In case you’ve been living under a rock for the past few days, this blog has been setting social media on fire after I discovered shocking video of Michael Jackson’s photographer claiming Jackson built the train station at the Neverland ranch before he had a permit. This was significant because Jackson fans claim he could not have molested a kid at the train station in 1992 if the building permit wasn’t even issued until Sept 93. However with the footage I unleashed, that alibi has crumbled.
Within hours of that blog post, thousands of people were tweeting Dan Reed, director of HBO’s critically acclaimed blockbuster Leaving Neverland, and then when Reed himself tweeted my discovery, all hell broke loose.
I have been bombarded with abuse survivors thanking me for brilliant journalism and excellent research. Adults who claim they were molested as children have very high IQs so it’s a great honor to be an icon in the #Metoo movement.
Of course now that the permit alibi has been ripped to shreds, Jackson fans are using photographs of Neverland, allegedly taken after 1992 to prove that there was no train station then. However even if the train station was not up until as late as 1994, Safechuck is on record saying the abuse ended “around 14” and someone born Feb 28, 1978 is still around 14 until at least Feb 28 94. Childhood memories are obviously approximate.
Pumpkin Person 
so how does one explain the nazis’ extreme love of animals with their extreme indifference to the suffering and death of (some) humans?
I do repent; but heaven hath pleas’d it so
To punish me with this, and this with me,
That I must be their scourge and minister.
I will bestow him, and will answer well
The death I gave him. So again good night.
I must be cruel only to be kind.
Thus bad begins and worse remains behind.
[redacted by pp, April 25, 2019]
rules of mafia club:
rule #1: you do not let non-italians into mafia club, especially irish people.
rule #2: you do NOT let non-italians into mafia club, especially irish people.
even irish setters cannot be members of mafia club.
“Adults who claim they were molested as children have very high IQs so it’s a great honor to be an icon in the #Metoo movement.”
What does this mean?
Yeah seems like complete nonsense.
It’s the truth race realist. Pedophiles are also very smart.
Example: Joe Biden
What’s the relationship?
I think he’s just a troll dude.
Well i changed my mind on molested children having high IQs. If they did, they would’ve exposed the rapist. Or like pumpkin person likes to put it, “adapted”. The reason I say pedophiles have high IQs is because of Alex Jones. I trust his judgement because he has an iq of 140. Also look up pedophiles.
lol
impossible to know for sure maybe, because the pedos who are caught will be dumber than the ones who aren’t, and only those who are caught will be tested. they have been and they are significantly dumber than average. and sexual deviants generally have low IQs i expect. especially lesbians.
but i’ve read that people who answer “bisexual” on questionnaires have higher IQs. but who knows if they’re really bisexuals or just entertaining the idea because they have high “openness”. david geffen is an actual bi. anthony perkins. tony richardson. but like 12% of women are bi. men it’s teeny tiny. much less than the gay fraction.
like swank and rr are bi…but only for arnold.
of course almost every homo is capable of getting it up for a woman. and dykes can marry men and raise children. whereas straights would be grossed out by homo sex. this is why norm says, “everyone is straight.” i agree.
there’re lots of example of homo sex in animals, but in ALL animals the same ones who sodomize also do it with girls/boys whatever. so norm is right again. the “exclusive homosexual” human is a myth or humans are different from all other animals.
for one thing the “romantic attraction” to the same sex makes no sense as fags are effeminate and dykes are butch. just get a woman to peg you already. this is why i have so many ex-wives.
I doubt Alex Jones has 140 IQ
“Adults who claim they were molested as children have very high IQs so it’s a great honor to be an icon in the #Metoo movement.”
To be completely honest, I would predict the opposite: sex abuse victims probably have much lower IQs, on average.
Never mind. If molested children had high IQ, they would of found a way to expose pedophiles.
Or, “adapt” as you put it, which I love!
Pumpkin, if your similarities scores (scaled) on three different tests were 13, 11, 11- your real score would be a 12 by those averages. Apparently, people with IQs of 110 and higher are very much susceptible to regression to the mean, hence they are more likely to get negative practice effects (according to a publicly available book, however, I could have misinterpreted it). So, if an increase was spotted on all three of those during a subsequent retest, would a test that can test your real ability (first try, later tries could increase the score) also be susceptible to an increase in the score for practice due to the increases in scores for all the other previously taken subtests?
Ok, I might have figured out the answer yet again. The answer is, yes, you’d most likely show the increase since you’ve shown in it others, and the increase is also up to 13.
Pumpkin, on the first similarities test I ever did, I got either a 12 or 13. Apparently, scores in this range are susceptible to regression towards the mean. Could it be the reasoning behind my scaled scores 11 for the other tests (the other tests had different items). Could those be my scaled scores since I regressed to the mean?
met a boerboel at the dog park yesterday. awesome dog. his head was 4x the size of my dog’s. he looked like a dinosaur.
the 5m europeans on south africa have contributed much more than their numbers would predict. the boerboel is another contribution.
why is it that abductees always claim they were anally “probed”?
because space aliens are perverts?
and because perverts have higher IQs?
and thus china people look like aliens because higher IQs?
I think you’re on to something.
“and thus china people look like aliens because higher IQs?”
There’s an ancient aliens “theory” on this. It’s pretty funny.
“Race, Citizenship, and the Politics of Alien Abduction; Or, Why Aliens do not Abduct Asian Americans”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jpcu.12545
Aliens don’t abduct Asian Americans because the aliens are Asians from the future.
I figured it out: Abductees are more likely to have hazel or green eyes while also having rH negative blood. All three traits are more likely to be found in whites. The aliens are just Asians from the future, and they don’t abduct Asians today because, why would you abduct yourself from the past? Some guy on Ancient Aliens brought up that these eye colors/rH negative blood are due to mutations and that’s why they are more likely to be abducted. Checkmate, Ancient Aliens deniers. (I took these pictures last year while watching an episode because I found it so funny.)
i’v even heard the alt-right use the term “working class”. this is classism or stupidity.
possible extensions of “working class” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_(semantics):
1. poor people
2. people who work with parts of their bodies other than their vocal chords and fingers.
it’s good to hear striker use the term “buzhy”. this is an american black term. “bitch think she buzhy!” because she doesn’t respond to the cat calls of a guy drinking wine on the corner.
3. minorities are USED by capital. and they don’t know it because low IQ.
“buzhy” is short for “bourgois”.
from lowest to highest:
1. black republicans
2. black democrats
3. black liberals
4. black marxists
4. black nationalists
it’s a tie.
if a black isn’t a hard core marxist or nationalist then i know he or she is too retarded to talk to.
I more or less agree with your ranking. Indeed 4 years ago I estimated the black republican mean IQ to be 78:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/06/18/the-iq-of-black-republicans/
That is absurd. I’m not even sure if you actually believe that. And we both know that the reason why black leftists are smarter is because halfbreeds keep calling themselves black. It’s really annoying.
To clarify, the more leftist a halfbreed, the more they’re likely to call themselves black. This is super duper obvious and not worth expounding on.
