and im sure theyve burned all the papers that said that, to do the ‘right thing’ and lie to us), then Swanky would say being subhuman is actually more human than being human.
Its funny how [redacted by pp, july 14, 2018] and Swanky know what the founders really meant, but the founders themselves, didn’t know what they meant.
that’s just one more effective rebuttal of all arguments against original intent.
Indeed, “the founders” knew what they meant but the founders did not.
Model != reality, jedrools.
You’re slowly starting to understand….it’s amusing to watch. Honestly!
you don’t understand the argument swank. it has two levels. you only get the first.
swank is making the same retarded argument that i demolished on wikipedia. he’s claiming that groups of people can’t mean anything, only individuals.
where swank and i agree is that vague laws are a bad idea.
there are no levels. it’s a retarded “argument.”
there is never 100% overlap between two people with regard to meaning when they communicate, that’s why the word “perspective” exists at all.
model =! reality.
the REALITY is that it is impossible for more than one person to PERFECTLY agree on anything. MEANING that it is also IMPOSSIBLE for more than one person to perfectly agree on ALL EXTENSIONS of an original intension.
it’s a convenient fiction — like EVERYTHING legal.
1. you still don’t understand what intesion means.
2. all of your “arguments” are death blows to all other jurisprudences, but do not even scratch original intent.
3. if you cared about the truth you’d get how utterly ridiculous you sound.
swank: the law is 100% meaningless. it’s written in linear A. but with the use of seer stones from the angel moroni the notorious rbg can read it.
repeat after me swank:
there’s no meaning without intent.
there’s no meaning without intent.
there’s no meaning without intent.
(1) will everyone agree on all extensions of the intension ‘red’ from the word ‘fire hydrant?’
(2) I’m not arguing against any jurisprudence — you’re just arguing that original intent is the only jurisprudence, which is wrong. The function of jurisprudence is to provide the appearance of fairness within a society and preserve legitimacy. That’s the yardstick — everything else is just platonic jive.
(3) The truth is that any jurisprudence that the populous accepts as legitimate, i.e. fails to revolt, qualifies as a legitimate jurisprudence.
swank: the law is 100% meaningless. it’s written in linear A. but with the use of seer stones from the angel moroni the notorious rbg can read it.
I didn’t say meaningless. I said ‘convenient fiction.’
Like ‘the United States of America,’ or ‘muggy’s high IQ.’
I didn’t say meaningless. I said ‘convenient fiction.’
Like ‘the United States of America,’ or ‘muggy’s high IQ.’
Oh snap!
i agree. swank just made a fool of herself again.
by putting the ‘ outside the period.
oh snap!
“convenient fiction” = meaningful.
the ONLY point swank has made so far is that the law is a joke because lawyers have low IQs in addition to no sense of right and wrong.
and the first ‘ outside the comma.
if your have a low VIQ all you can do is jive like that black lady vs bork and like swank.
mic drop.
oh yeah.
“If your have a low VIQ….” huh?
Case dismissed.
that’s a typo. putting a single unquote in the wrong place twice is NOT.
what does punctuation have to do with VIQ? nothing per se, but anyone without a swank level VIQ will have read widely and thus will have found how punctuation varies. the americans use a double quote then a single, the british a single then a double. the british are also much more likely to follow the only rule that makes sense. if the punctuation is not part of the quote, then it should not be included in the quote. it’s the same with the genitive/possessive case of singular nouns ending in -s. the correct punctuation and pronunciation is always ‘s. the jew books you learned from in school are wrong and jewish.
some fire hydrants are red. some are yellow. this is a matter of FACT even if the notorious rgb claims otherwise.
swank: ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have heard from 100 witnesses. every one of them has testified that he saw oj kill nicole. but one of those witnesses testified that he heard oj say “tony danza!” while the 99 others testified that they heard oj say “touchdown!” for this reason you must conclude that oj did not kill nicole.
[drooling oj jurors nodding their heads in agreement.]
The truth is that any jurisprudence that the populous accepts as legitimate, i.e. fails to revolt, qualifies as a legitimate jurisprudence.
only to a sociopath like yourself who can’t tell the difference between is and ought. you’ve demonstrated your inability to make this distinction at least a dozen times. i know what is. so does pill. so does almost everyone. you don’t.
is: lawyers are evil and stupid from public defender to “trial lawyer” to m&a lawyer, from traffic court judge to the supreme court.
ought: original intent.
that’s a typo
same level of pointless pedantry…good for you, you like Britain. case dismissed.
some fire hydrants are red. some are yellow.
anyone without a muggy VIQ will realize that the question asked was “(1) will everyone agree on all extensions of the intension ‘red’ from the word ‘fire hydrant?”
“Hope croatia beat wakanda in the finals”
Hahahaha, person commenting on the world cup.
Think Modric might win the Ballon D’Or this year. Soccer seems to select alot for small low centre of gravity types like him and Messi.
I was reading a social justice article in the guardian asking why people described black players as powerful and fast and not intelligent.
There are 2 conclusions that you can draw:
1. This is because black players aren’t intelligent and never usually take up playmaker roles in teams. Even American football which is basically rugby union but only the lineout.
2. The entire football punditry and sports journalism coterie are RACIST.
Thats a lot of creatine on display.
I remember I used to take a lot of that stuff. I kind of had the same physique as Delli Alli towards the end. Bit odd looking.
We should have a talk about Nelson Mandela.
I have confused thoughts on him. Hes kind of like Obama for me. A good man, leading a lost cause or in the most begrudging description, a good man who serves a useful purpose to our elite.
From everything I’ve seen Mandela is not a psychopathic slob like MLK and was a genuinely warm and intelligent man.
But undoubtedly south africa is much worse off under the ANC. Nobody sane can dispute that its started to resemble detroit more as the years went by. His successors are corrupt and venal idiots.
Pretty sure South Africa is even worse off than Detroit right now.
20% of whites have left since ’94 and 25% of those who remain want to leave. there’s an exodus of white farmers to other african countries where they’ve been invited and given land because of their expertise in agronomy. same in rhodesia/zimbabwe.
they’ve moved to mozambique, namibia, zambia, nigeria, congo brazzaville, etc.
lara logan left because of affirmative action. she felt she was discriminated against.
i understand why zim and za want to redistribute land, but it might be better just to tax white farmers more. the blacks who get the land often don’t know what to do with it and can’t get financing.
South africa is a jewish and Anglo colony. They still get their natural resources at low prices, thats all that matters. employed Black south africans have it better (many are unemployed and on the government dull though). The white underclass vanguard has been replaced by ANC followers, affluent whites are richer than ever. Most south africans are just bound to be poor, ANC is the best EGI strategy for black south africans, as many affluent black south africans now get improved living standards. South africa has always been detroit.
If you wanted to make Africa richer, you’d make it more civilised, not dump machines and vehicles into there.
The number one way to make a place ‘civilised’ is to create a plantation.
And so, colonialism did a lot more to civilise africa than freedom did.
AFAIK Africa is the only region in the world that got poorer as the 20th century wore on.
“neo-colonialism” is a pejorative. it needn’t be. colonialism can be a good thing. the british did it much better than the french, belgians, germans, spanish, pork and cheese, etc.
While i agree, foreign companies makes much money on africa now through predatory lending and deregulation, and as infranstructure increases, they are going to make more. The cost of moral colonialism would just get bigger and bigger with demographic changes. Most areas that are rich enough to be good colonies might just serve better with more soveriengnty.
We cant have the bounty of wealth to us and corporations compete with more deficits, it doesnt follow the money.
The poor in africa have seen drastic changes in the last century, education is sbustatially higher, urbanisation is leading to a potential of economies of scale not acseseble in the past, Nutrition is better and there is more infranstructure than ever, skylines are filled with skyscrapers. Some african economies have faster economic growth than ever, with an annual growth rate around 5-8%, far exceeding population growth rates, indicated by the health markers. Mant african economies such as Rwanda seeks to diversify revenue sources outside of natural resource exportation, so that work is acseseble to more people and to gain stability outside of fluctuating prices on resources. Most economies started growing after 1960.