Even though I agree with this hierarchy, I’d be interested in knowing your rationale for it.
1- they go against their self interest
2- they rule for themselves. Let’s talk about being me
3- like 2 but tbey are able to extract themselves from prevalent prejudices you find both in most rapper and old church ladies
4- they do like 3, but in an intellectual level, that helps them rationalize their condition to their apparent advantage, like the Jewish did in Russia and Europe or Women feminist did in the 50ies
5- because they are able to see that USA being so rich, sharing the wealth with white people, and blocking entries from outside, in particular intellectual Africans that rip them from positive discrimination (Obama, Joy Reid etc) is to the oN advantage
6- HBD blacks. Because they believe in a true theory independently of it serves them or not
That’s my guess that I present with TOTAl humility, that oils never be enough to please my favoutite local kinky schizo troll … Against congrats to Pumpkin for adroitly exploiting the Jackson controversy.
Just educated guess :
1- 78 (16%)
2- 85 (78%)
3- 90 (3%)
4- 95 (1%)
5- 105 (1%)
6- 120 (less than 0.1%)
The two black conservative ladies with a crappy internet site are level 5 addressing the level 1 black market mainly.
They are the leaders of 1 people …. Candace Owens is also a 5 but she adresses 1 to 5 market (almost all blacks). That’s why she understood she was being trolled by the NZ terrorist.
Most black in ivies are 3 who turns being 4. Except athlete who are 1 o 2 who turns like fake 3 for most. Some are hidden 5.
With 5, their is a sub-category of religious fanatic but with IQ to theorize their dogma. Some of those can be as high as 6, despite religion being more prevalent among more stupid people. There are some like that in bright athletes and finanxislly successful blacks.
Candace Owens probably has an IQ of about 115, but I don’t feel smarter than her.
1. Ghetto Blacks/People from Haiti and Africa
2. Black Democrats
3. Black Republicans
4. Black Marxists
5. Blacks who want to be white e.g. Michael Jackson
(From lowest to highest).
Nah, a lot of blacks that are semi-educated are willing to promote the nationalist agenda, like talking about “Mother Africa” and various propositions to go back. I just saw a rapper post about the fact that if all blacks left to Africa, America would be squandered. Black nationalism is a lot more common than you think, even among the not-so-educated crowd.
Blacks who are nationalists certainly have a lower IQ than Marxist blacks. Now none of them believe in HBD, but that’s a different point in the matter.
Candace Owens is a hack. She’s a leftist masquerading as a right wing pundit. It’s cringey how everyone falls for it.
And lol at these “IQ” estimates.
This is tough. Most of the black Republicans I know are affiliated with military. So they can’t be too dumb because the military weeds the extreme dummies out.
yeah. “military intelligence” is an oxymoron, but according to flushton black officers have higher IQs than white enlisted men.
but the US military is a ginormous parasite, a blood sucking leach. there are some high IQ military people, but i don’t respect them.
and i wasn’t talking about IQ. i wouldn’t be surprised if black republicans have the highest IQs, but they’re still the dumbest.
and by “black nationalists” i meant black separatists not black followers of steve bannon. but black bannonists would be smarter than black liberals.
No he said black officers have bigger heads, he didn’t look at their IQs
i guess it’s spelled “leech”. not a word i use every day or see in print.
but the ideal, the most attractive, is a combination of the strengths of the two genders, or at least their stereotypical strengths:
seriousness and caring.
i wanna fuck a jesuit with a vagina.
Caringngess? Who gives a fuck about caringness, you closeted homo? You can’t even accurately assess people’s attraction to the opposite gender, how are you going to go around making broad blanket-statements, my man. You’re retarded as a motherfucker. You probably are a mother fucker.
Stop with all that “I can summarize the world in 3 words or less” bullshit [redacted by pp, April 27, 2019]
paul robeson was a 140+ IQ [redacted by pp, April 28, 2019] and he was a commie.
the golitsyn conspiracy theory may be the most parsimonious explanation of russia gate fiasco. that is, the promoters knew nothing, but their masters knew something.
think about it…
if the US had lost the cold war and its dictator was a former CIA agent or FBI agent what would you think?
because black republicans think black people’s problems can be solved with “the free market”.
and the others think they can be solved only when white people stop being “racist”.
both of these are NEVER going to happen EVER.
[redacted by pp, April 28, 2019]
What about the ones that believe black people’s problems can only be solved through eugenics and or segregation?
I don’t think segregation would help much. Eugenics most definitely would.
I think 1950s black people are a lot better than 2010s black people. If segregation is part of the reason, then I accept it and am willing to commit to it. If it’s not or there is a better way to rebirth the 1950s black man, then I’ll commit to that.
There’s something to be said for that. Back in the 1950s most wealthy blacks (including doctors and business owners) still lived in predominantly black areas, versus nowadays where they are more spread out. The paternalistic conservative in me thinks that might not have been such a bad thing.
I had a similar rationale for my ranking.
like all these frauds supporting repuhachuns.
a one time payment to every descendant of slaves means when that doesn’t work yt can wash his hands.
repuhachuns should just mean heppin does blacks be slaves an’ shieet.
a one time check is NOT heppin.
affirmative action is NOT heppin.
one thing witch cou’ hep is ending the local funding of public edumacation an’ shieet.
black schools shou’ ha’ as mutch fun’in’ as dem cracker schools an shieet.
Couldn’t one argue that since Blacks are a monolith that practically by default votes Democrat, Republican Blacks would likely average a higher intelligence since virtually 100% of unthinking/intellectually lazy Blacks would align with the left? I think that being a Black Republican more selects for independent thinking and competence in the marketplace than does the “easy” choice of being a Black Democrat.
Also I think that you are too eager to convince people of the correlation between “liberalism” and intelligence. I have no doubt that intelligence is negatively correlated with things like religiosity and racism, but from the research I have seen, fiscal conservatism/lassiez-faire attitudes and intelligence are correlated positively. The correlation may shrink as you control for socioeconomic status, as low-IQ people, who disproportionately make up the disadvantaged in a more conservative environment, would be incentivized to be for socialistic policy? Perhaps adjusting for wealth, the correlation is flipped.
Ostensibly Democrats are smarter since they vastly outnumber Republicans in academic fields, but the correlation between academic achievement and intelligence isn’t 1. Bright conservatives tend to be attracted to more lucrative and productive fields like business and engineering, while cerebral liberals tend to gravitate towards navel-gazing in a sense.
Black republicans would be on average smarter than black dems. People seem to think here that black dems are ideological. The typical black democrat voter probably has the general knowledge of a jewish 13 year old.
If you looked at all black dem voters you would see the average is less because the black republicans can at least do some bare abstract thinking.
I actually think a black voting republican can be in his interests if the republicans are anti immigration and not cuckolds like Bush type ‘moderates’.
That black pizza guy. Can’t remember his name. Hes an example of a typical black republican.
But the typical black dem is probably some sea creature living in detroit.
“Racism” is correlated with really high intelligence. E.g. most jewish elites.
But in the mid range intelligence you get a lot of fervent anti racists.