In my opinion this is just the beginning of a new africa, during colonial times only minimal reforms were done (outside of urban areas and south africa), and most people just lived like in the past, Hausa (north western nigeria) had zero university students in the early 20th century. The new africa will be like brazil or peru, in terms of wealth and health, perhaps better if technology makes things cheaper. Some areas are likely to be very affluent, while others left behind (kinda like latin america)
Here is an simple overview: https://slides.ourworldindata.org/africa-in-data/#/title-slide
http://www.worldbank.org/en/region/afr/overview
Debt is increasing rapidly however. And these democracies have their fare share of complexity. Unemployment might also become an issue.
Badly organised unions, greedy elite (corruption), income inequality, Resource curse and predatory lending, foreign companies, Climate change, demographic changes, xenophobia, unemployment and crime are all issues that the african plurality will deal with.
Also, who is to say that colonialism has ended? De-colonization took away european flags from african parlamentary buildings, and put them in the pockets of dictators. Just look at these images:
American military aid:
American troops in africa:
Nairobi 1950:
Nairobi 2014:
There is currently tons of contruction in the continent.
Civilisation is a plantation.
Masta at the top.
Coolies below.
But some civilisation are a lot more advanced than others. You can’t dispute that. I have no trouble saying japan/korea is more advanced than most of eastern europe. Theres no way you can dispute that.
[redacted by pp. july 14, 2018] inequality and owners vs workers is something that doesn’t exist in human history until agriculture and pastoralism.
You could dispute that by looking at how america treated the nations you talk about. Korea used to be in chinese levels in the past.
The director of halloween also directed They Live!
Pumpkin should watch that movie and realise what John Carpenter and Mel Gibson might agree on if they had a chat.
Wonder what this movie is about. Hmmm. Will never know.
This is a somewhat exaggerated version of my daily experience.
“Work 8 hours
Sleep 8 hours
Play 8 hours”
I work ten hours, sleep five to six hours and play eight to nine hours.
“This is a somewhat exaggerated version of my daily experience”
This.
where is this shit coming from?
There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese.
“where is this shit coming from?”
From whatever works for me? I get maximum free time this way. Having eight to nine hours to play is nice.
rr is oppressed by the jewish penis.
Im actually surprised new york is still so white. But this might only be the rich areas.
Im watching a 1950s movie and the extras in manhatten all look like models compared to the slobs in these walking tour new york videos.
Then again, in my present state, i look worse than these people.
central park and midtown are very white because they are very rich. whites (including jews) are about 50% of manhattan. the same as in 1990.
Im actually starting to lose hair on the left temple. Very bad. I blame jews.
asymmetric balding?
John D suffered from alopecia. he was totally bald.
Most of it is from swimming. The chorine does something and it doesnt come back. Yeah one side is coming in at the temple, the other isn’t.
A lot of sadness looking at this. Paranoid psychosis towards the end walking around this place. Very bad. Very bad.
Who is the Philosopher?
I remember waiting in the lobby in JP Morgan after work for a buddy of mine who worked as a banker there. I remember thinking – I make more than him hahaha.
DAMNIT I was SO CLOSE to the top. This is all puppys fault. I was a legend. Puppy, apologise.
I would never expect an wealthy person to not have the self control to ignore pumpkin person blog.
Puppy apologise to all your readers who wanted to know the truth and instead had to read about oprah.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyYgib1X87I
1950s Britain.
[redacted by pp, july 14, 2018]
As I keep saying, people who never paid attention in school have the same opinions of people who see nobody goes to ‘school’ to get educated.
Then why didnt they win?
Pumpkin can you actually name the exact day in the 1960s, average people became evil? I just want a bit of clarity. I suppose people born since the 1960s are safe? And people born under President Obama are safest?
Really confused pumpkin.
How about people born in Russia. Is it pre the October Revolution, or after? Please help me understand.
Straw man argument: Never said people became less evil
I wonder what my muscle and knowledge and fitness IQs are.
Hopefully your children dont regress to the mean.
Doubtful.
Kevin McDonald has very interesting hypothesis. But like philo, he has a tendency to let himself throw away by imagination, analogy and excessive intent perception.