These are the people that are brainwashed by the former for tribal purposes.
rr said that chinamen make great lifters or something iirc.
he’s right.
my 1960 world book encyclopedia describes europeans and china people as “muscular” and SSAs as “linear”.
but there’s a small subset of SSAs that’re super buff and slavery may have been a eugenics experiment…
in other words, black americans are better afaletes den dee average SSA.
there’s yuge variation within africa.
kenyan marathon runners are never gonna be great sprinters…and absolutely never great shot-put-ers.
i saw some african in paris on a travel show and dude had no shoulders. it was weird. very unlike dave winfield.
https://images.app.goo.gl/8Wa1ozsNhEsdTHQw8
check it out. if a white man had those proportions you’d assume he had some rare genetic disease.
the black advantage in some sports is all about the skeleton, not the muscles or the brain.
btw, is it just me or are black american baseball players smarter.
the black advantage in (certain) sports is due to a complex interaction of multiple irreducible factors.
the dating sites’ stats are confirmed:
what women want is much more variable.
for example:
alain delon is reckoned top 10 sexiest actors ever by some women…
but to others he just looks like bill gates.
but i still don;t get the audrey hepburn thing.
she looks like a stick i could break in half over my penis.
the thing is movie stars have to be attractive to men & women…
this means male stars will tend to look like girls or be super butch but female stars will always be strong…
why is peepee so opposed to sylvester?
///
like delon i have a scar under my chin.
i fell of my bike and hit the curb.
scar is still there.
Rushton blasted yet again, this time by Flynn. A nice comprehensive look at the BS that flew off of Rushton’s fingers throughout his life.
Rushton believed not only that East Asians, whites, and blacks could be ranked in that order for desirable traits but also that the black/white IQ gap is predominantly genetic in origin. Concerning the first, he relied on the “ice ages hypothesis”to show that the evolutionary history of the three races had varied as East Asians were subjected to the most demanding environment (north of the Himalayas), whites to the next most demanding (north of the Alps), and blacks to the least demanding (Africa). As to the second, he appealed to arguments based on the method of correlated vectors (Jensen effects) and regression to the mean. To assess his contribution I argue: (1) That the racial ranking for desirable traits is not as tidy as it seems; (2) That the ice ages hypothesis has been falsified; (3) That the black/white Q gap is more likely to be environmental, with black American subculture as the culprit; and (4) That appeals to correlated vectors and regression cannot disentangle genetic and environmental causes.
https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/3/htm
Hahaha. A career of pushing pseudoscience that gets demolished at every turn.
Rushton reminds me of a child who’s been sexually abused. Even though he’s telling the truth, many don’t believe him because what he’s saying is so horrific & threatening & because he gets a few details wrong
His just-so stories aren’t “horrific” or “threatening”.
What “few details” do you believe he got wrong?
to liberals it’s extremely horrific because historically theories of racial inferiority & black sexuality has been used to oppress & dehumanize
I’m not a liberal and Flynn has empirical, not politically motivated, reasons to disagree with Rushton.
Whay do you think Rushton got wrong?
Good question
Do you know the answer to the question?
[redacted by pp, April 28, 2019]
north of the alps was hella colder than north of the himalayas. try again flushton.
You’re not too bright are you? Most of the ancestors of whites didn’t move north of the alps until well into the Holocene. By contrast proto-northeast Asians were north of the Himalayas for tens of thousands of years.
Let’s say that’s true: what does it mean?
it’s TRUE.
black women are totally into italian men.
https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/The_Great_Black_Dick_Hoax
maybe it’s because italian men are totally NOT into black women.
hard to get is attractive.
whereas british women think italian men need a bath…even after they’ve had a bath…
they just look like they smell bad.
PP, why do censor certain things man?
It should be obvious why. If that were a comprehension question on the WAIS you would fail.
Well, some content might be considered offensive, could potentially make someone feel offended (very unlikely on this blog)- also, you have ads, so you’re making money. So, if people say random shit all the time without it being censored, ads will not be as likely to come.
Lol- comprehension subtest. What’s the correlation between the EQ and comprehension subtest?
it has been supposed that the black mean is higher, but what if the black SD is larger?
for IQ it’s smaller, because IQ is bullshit.
but for afaletic ability in general one should expect a population with greater variance in body type to be over-represented at the highest level in every sport.
PP, would a person with an 80 IQ have more practice effects than someone with a 90 IQ?
Rushton blasted again, from his old Uni, no less:
When Rushton presented crime statistics derived from 2 Interpol Yearbooks as allegedly supporting his thesis that Negroids are more crime inclined than Caucasoids, he arbitrarily excluded disconfirmatory data sets. When all data from the same two Interpol Yearbooks are re-calculated, most of the statistically significant trends in the data are in the direction opposite to Rushton’s beliefs: Negroids had lower crime rates than Caucasoids with respect to sexual offenses, rapes, theft, and violent theft or robbery, with most correlation coefficients exceeding .60. While we do not place much credence in such Interpol statistics as they only reproduce information provided by government officials of different countries, our re-analysis indicated that Rushton excluded data that would discredit his theory.
Wow, what does this mean for his ‘r/K selection theory’? Cherry-picking data to fit his theory (p-hacking), how Rushton-like.
And a nice note on regression toward the mean too:
Thus, he estimated the IQ of Mexicans, Middle-Easteners, and of East Indians, to be much lower than the one of American Caucasians (see his lectures on YouTube). With respect to university educated immigrants from these regions, Rushton insisted that their children would be far less intelligent due to the phenomenon of “regression
toward the mean,” a widely used pseudo-scientific explanation popular in certain circles. As pointed out already a few decades ago by Nesselroade, Stigler, and Baltes [4] on the basis of statistical research, “Regression toward the mean is not a ubiquitous phenomenon, nor does it always continue across occasions.” For example, medical data indicate that untreated alcoholics or untreated patients with highly malignant cancer do not regress to the mean of their racial group: their illness usually progresses to adverse or terminal outcomes. It is a pseudoscientific practice to apply the concept of regression toward the mean to IQ scores of ethnic groups, see expert discussion by James Flynn [3] in 2019.
Click to access Interpol-Crime-Statistics-and-Rushtons-Racial-Dogma.pdf
hahaha Rushton’s whole career is a joke. Refuted at every turn.
Why do you accept all the criticism at face value & not think critically about any of it?
Did he or did he not include data that didn’t fit his theory?
I worry about RRs intellectual state very dearly. I wish we could send him a guidance counsellor or some sort of professional to help him understand basic concepts.
Elaborate.
rr is the result of the only time an italian man has ever had sex with a black woman.
why is rr getting so much heat?
Because sometimes he can act like a pseudo-intellectual.
human brain shrinkage due to domestication or a warmer planet?
all domesticated animals have smaller brains. what about dingoes? aren’t they supposed to be formerly domesticated/feral?