But I remember in a movie about the contrevery of Valladolid when the inquisitor said Indian are human with a soul who can’t be enslaved (movie is oversimplifying) , he suggests to whites replacing them by black people in Africa in doing the trade.
Someone has had the idea of this business , and sefardi Jewish, with their proximity with Arabs and transaction minded attitude
, are obvious suspects. He should be easy for’historian To check : boats owners, insurance policies, relation with customs and treasury, relations with locals for storage and even the flow of capture etc etc There must be a huge amount of documents. I ve seen that civil rights organization said its evil just to ask the question of who exactly did it ….
Then you have people really messing up simple data. For examp’e in 1860 in the USA, there were 31M people with 4M slaves for 390k owners. 1 white out of 80 had slaves. But the 12k, 5k had slaves or 40%. In the big city in the south it was 70% of jews for 2.5% of whites. Only 20 jews has more than 50 slaves against 15k among white.
So the conclusion is that Jews were very at ease with having slaves – contrary to 79 whites out of 80- except some that made a business with exploiting the blacks . So it’s an error to blame Jews, but it s revolting they can blame white people and not them when they were extremely confortable with slaves ….
Things like that should be studied in a more scientific way than Farrakhan or Lewis ….
Kevin MacDonald strikes me as far more reasonable and evidence based than pill.
That’s sure 😉
But he is motivation are extremes. For example, for Nobel prizes, he never acknowledge Jews doesn’t do well in Peace or Littérature (despite having great writers) and do the most in the most verbal/formal matters : economy, math, physics and medicine . Even if there is ethnic opportunity giving, there must be IQ and motivations factors, like in chess.
And then it’s difficult to imagine them being so strong when they have been so fragile during centuries …
But there is something with universal values, ethnic denial, anti-racism, white shaming, diversity, migration, free speech censuring etc it may be designed .
Perhaps there aren’t more Jewish writers who’ve won because the Nobel has a non-American focus? And there aren’t that many Jews outside of America and Israel (except maybe France/England).
I can think of plenty of famous Jewish fiction writers including Phillip Roth, who just died recently.
then just look at jews as a percentage of American nobel prize winners
Chemistry (28 prize winners, 19% of world total, 27% of US total)
Economics (22 prize winners, 39% of world total, 53% of US total)
Literature (13 prize winners, 13% of world total, 27% of US total)
Physiology or Medicine (52 prize winners, 28% of world total, 42% of US total)
Peace (9 prize winners, 10% of world total, 11% of US total)3
Physics (46 prize winners, 26% of world total, 38% of US total)
https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewish-nobel-prize-winners/
Bruno has admitted several times he suffers from autism. Look at Professor Baron Cohens video. It will explain why autistic people are simply blind to most human phenomenon.
This stat is really consistant :39% economy, 28% medicine, 27% mathematics (field medal), 26% physics, 19% chemistry, 13% littérature and 10% peace.
That smells competence and HBD. Not nepotism and abuse ….
I am off for Andalucia. French system giving people between 8 and 14 holidays a year is really good for productivity (per hour worked) 😉
39% of the prizes in economics when you’re 0.14% of the planet can not be explained by competence alone. Their average IQ is 110 not 150.
PP,
I remember reading that among high IQ people, jews are more as a percentage. Decades back, among kids that had 170 IQ or more in new york schools, 24 of 28 were jewish.
Yes the higher the IQ, the more overrepresented the high IQ race, ceteris paribus. But as for 170+ kids in New York, there are a lot of Jews in New York even at low IQ levels, so at the highest IQ levels they will be the vast majority
I was referring to heritability : IQ + industriousness and an atavic interest for economy and trade .
Then, as they are only whites laureates in economy (I guess), they are 1% of whites. And for economy, I double spatial intelligence is any useful. It’s all verbal and numerical so they are in the high 115.
Then if I remember your Ann Roe stat, we can guess and average IQ of 150 for NP in economy. So they go from 1 in 2300 to 1 in 100. It’s 23 times more. You’ve got 2/3 with IQ alone. Add some other genetic (industriousness, kinesss with trade) and a enhancing effect due to group size, then you don’t need any plot or even group strategy. It can be explained by mere gene, included ethnic interest, but without a stealing of the prize. Probably it’s similar for some law firm partnerships in NY. Extremely high verbal.
The pitty for me is that I have many Jewish collègues and I have never been impressed by their intelligence . They have always beeen in the gifted range but very rarely higly gifted. When I did serious math, I worked wich Bourguignon and an IT guy Pitrat, or Petitot, who were non Jewish. Jewish has a Jewish alumni Ullmo that was brilliant but I didn’t meet him because I opted out after 2 years seeing I wasn’t that much interested in math research. Some said I was committing a crime against science in quitting, but I don’t have regrets. My only regret is that a good friend invited me to be a quant trader and I should have said yes. He went from Societe générale to Goldman Sachs were he became partner and now has a hedge fund in London. He is ashkenazi Jewish ! He did supelec, a good engineering school. His IQ is in the 135-140 range. His sister was more clever (she did Polytechnique and worked in M&A for Rothschild but was into politics, conservative right). I haven’t seen them since long. I remember they had something like a hubris, a clash between false modesty and enormous arrogance . I didn’t understand why because I feel OK with plain narcissistic people (like Afro).
I was referring to heritability : IQ + industriousness and an atavic interest for economy and trade .
If you assume they are high in other traits besides just IQ then you can explain the overrepresentation but then you’re being just as speculative as macdonald, except assuming industriousness instead of tribalism
But Macdonald’s main pont was how they used their influence, not how they achieved it.
McDonal goes a bit further. He thinks some of them invented theories that they were implemented as a group to foster their ethnic interest. More precisely, he thinks they saw some weaknesses in white ways of thinking (individualism, universalism, shaming and guilt, importance of meritocracy) they could infect in order to be able to get tabu on white race, white interest, immigration and identification of the elite. So he accuses Jewish of committing a white genocide. [redacted by pp, july 15, 2018]
As for slavery, I just remember that when Spanish Cordoue califate went down in 23 small taifas, the trade of white east Europeans slave was entirely done by Jewish . That is well documented . So that gives an idea that it is far from impossible that Jewish were at the origin of the Atlantic slave trade …
Kevin MacDonald has really divided the HBD-o-sphere. On the one hand excellent bloggers like Lion seem to hate him, but a few HBDers like Rushton may have secretly been fans. Hardcore alt-right types like Greg Johnson are extremely influenced by MacDonald:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il03fdmNV5E
Philo I have admitted not having imagination, memories and familiarity and scoring the highest score on autism test from Baron Cohen (who is not as Pumpkin noticed a scientific diagnosis test but a tool to get the equivalent of a clinical diagnostic without consulting a doctor).
But i don’t beliebe I have any pbs in understanding people motives, or lying when it’s appriate . So I recognize I am probably not neuro-typical and among schizo, neurotic, psychopath, dement and autist, the latter are certainly the least distant thing. But I would say it’s a 25% match at most .
If it was 100% I would be perfectly happy with that. It just isn’t . Pumpkin hypothesis of an ad hoc mutation in a family where many people are a bit Sheldonesque seems plausible to me.
Maybe most peole doesn’t fit exactly in a archetypical condition .
While i agree that jews werent opposed to slavery, they were a large part of giving them civil rights, so give or take.
Also, saying that 1/80 whites owned slaves is misleading, since it takes whites who lived in the more heaviily populated northern states, it also takes white children and women into account. Roughly 24% of white households owned slaves in the slave states, and more people rented them. This also forgets that it varied alot depending on the state, Delaware and maryland had much fewer slaves than missipi.
MacDonald has said that he’s not attempting a “predictive theory”. He said his theory can be disconfirmed “by showing, e.g., that the movement I describe is not peopled by strongly identified Jews with a sense of Jewish interests.” Which means it explains what it’s “confirmed” by what it was designed to explain. He’s saying “it can be falsified if you show that Jews don’t work together.” That’s…. kinda stupid….