Despite a great deal of variation among wild and domestic canids, the brain/body size of dingoes forms a tight cluster within the variation of domestic dogs. Like dogs, free-ranging dingoes have paedomorphic crania however, dingoes have a larger brain and are more encephalised than most domestic breeds of dog. The dingo’s brain/body size relationship was similar to those of other mesopredators (medium-sized predators that typically prey on smaller animals), including the dhole (Cuon alpinus) and the coyote (Canis latrans). These findings have implications for the antiquity and classification of the dingo, as well as the impact of feralisation on brain size. At the same time, it highlights the difficulty in using brain/body size to distinguish wild and domestic canids.
Brain shrinkage was caused by malnutrition not genetic change, we’ve now recovered most of our Paleolithic brain & body size
So you think dingoes have a better diet than dogs living domestically? They should compare the dingo to its closest domestic canine equivalent.
That is such a stupid comment on your part, Pill. Even domesticated animals didn’t have adequate nutrition until maybe half-way into the last century. That being said, domesticated dogs would not be comparable because wealthier people own dogs at a higher rate than poorer people, or at least the ones that are well-fed.
However, if you don’t believe the premise that the diet of dogs versus dingoes is an accurate measure of 21st century humans versus hunter-gatherers, then you probably want to make the comparison from domesticated dogs living at the time of hunter-gatherers compared to the ones living today. That would be a lot more accurate.
Loaded all of us here are domesticated. In the wild an animal evolves to focus all of its energies on 2 things, surviving and reproducing. Then agriculture happens and once an animal is tamed, breaded, and fully domesticated, it devotes all of its energy to producing economic output for the farmer(s). We are all domesticated. We are all obsessed with earning money, most hi status guys and girls with hi incomes, work damn near 24-7 and have little time for anything else. That is textbook domestication. There are plenty of other traits too that I care not to list because its redundant.
From a gene standpoint domestication is far superior. A small group of men/women (for example, the farmers/a small portion of the domesticated animals) produce all the children in society on the farm. Thus proliferating genes to enormous amounts.
However if you happen to be the domesticated individual, life will often seem like a living hell, because you still retain the instinct to have sex, reproduce, have friends, be with family, explore, meet new people, achieve status, have a partner, and any other goal outside of economic output you can think of.
Evolution is, if you don’t reproduce your genes will die out. Domestication is if you don’t reproduce, that’s good because that’s more time for your economic output, your genes wont die out. You’ll just feel like your genes are dieing out.
If any of you have ever wondered, like Rahul for example. Why you are so damn intelligent, but socially inept. You are just more domesticated than the average person, look at your ancestry on both sides of your family. Do you spend more time reading books, than working out? Your more domesticated. Don’t care about your looks or grooming? Domesticated. Yes wild animals take especially good care of themselves and actually have impeccable grooming habits, look it up.
I argue and hypothesize men were domesticated by other men before women, were based on the fact, men economically output more than women.
That’s complete bullshit. Domesticated species tend to be more social not less.
Under domestication, you get really, really,really,good at things that have absolutely nothing to do with survival and replication, and really, really, really shitty at things that actually have to do with survival and replication, however psychologically you want to be good at things that have to do with survival and replication.
Think about and look at how many scrawny nerds, want to be like the Heroes in the new Avengers movie.
And im not trying to use nerds in a negative way im just saying it as a matter of fact.
Skinny Nerds want to be big and brawny, thats their biggest power fantasy, but big brawny guys dont see nerdyness as having power. Why because nerdiness is a trait of domestication. Nerdiness is obsession with things that have nothing to do with survival and replication .
Nerd: Hey bro I just bought 2 thousand dollars worth of magic the gathering cards.
Brawny: Bro thats not gonna get you laid, you should have bought a car with that. Hold on 1 sec, *combs hair*.
Nerd: Well do you want to play,? Its a really fun game.
Brawny: Bro do you even lift? I’m surprised you can hold, those cards. What is your name again?
Billy: Billy
Brawny: oh what you were saying something? Whatever doesnt matter, lets go bag some chicks you in?
Billy: im cool, im im fine, im just gunna play magic.
Brawny: suit yourself.
I agree with you to a degree, Mikey, but I do believe that brawny guys do see intelligence as a super-power. It’s just that most intelligence is used to serve rather than create. If you applied the same level of mental output that you would to an activity that serves another person’s interests as you would to yourself, you might ideally be far better off than the bigger person.
In reality, it’s more a matter of fear. A matter of not taking a risk in life to potentially bring yourself to a better outcome because you’re scared of losing everything you’ve built thus far. It actually stems from the fact that intelligence is deeply rooted with other facets of personality and psychological traits that are deeply unhealthy. Isolate intelligence and you’ll see it’s very adaptive. However, the typical person is very mentally unstable and intelligence only adds to it. It potentiates it significantly, creating a spiraling feedback loop that ends with mental decay.
Humans, even before domestication, were wilder than animal that has ever lived. We conduct organized violence and warfare at staggering levels throughout our history, far more when we were untamed than at a level of domestication. The reason for that is that contradicting idea that we are so individualistic and are not pack animals that we stray far away from moral behavior. It’s so sad and wicked.
Your advice is really corrupt, Mikey, because it assumes the average person has the mental stability to actually act individualistically and do things for themselves. That’s really not the case. We’re becoming less and less domesticated by the minute. This is because we’re closing in on the Malthusian trap. We’ve overpopulated the planet so significantly that we are seeing the end of domestication, unfortunately. Even the intelligent, like Pill, are expressing deeply rooted hate for the establishment.
I don’t know how much of it is a meme, though. I would like to believe it’s just a meme. People are becoming violent, individualistic, and are failing to respect any social codes that are there. You have to be blind not to see it, Mikey, Pill, all of you! You’re all the reasons why the moral nature of society is suffering so much, because you value individualism more than anything, because your egos tell you that your intelligence is so great that you don’t need others to survive. That’s inherently false, and will only lead to further deterioration of our society.
Sorry, guys, but it’s reality. Nothing I could say would change your minds, though, and that’s the sad part.
Mike puppy says the people with the highest IQs have the best survival value. For example a nerd like bill Gates would be very fit for evolution according to puppy.
We need to fight against the traits others have domesticated into us, We need a return of clans and last names actually meaning something. We need diversity, we need natural selection!
”That’s complete bullshit. Domesticated species tend to be more social not less.”
Yup, docile = domesticated.
”That’s complete bullshit. Domesticated species tend to be more social not less.”
No your just uneducated on the subject.
Domesticated means bred to be whatever trait humans want. The Spartan warriors domesticated themselves to be elite warriors.
And Loaded extreme violence throughout history is domesticated for. Huge armies of ancient times were born and bread to turn 18 and die at war.
and Loaded that was very deep and profound. You got MGTOW and a whole group of men saying F society, and moving out of the city and into the country. And men that move from city to countries have ridiculously hi IQ’s (look up the data). Hi IQ men in droves are saying “I am not my economic output,” and going their own way, abandoning the group. Hi IQ people do not need “the group” to survive. Its fact. What HI IQ people do need “the group” for is reproduction, since only “the group” has females. Also like Pumpkin is always saying true intelligence is the ability to accomplish your individual goals. Which is domesticated for because it creates economic output in our modern capitalist wage slave society.