Philosopher of Biology Nathan Cofnas has some good replies to MacDonald’s just-so stories:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-018-9310-x
(((cofnas))) doesn’t have his PhD yet.
i’m now certain that rr got whacked by mossad and was replaced by a jewish woman who wears a sheitel and lives in haifa..
science doesn’t always need a theory rr. lots of it is just descriptive. sociobiology is irrelevant. it’s just a way of sounding sciency. macdonald clearly documents the uniformly bad influence of jews on western societies. the only explanation is resentment on the side of jews. they hate the fact that they don’t have all the power despite being the chosen people.
No Cofnas answers missed the point :
Either he enters historical details who are ancillary to McDonald thesis le point to divergent Jewish wich doesn’t disprove the point.
The bad thing with McDonald thesis is that it’s logical consequences are so extreme that Pumpkin had – rightly – to redact my pointing them. So McDonald is not the sweet guy he pretends to be because he is fully aware of the consequences of his opinion.
[redacted by pp, July 16, 2018]
His “opinion” is just a story.
[redacted by pp, July 16, 2018] His thesis explains what it was designed to explain. It makes no testable predictions, the bedrock of a scientific theory.
RR for some reason believes the brain is not used for thinking at all.
Baffling ???
“The brain is a necessary pre-condition for human mindedness, but not a sufficient one.”
What would be the sufficient one? fairy dust?
I don’t know; without the brain there can be no mind. That doesn’t mean that the brain is a sufficient pre-condition for human mindedness, just that it’s a necessary pre-condition.
If you don’t know, then how do you know one exists? You cannot even guess what it must be. I thought you were logical. Use logic to give an answer.
Why do you say “fairy dust?” as if I’ve ever implied anything like that; just because I believe naturalism is false doesn’t mean I think the mind arose due to “fairy dust” or “God” or any other strawman response.
I don’t know how the mind arose, and I’m comfortable with that answer.
By the way, what is thinking? What is cognition?
The brain allows thinking.
Thinking is what allows understanding.
So the brain is what allows us to understand.
The simple things are so hard for RR.
Right, thinking is a mental process that involves in having a thought. But what is a thought?
When I do not understand something I think about it so I will understand. Simple as pie.
A thought is something you hold in working memory that you process.
rr,
can i transition to an italian if i try hard enough?
i don’t care what you try to do.
avoiding the question.
A “thought” is a mental state of considering a particular theory or hypothesis or the answer to a question or that of committing oneself to a particular hypothesis. Since it is closely related to beliefs, they are irreducible to physical states.
This is because when one considers the answer to a particular question, they pave the way to holding a particular belief, and so when one has committed themselves to a particular answer they have acquired a belief. Beliefs are propositional attitudes since believing ‘p’ involves adopting the belief attitude to the proposition ‘p’.
memory stores the results of thinking
memory then, holds propositions worked out by thinking
This is what the brain does, if not then it’s all pixie dust
“If not then it’s all pixie dust”
“RR believes naturalism is false therefore he believes it’s all pixie dust”
great logic.
I explained what “thinking” is and why it cannot be reduced to physical states.
Thinking in words in one way to think.
Most people think in pictures.
Imagination is a feedback loop between the front and back of the brain.
“I explained”
a just-so story from RR why thinking does not happen in the brain.
It’s not.
The brain thinks.
Too hard for RR to understand.
Nope.
what is naturalism?
creationist all the time say naturalism is false.
Put simply, naturalism is the belief that only natural laws operate in the world. Naturalism has been refuted by the Kripke-Wittgenstein rule-following argument, Bilgrami’s Moore-Frege-Moore pincer argument, Kim’s Causal Exclusion Argument, Davidson’s argument against the existence of psychophysical and psychological laws etc.
“creationist all the time say naturalism is false.”
I don’t care. Guilt by association.
nat·u·ral·ism
ˈnaCH(ə)rəˌlizəm/Submit
2.
a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
Yea, it’s false. Davidson’s argument against the existence of psychophysical and psychological laws, Kim’s Causal Exclusion Argument, the Kripke-Wittgenstein rule-following argument, Bilgrami’s Moore-Frege-Moore pincer argument all refute naturalism.
what exists outside physics RR?
spirits/supernatural
why believe such ghosts RR?
Nope.
Does everything reduce to physics?
RR rejects naturalism.
RR proposes the supernatural as real since naturalism premises itself against the supernatural as real.
naturalism = supernatural is not real
RR rejects naturalism
RR believes in the supernatural.
Duelism all over again
All existence is of the superset of existence. All the exist is therefore in the set of being natural because natural is all that exists. Therefore no supernatural things exist because they fall under the superset of existence. If the supernatural was outside of existence then in no way could it influence existence? Supernatural is a subset of the natural or it would not exist as all that exists is natural by definition. Supernatural must either not exist or exist. All that exists is in the superset existence i.e. the natural. The supernatural by definition if it interacts with the natural is itself natural. There is no dualism.
RR “naturalism is the belief that only natural laws operate in the world.”
All laws of existence fall under the superset EXISTENCE. Nothing is outside existence. Supernaturalism is false.
The brain expressed in an environment?
In other words: The brain is conditioned by the environment.
You made something simple sound much more complicated. Shows how differently some people tend to talk.
My brother has deficits in understanding people and is highly systematized.
PP, I got my book J. Phillipe Rushton: A Life History Perspective, and I had a chuckle. Remember when you said “Maybe he’s [Dutton] too autistic to realize Rushton’s on his team”? Well, he addresses your point:
“But on this basis, it could be argued that my critique of Rushton simply gives ammunition to emotionally-driven scientists and their friends in the media. However, it could be countered that my critique only goes to show that it is those who are genuinely motivated by the understanding of the world — those who accept empirical evidence, such as with regard to intelligence and race — who are prepared to critique those regarded as being ‘on their side.’ And this is precisely because they are unbiased and thus do not think in terms of ‘teams.’ (Dutton, 2018)
Hahaha, he anticipated my criticism!
Does the book look good? Does it look like he did a lot of work/research?
It looks good. Kinda short, though. Only 144 pages sans references, index and the beginning acknowledgments of the book. Looks pretty good.
Accordingly, in this chapter, we will begin by getting to grips with the key concepts of intelligence and personality. This part is primarily aimed at non-specialist readers or those who are sceptical of the two concepts [it’s really barebones; I’m more than ‘sceptical’ and it did absolutely nothing for me]. In Chapter Two, we will explore Rushton’s theory in depth. Readers who are familiar with Life History Theory may wish to fast forward through to the section on the criticisms of Rushton’s model. I intend to be as fair to his theory as possible, in a way so few of the reviewers were when he presented it. I will respond to the many fallacious criticisms of it, all of which indicate non-scientific motives [what about Rushton? Did he have any non-scientific motives?]. However, I will show that Rushton is just as guilty of these kinds of techniques as his opponents. I will also highlight serious problems with his work, including cherry picking, confirmation bias, and simply misleading other researchers. In Chapter Three, we will explore the concept of ‘race’ and show that although Rushton’s critics were wrong to question the concept’s scientific validity, Rushton effectively misuses the concept, cherry-picking such that his concept works. In Chapter Four, we will explore the research that has verified Rushton’s model, including new measures which he didn’t examine. We will then, in Chapter Five, examine the concept of genius and look at how scientific geniuses tend to be highly intelligent r-strategists, though we will see that Rushton differed from accepted scientific geniuses in key ways.
In Chapter Six, we will find that Rushton’s theory itself is problematic, though not in the ways raised by his more prominent critics. It doesn’t work when it comes to a key measure of mental stability as well as to many other measures, specifically preference for oral sex, the desire to adopt non-related children, the desire to have pets, and positive attitudes to the genetically distant. It also doesn’t work if you try to extend it to other races, beyond the three large groups he examined [because more races exist than Rushton allows]. In Chapter Seven, with all the background, we will scrutinize Rushton’s life up until about the age of 30, while in Chapter Eight, we will follow Rushton from the age od 30 until his death. I will demonstrate the extent to which he was a highly intelligent r-strategist and a Narcissist and we will see that Rushton seemingly came from a line of highly intelligent r-strategists. In Chapter Nine, I will argue that for the good of civilization those who strongly disagree with Rushton must learn to tolerate people like Rushton. (Dutton, 2018: 12-13).
You should buy it, maybe it’ll change your views on Rushton. =^)
rr,
you’re a joke until you explain why i can’t transition to an italian.