Also ok lets say Bill Gates does have highest survival value, the value of survival in of itself has diminishing returns, because of the fact , that theres plenty of poor people that survive. Its the same principle of being so rich you have nothing to spend the majority of your money on.. At that point focusing on reproduction is a far better strategy.
But like Loaded says we cannot just “choose, to be wild” which is why we have to train ourselves
hence the need to bring back clans and tribes. MGTOW and city boys turned country, isnt quite a mainstream meme yet, but it sure is gaining traction.
Guys stop equating domesticated with submissive. Its artificial selection for whatever people happen to want.
I think it’s hilarious that you think I’m the one who isn’t educated in the subject.
I’m not arguing over the definition of domestication, I understand that it does not equate to the artificial selection of submissive traits. The point is that the vast majority of domesticated animals are more social and you have not provided anything but baseless conjecture to your claim that domesticated species or individuals are less social. In fact higher sociality could have been “domesticated for.” Which is what happened in humans.
I’m looking at sheep prices, they are about $250 dollars.
Loaded you equate wild with violent. Its not equated its correlated. Wild just means natural selection.
Mikey, I believe your assumptions that people can survive without a group, but is it healthy and moral to let people die or deliberately cause their deaths to strengthen your chances of survival? Agriculture might’ve brought war but what I see is people who are bred for that specific purpose engaging in that specific purpose. In the wild, anyone who is considered “weak” or “different” will be killed because they’re not contributing to a group. Actually, someone or something from the wild will act in its group interests a lot more than agricultural society. Agricultural society gives people the tools to be independent if they want to be, if they have the capabilities to do so, but unfortunately, even most high IQ people don’t. Create new things of utility and you will be rewarded. Simple concept, not so easy to execute, but that’s the whole point.
As for women leaving men and men suffering at the hands of the establishment, it’s very sad, I will admit, and I am directly affected by it too because the same men who are doing this are bashing on guys who are defenseless and might not be as dependent on women to survive. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for them because they’re starting to infringe on my livelihood and taking away my chances of survival.
“I’m not arguing over the definition of domestication, I understand that it does not equate to the artificial selection of submissive traits. ”
You clearly dont and i had to explain it to you.
“In fact higher sociality could have been “domesticated for.”
1st you say could have. Then your next sentence, you say it did. You cant even create a coherent argument.
“Which is what happened in humans.”
Your just angry, that your not that educated. Look at your profile name “King” Melo. Obviously you don’t have status in your personal life, so you come here and try to gain some.
1.No you didn’t. The point flew over your head and then you attacked a strawman.
2. I’m talking in reference to what I think you’ve failed to account for. Again you haven’t substantiated any claim.
3. Try harder.
‘but is it healthy and moral to let people die or deliberately cause their deaths to strengthen your chances of survival?’
Its physically healthy for the killer, assuming no repercussions, but definitely not moral. I mean, is it moral to kill animals for food when your other choice is starvation? Morals are abstract, not based in the concrete, and can be endlessly debated upon.
“In the wild, anyone who is considered “weak” or “different” will be killed because they’re not contributing to a group.”
at worst killed, at best exiled.
“Actually, someone or something from the wild will act in its group interests a lot more than agricultural society.”
your average person definitely yes.
“Agricultural society gives people the tools to be independent if they want to be, if they have the capabilities to do so.”
“As for women leaving men and men suffering at the hands of the establishment, it’s very sad, I will admit.”
This situation is not anything knew. What is new is, what the establishment is domesticating for. Individualism + hi IQ/Intelligence.
As enlightened intellectuals we know the system, is mostly mind control. For example, “status” is completely made up in the mind. I put on my $600 business suit, combined with my $150 gold plated, expert salesman, state of ohio badge. And to everyone that meets me I’m hi status. Even tho in reality in terms of personality, and family background, im basically the mixed race equivalent of white trash.
So as a hi IQ, selfish person, playing and changing the system to my wishes, I end up fulfilling the role I am domesticated for, ala Neo from the Matrix Movies.
The only way to truly be from the domestication is exit the establishment entirely. Hence live out in the countryside.
Melo your fucking retarded. I don’t even know what were you were trying to say? I dont even think you know what you were trying to say? Are you just a scared child, crying for attention?
Lmao what the are you talking about?
Why are you so defensive?
Don’t confuse whatever biological selective purpose with domestication. Domestication seems very mean docilization, selective processe of any species to be on the control of ”meister”.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/domesticate
“As enlightened intellectuals we know the system, is mostly mind control. ”
100% correct.
Sadly some people here believe in the system and CNN so much they would rather they went down, then the actual system.
“you have to be blind not to see it, Mikey, Pill, all of you! You’re all the reasons why the moral nature of society is suffering so much, because you value individualism more than anything, because your egos tell you that your intelligence is so great that you don’t need others to survive. That’s inherently false, and will only lead to further deterioration of our society.”
Hi IQ people do not need the group to survive, what so ever, we can buy some land, and start a farm, and learn how to make it work, and that is only just 1 popular example. You are still young and largely innocent. You likely have never seen a grown man get fired, cry, and emotionally breakdown, over the loss of his job (his mainstream status). You likely haven’t heard 1st ear the horror stories of men earning 6 figures and then there wives betraying them, and leaving, or their jobs suddenly laying them off out of the blue, and they end up working at Walmart as a cashier because of ageism.
Society is deteriorating because the individual is red pilled, enlightened and waking up. Which unfortunately is a byproduct of domestication for individualism.
The group does not care about you as an individual, the group is chronically depressed and inherently selfish. The group only exists to be exploited by those outside of the group. Real life example. Jews draining a country of its resources till the point they get kicked out. This happened on record over 100 times.
And yes Bill Gates can have hundreds of baby moms if he wanted. The point is he does not want to, because he is a product of domestication for higher intelligence. Look at his family ancestry (if thats possible) You will likely find he comes from a long line of hi IQ individuals, which is vehemently being selected for in agricultural modern society.
And yes Bill Gates can have hundreds of baby moms if he wanted. The point is he does not want to, because he is a product of domestication for higher intelligence. Look at his family ancestry (if thats possible) You will likely find he comes from a long line of hi IQ individuals, which is vehemently being selected for in agricultural modern society
Actually agriculture selected for men who have hundreds of babies. According to geneticist David Reich, prior to agriculture you don’t see individual men having huge numbers of offspring because there wasn’t enough wealth to support that until the Holocene
As for gates not having hundreds of babies, there are several possible explanations
1) Ruston argued high IQ people are more K selected, so they have fewer offspring but invest more in each one
2) LOTB argues high math IQ is caused by delayed puberty which presumably would make high math IQ guys less macho & sexual
3) people around 170 IQ (if you go by his SATs) might be genetic mutants & thus not have normal sex drive
4) men around 170 IQ might be unattracted to most women for the same reason a guy with a 100 IQ would not be attracted to a severely retarded woman
“Actually agriculture selected for men who have hundreds of babies.” “I know this”
“And Loaded extreme violence throughout history is domesticated for. Huge armies of ancient times were born and bread to turn 18 and die at war.”