Jorge videla, You need to have dark hair and eyes and light skin, you need to have learn italian fluently, you have to marry an italian woman, you need to have christian morality.
“Guns have only existed for a short period of time, by contrast primates have been slabbed, slashed and hacked for millions of years, so there’s been far more time to evolve an innate fear towards these methods of violence, and so they better fit the scary atmosphere horror fans seek.”
Actually I’d say it’s because edged weapons tend to produce more gruesome reults. Which is of course more entertaining for the audience. I mean Yeah you can torture someone with a gun, if you know the right spots, but at that point it becomes some kind of action or mafioso film than horror. I bet it’s hard to sneak around and kill people with a loud ass gun.
Maybe, but the shower scene in Psycho terrified generations of moviegoers despite showing virtually no gore. Doubt it would have had the same impact had she been shot in the shower:
I think people just instinctively view a knife as creepier than a gun
Jeff Bezos/Net worth
143.1 billion USD
IQ (U.S. white norms) = 9.487319(number of figures) + 52.57971
161 = 9.487319(11.431) + 52.57971
these guys are my heroes.
I feel like that sometimes. Not as bad as how they were though.
Things were not good in 2007-09
It is rather a bit of disassociation I was in.
Denis Noble shitting on GWAS. Let the triggering commence:
As with the results of GWAS (genome-wide association studies) generally, the associations at the genome sequence level are remarkably weak and, with the exception of certain rare genetic diseases, may even be meaningless (13, 21). The reason is that if you gather a sufficiently large data set, it is a mathematical necessity that you will find correlations, even if the data set was generated randomly so that the correlations must be spurious. The bigger the data set, the more spurious correlations will be found (3).
[…]
The results of GWAS do not reveal the secrets of life, nor have they delivered the many cures for complex diseases that society badly needs. The reason is that association studies do not reveal biological mechanisms. Physiology does. Worse still, “the more data, the more arbitrary, meaningless and useless (for future action) correlations will be found in them” is a necessary mathematical statement (3).
Nor does applying a highly restricted DNA sequence-based interpretation of evolutionary biology, and its latest manifestation in GWAS, to the social sciences augur well for society.
And….
The Weismann Barrier is permeable, and organisms are capable of transmitting non-DNA inheritance
https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/physiol.00017.2018
The MS will be completely dead, soon.
peepee imagines that narrow sense can be a small fraction of the total h^2. but then breeding would be ineffective in the long run. narrow sense is all that matters in breeding/eugenics. to make super people you’d have to use CRISPR.
MS?
Modern Synthesis.
We are champions (whoever is this we )
Wakanda
Wow, what an beautifull aryan mastermind, this is lebensborn in action pals.
His social iq must be yuge.
it turns out mike enoch’s father is or was a professor of old english at penn.
the alt-right is something new, and it’s not going away.
pill and i should attend the rally in dc on august 12th.
Phil, was i correct about the black gal and her preference for white guys?
What are you talking about?
In the past you posted an social intelligence question, and i laid the awnser that the black girlfirends friend did like white guys.
That answer is incorrect. You can’t tell from the information given.
I thought my lop-de-lop logic would work. Damn…
I didnt see the answer, what was it?
What was the question ?
That she did like the whtie guys, since she could ponder about the small differences in faicial structure between white guy celberties and pondered it when not being in his prescense, that she thought about him outside of improvising social entertainment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM8iT1UHnjI
wtf is this??
another example of a hoarse voiced man who isn’t sick.
The girl, the guys, the cuck and the old man all seemed very disturbed in my view. Maybe its cuase im raised amongst squeeky clean soft gummy bear germanics.
according to dixie48 on shoe’s blog 50% of those making a perfect 1600 were rejected by america’s most elite unis. 50% were accepted.
the equivalent in almost every other country would’ve been accepted 100%.
That’s exactly the calculs I made . More precisely I said that if top 50 universities report correctly their score, they take 50% of the people scoring on their top 75th sat level level. Nobody believed me … (and i saw they lie about this level too)
50% is a lot, because you got people with bad grades or personality pbs. It’s a pity they don’t select on a combination of tests that would better catch g level.