You obviously missed that part ^. And why do you always type in the past tense, for absolutely everything? We still live in an agricultural society. Are you trying to say we don’t have farmers, feeding us? Or we survive without them? That our food supply is created in laboratories?
Each “New Age” is layered on top of the old age, not completely removed.
As for gates not having hundreds of babies, there are several possible explanations, add 1 more.
He is domesticated for having hi IQ, not for having babies and IQ has been domesticated for roughly 60% of the world, since the global bankruptcy of Monarchies all around the world in the early to mid 1900s. and the rise of service based economies.
As for gates not having hundreds of babies, there are several possible explanations, add 1 more.
He is domesticated for having hi IQ, not for having babies and IQ has been domesticated for in roughly 60% of the world, since the global bankruptcy of Monarchies all around the world in the early to mid 1900s. and the rise of service based economies.
It’s not my fault all these men trusted these women to provide them with what they believe are necessities of life. Women are corrupt and evil and the sooner you find that out, the sooner you can move on from the whole situation and just become your own person. There’re lots of ways to achieve self-actualization nowadays without harming others. It’s just that these people are dependent and emotionally unstable to begin with. Men nowadays lack any sensibilities and respect for themselves and others and will do anything to gain that upper-hand that they need so desperately to feel empowered. Men are just as bad as women because they have a greater ability to inflict harm on others and have the same motivations/ideals as women too.
It’s dangerous and evil. These “high IQ” men should be stopped before they deteriorate our society any further. They should know that women are weak and morally reflexive, and they should try to cater to this to live in a harmonious life. I’m not going to stand for people to walk over me because they feel as though their life is shit. I will beat them to a pulp, mentally and physically.
”4) men around 170 IQ might be unattracted to most women for the same reason a guy with a 100 IQ would not be attracted to a severely retarded woman”
I don’t get ”retarded” women will not be attracted to ”guy with an 100 IQ”, specially if he is abv agv attractv
“Women are corrupt and evil and the sooner you find that out, the sooner you can move on from the whole situation and just become your own person.”
Loaded you have surpassed the red pill, and have swallowed the black pill, congratulations.
“These “high IQ” men should be stopped before they deteriorate our society any further.”
We dont need to stop them, we need to move to a new location, start a nation, practice isolationism, and simply ignore them.
Conserfs are the true problem in the world. Most of ecological and moral problems are fundamentally caused by these primitive human versions. Yes, excessive urbanites, many of those with higher cognitive capabilities, are not the answer for that, but the balance between strenghts of all human types. Be social, morally correct, open to human diversity, rational or ponderated thinker, creative and existentially/philosophically correct BUT also be capable to understand some fundamental moral [conservative] principles.
Unfortunately, leftists often believe they are the synthesis while they are antithesis of conservative thesis.
Pumpkin, do most people with IQ 110+ regress to the mean on their second retest within 84 days?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/8960578/Dingoes-show-unbelievable-intelligence.html
and they aren’t wolves. they make good pet dogs.
i tried this with my 70 lb irish setter. he just stared at me like i was crazy.
whose blog was cited in an article in a book? this guy’s.
it was this article https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/12/24/the-threat-of-increasing-diversity-why-many-white-americans-supported-trump-in-the-2016-presidential-election/
in this book https://www.crcpress.com/Educating-for-Critical-Consciousness/Yancy/p/book/9781138363366 https://books.google.com/books?id=H4mUDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT156&lpg=PT156&dq=%22notpoliticallycorrect.me%22&source=bl&ots=Dcg0HpHz9a&sig=ACfU3U0uCpKaz6FyYXvrd16-9wRIHaLvjg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJ_cPEsvbhAhXIMd8KHT1wB00Q6AEwCHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22notpoliticallycorrect.me%22&f=false
feels good
And I’m going to buy it just because someone cited me.
Pretty cool of the author to cite you. Academics tend to avoid citing bloggers, even when they’re influenced by their ideas (i.e. the hbd chick scandal)
He thinks science is equal to popularity…
Youre famous now RR. Don’t forget about us RR when youre dining with the celebrities and ceos.
PP, true. I remember that with hbdchick (who blocked me on twitter 🙂 ). Though I like Frost’s response to her:
In a series of tweets, hbd* chick has accused me of plagiarizing her work without acknowledgment. This is a serious accusation, so please let me address it at length.
…
I first put forward some of these ideas in a post on my blog, “The Western European Marriage Pattern” (November 12, 2011). At that time, I knew hbd* chick had also written about the WEMP, but her posts hadn’t contributed to the development of my thinking. I recognize that she has come up with original ideas on this topic, particularly her belief in the key role of manorialism, but I don’t share that belief. Like Seccombe, I believe that the WEMP goes farther back in time. At one point, I tried to incorporate her ideas into my thinking, but I eventually gave up. I may be wrong, and I would like to be proven wrong, but the northwest European mindset seems to be much older than the Middle Ages.
So what did I plagiarize without acknowledgment? Whatever I know about this subject comes from authors who predate hbd chick, especially Wally Seccombe, but also Alan MacFarlane and Ruth Benedict. And I discovered those authors independently of hbd* chick. I’m especially flabbergasted by her claim that she originated the notion of Western European “guilt culture.” Is she older than Ruth Benedict? Nor did she (or I) originate the notion that independent social orientation is stronger in northwest Europe. Alan MacFarlane and, more recently, Joan Chiao and Katherine Blizinsky have been the trailblazers in that area. Yes, credit should be given where credit is due, and I have given credit to those people who have the strongest moral claim to those ideas.
I wanted to insert a reference in my article to hbd* chick, but that insertion would have simply described her belief that the spread of manorialism was key to the WEMP (whereas I feel otherwise). Unfortunately it’s difficult to cite an anonymous blogger in an academic publication because reviewers and editors have a strong prejudice against such citations. I tried doing that once for a previous article, and I was persuaded to find another source. Citing Wikipedia is usually possible, but citing an anonymous blogger is a bridge too far. The reasons are understandable. When people write under a pseudonym and without peer review, there is no way to prevent publication of poorly formulated views that are written impulsively and in the heat of the moment. I’m not supporting political correctness here. I’m supporting responsible scholarship.
I can understand why many people choose to publish under a pseudonym, especially on topics like this one. I’ve had to endure personal attacks for publishing under my own name, and my name can be linked to a lot of things: home address, personal photos, place of work, and so on. That’s the price I’ve chosen to pay. In exchange, my publications can be cited in the academic literature.
Aside from that one point (the spread of manorialism), I feel no moral obligation to cite hbd* chick for a topic that has long been discussed by many other people. My interest in the WEMP is quite different from hers. I wanted to explain why guilt plays such a strong role in the cultures of northwest Europe. The usual explanation is that northwest Europeans feel guilty because they have a lot to feel guilty about: slavery, colonialism, the Holocaust, etc. But how would that explain a guilt-ridden country like Sweden? The Swedes played little or no role in those historical events. In any case, the roots of northwest European guilt culture go much farther back in time.
I hope everyone will think over what I have written here. I don’t like to treat people wrongly, and it pains me to be accused of wrongdoing.
https://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2017/09/notre-dame-de-compassionparis.html?m=1
I don’t think Frost did anything wrong.
Santo, no I don’t. I just think it’s cool that my blog is sitting in the citations of a book, is all.
This part is disturbing:
Unfortunately it’s difficult to cite an anonymous blogger in an academic publication because reviewers and editors have a strong prejudice against such citations. I tried doing that once for a previous article, and I was persuaded to find another source. Citing Wikipedia is usually possible, but citing an anonymous blogger is a bridge too far.
I understand not citing bloggers as a source for facts, but if you’re using by their ideas, it’s plagarism not to cite them
Of course frost says he rejects hbd chick’s ideas so I’m not saying he plagiarized her, but he’s almost implying it’d be okay if he did.
I don’t think he’s implying that since he said he tried to but was told to find another source.
hes definitely saying he would be okay if he did. Since thats exactly what he did hence the discussion.
Pumpkin, can you estimate Roger Penrose’s IQ?
The argument from simplicity:
I am simple. I contain no proper parts (there is no such thing as “half an *I*”). However, my brain contains proper parts. Therefore I am not my brain.
An argument for the simplicity of persons:
I am not identical with my body nor with any part of it. If I am composed of parts, then all of those parts must be my body. Anything that is wholly composed of parts of my body must either itself be a part of my body or else be identical with my body as a whole. Hence, I am a simple entity, not composed of any parts.
The indivisibility argument:
I contain no parts into which I am divisible. My body is composed of parts. Therefore, I am distinct from my body.
The unity argument:
I am the subject of all and only my own mental states, which is surely a self-evident truth. Neither my body as a whole nor any part of it could be the subject of all and only my own mental states. Therefore I am not identical with my body or any part of it.
Arguments from The Waning Materialism.
Individual physical particles are mindless. No collection of mindless things counts as a mind. Therefore a mind cannot be an arrangement of physical particles.
I am not a brain.
Intensional fallacy and begging the question.
You do realize that brain damage can cause you to be “half an I”? Because of localization you can in fact end up missing integral parts of consciousness and intentionality when brain damage occurs.
Brain damage causes that because the brain is a necessary pre-condition for human mindedness.
Right, but the above arguments use discrepancies in respective properties to establish a dichotomy in identity between the mind and the body. Let’s put aside the fact that this is a textbook example of the intensional fallacy and address the basic premises.
I agree with the contention. You are not only your body, at least in a conceptual sense, but the way these arguments arive to their conclusion is faulty. I assume “I” is the self image and how I relate my position to the rest of the world. Every mental property I have at my disposal stems from an accumulation of every physical interaction that has occurred to me, from me, or around me. If we both agree that certain physical interactions are necessary for mental properties to emerge and that the loss of these physical mechanisms are detrimental to how these mental phenomena function, then you agree with my contention.
Simply put, if I suffer brain damage that affects my ability to feel emotion, conceptualize or decode sensory stimuli have I not lost a part of my “self”?
What is a “half *I*”?
“If we both agree that certain physical interactions are necessary for mental properties to emerge and that the loss of these physical mechanisms are detrimental to how these mental phenomena function, then you agree with my contention.”
There need to be physical facts for there to be mental facts.
“have I not lost a part of my “self”?”
*I* contains proper parts?
1. Right, that’s what I just said.
2. Yes. We know from brain damage studies that the mind can be compartmentalized. Note that this isnt the same thing as massive modularity.
3. I believe the brain is not the mind In the same way that oxygen and hydrogen are not water.
Why the logic is fallacious:
P1. Water is knowable with the unaided eye
P2. H2O is unknowable with an unaided eye
C. H2O is not water.
Of course there is a causal dependency relation of the mind to the brain. That doesn’t mean the mind is the brain.
OK let’s discuss Bennet’s argument in full.
Bennet argues that for any pair of conscious beings, it is impossible for that pair itself to be conscious. I punch myself and feel pain; You punch yourself and feel pain. But our pair wouldn’t feel a thing. Thus, pairs of people are incapable of experiencing pain. This is what Bennet call’s “The Datum.” He posits six explanations for explaining “The Datum”:
(1) Pairs of people lack a sufficient number of sufficient parts; (2) Pairs of people lack immediate parts of standing in the right sorts of relations to the other and the environment; (3) pairs of people lack the immediate parts of the right kinds of nature; (4) pairs of people are not structures, they are unstructured collections of two parts; (5) some combination of 1-4; and (6) pairs of people are not simple.
Let’s take (1): Imagine that each human on earth is in severe pain, while the collection of people is experiencing pure bliss. This is untenable. Thus, no matter how large, a collection of people cannot be the subject of experience. So pairs of people do not have a sufficient number of immediate parts and thusly do not explain “The Datum.”
Now let’s take (2): Let’s say that scientists shrink you and I down into someone else’s brain, me being the left hemisphere and you being the right hemisphere. Then someone punches the person we have been implanted as their hemispheres; they then react. We then stimulate neurons and the person defends themselves, putting their hands up in defense. We do just what that person’s hemispheres would have done. So we function just like a regular brain. So now you and I have a new relation: is it conscious? You and I may remain conscious, but are the pair conscious? No. Thus, pairs of people lack the right parts necessary to stand in the right sorts of relations to themselves and the environment and therefore do not explain “The Datum.”
Now let’s take (3): Let’s say I tell you that I have two objects—(a) and (b)—in mind. You, clearly, need more information to conclude that (a) and (b) are conscious, but you don’t need more information to conclude that the pair—comprised of (a) and (b)—is conscious. We know a priori that pairs of things are not conscious; pairs of, say, TVs, rocks, shoes, beds, are not conscious. So, that any pair—(a) and (b)—may be conscious is absurd is not evidence that the two alone are not conscious.
Now let’s take (4): We can know by reflection that the pair comprising (a) and (b) are not conscious. We know a priori that pairs of things are collections while conscious beings are structures. Collections exist iff whenever the comprisal of what makes up the collections exist; a structure of things exists iff the things in question exist in relation to a certain structure. So consider the atoms in the threads in my pillow as a collection and my pillow as a structure. So if we were to disperse the atoms in the thread making up my pillow out into space, the atoms would still exist but my pillow would not. So are pairs of people incapable of having experience because they are not structures? Let’s now return to (2), when you and I were placed in someone’s brain as their hemispheres. So unlike the pair, the system (brain) is a structure and it would cease to exist if you and I were removed from the individual’s brain, though the pair that you and I form would not. However, the system of people is not a candidate for the subject of experience than the pair that constitutes the system. So the idea that pairs of people are incapable of experience since they are not structures does not explain “The Datum.”
Now let’s take (5): Maybe “The Datum” is not explained by (1)-(4). Maybe some combination of the 4 explains “The Datum.” Maybe pairs of people aren’t conscious because it is a collection which results from the existence of two people; maybe a conscious being is a structure comprised of many cells, organs, standing with one another and the environment they are in certain causal dependent relations. So human bodies which are physical structures that are comprised of organs, cells, blood, etc, are conscious; the differences between human bodies are captured in (1)-(4); the four hypotheses do not explain “The Datum” alone; so some combination of (1)-(4) must explain “The Datum.” So let’s go back to (1). If we consider 7 billion people—and not a pair—then we know that no matter the number of people, that collection is not, itself, conscious. Now take (2), but on a larger—societal—level. If everyone in that society has a similar goal and aims for those goals, are they conscious? No; the claim that they are is absurd. Sure, the society functions just as human brain functions, but is that society—itself—conscious? No. Now take (3), but imagine that every neuron in your head was replaced by a mini-man. Thus, if we shift our attention to the number of mini-men in the head to the structure they comprise, it does not make any difference: (1)-(3) does not explain “The Datum.” Finally, let’s take (4). Imagine that your brain was sliced in half and dispersed into vats. Then those hemispheres are halved—while radio transmitters are placed in your hemispheres (preserving communication with the CNS)—and so on and so forth, until each of your neurons sits in its own individual vat. Now imagine that each neuron is paired up with an individual and the neuron gets a break, with the individual then carrying out the function of the specific neuron, Now, what concerns us is whether or not ‘you’ are identical to the scattered parts of what used to comprise ‘you’ and the system that controls your body. Certain times, billions of people operating billions of radio transmitters are operating the system; other days its billions of neurons operating billions of radio transmitters. So these billions of objects which still interact with your nervous system interact with your nervous system just like your brain used to when it was confined to its skull. So whether or not these billions of people that comprise your radio transmitters that control your scattered neurons is irrelevant; what matters is whether the system itself is a subject of experience—and it is not. So no combination of (1)-(4) explains “The Datum.”
Now, finally, let’s take (6): Are pairs of people not qualified from being conscious because they aren’t simple? In all 4 of the hypotheses, composite entities are presented and we ask whether or not the entity may be conscious. Whether or not the entity in question has 2, 100, 100,000, 100,000,000,000 parts is irrelevant. What does matter—however—is whether or not the posited entities presented are a composite. So there is absurdity in the idea that they are identical to a subject of any experience. The only hypotheses that rival this preceding explanation are (1)-(4), but they are inadequate. So simplicity best explains “The Datum.”
So conscious beings must be simple. We are not simple particles, so Bennett’s argument is an argument against materialism. So correlations between our mental states and our brain states do not give reason to identify ourselves with our brains. Therefore we are not our brains.
discuss here.
the logic is not fallacious; the logic is sound. so here is the argument presented to you in full. you were discussing the argument without full knowledge of it.
1. RR, it does not matter what the full argument for simplicity is, establishing the mental that particular property does not mean it isnt the brain. At least 3 of the arguments you’ve presented me follow my example. Again, I agree with you that the mind is not the brain but I do believe it is physical.
Similarly, this argument also doesn’t show that the mind cannot have proper parts. I can without a doubt show someone missing a piece of their mind, no conceptual argument can refute this without narrowing their definition of mind which will subsequently make their argument weaker.
2. Right, the difference in identity is conceptual not ontological
“Why are there beings at all instead of nothing?…This is obviously the first of all questions. Of course it is not the first question in the chronological sense…And yet, we are each touched once, maybe even every now and then, by the concealed power of this question, without properly grasping what is happening to us. In great despair, for example, when all weight tends to dwindle away from things and the sense of things grows dark, the question looms.”
Barnett* sorry, i’m drunk
You do know that there is no necessity to identify water with h2o if our concept of water is comprised of no beliefs about its microstructure, right?
”Barnett* sorry, i’m drunk”
I hope so..
candy ass hapa uses the peepee phallusy, namely mistaking words for things rather than just jive.
example:
If we both agree that certain physical interactions are necessary for mental properties to…
what’s a “physical interaction”? what does “physical” even means? https://imgflip.com/gif/1oa2vv
Phallusy: noun. To commit a phallusy (sometimes also spelt phallacy, phallucy or phallicy) means to mistake something for a penis when it is, in reality, something completely different. Phallusies are relatively common while stargazing, talking to friends, looking at clouds or visiting restaurants.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
notice that anal-lingus philosophers stress words rather than say what they mean, because they don’t really mean anything or will change the meaning later without knowing it. yet they claim that anal-lingus philosophy is clear-er than philosophy prior to bertrand russel, the inventor of anal-lingus philosophy, because low IQ.
it is impossible for that pair itself to be conscious…
what does that actually mean rr? if you and i are both being raped by horses, one may say “the pair of us feels pain” and that “the pain each of us feels is similar”. so give me the locution which is false, don’t merely stress words then change their meaning in the middle of the argument.
“At least 3 of the arguments you’ve presented me follow my example”
How?
“I agree with you that the mind is not the brain but I do believe it is physical.”
What do you mean?
“Similarly, this argument also doesn’t show that the mind cannot have proper parts”
Barnett’s (1)-(5) are how to explain The Datum. Barnett then showed how each one fails. If pairs, groups, everyone, everything aren’t, and can’t be, conscious then a group of neurons, cells or whatnot cannot be either. I can also invoke the argument of non-conscious particles to establish this as well. Barnett then established how (6) explains it. Simplicity is the only way to explain it since (1)-(5) fails.
“the difference in identity is conceptual not ontological”
Exactly. It’s not an empirical matter.
So you agree the mind is not the brain but you think “the mind is still physical”? How does that follow? Every argument I’ve provided here establishes the non-physicality of the mind. Necessary pre-conditions aren’t sufficient conditions. Do you agree that correlations between brain states and mental states don’t license the conclusion that the mind is the brain?
1. I’ve already explained how. Plug in your prior arguments to the example I presented.
2. Neon is not oxygen, oxygen is not boron, boron is not neon, but they are all physical entities.
3. Simplicity does not explain the datum. Nothing simple can have components. Consciousness has divisible components. An example being Alzheimer’s when memory retention degrades and then eventually disappears. Your memories are an intrinsic part of your self.
Elimination, maximality(Bailey 2014), topological integration(Madden 2012) all explain the datum whilst saving the materialist position.
On another note material things can be simple. So proving the simplicity of consciousness does not prove consciousness is immaterial.
4. Conceptual arguments can be defeated by empirical evidence
5. Because saying the mind is not the brain isn’t the same as saying it isn’t physical. Barnett’s argument does not establish anything. It’s an abductive “intuition pump”. Arguments from common sense do not persuade me. What he finds absurd I do not.
What is the mind, RR*
you both need to watch this movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_in_the_World
and then stop being retarded faggots.
yeah melo is being gay and ‘tarded as usual.
no heterosexuals with IQs above 40 are materialists or naturalists.
i can lose my sight. i can lose the ability to form memories. i can have half my brain removed due to epilepsy. i could think denzel washington isn’t sexy. etc. but there would still be the difference between being awake and being in a dreamless sleep. the difference is “consciousness”.
this simple thing is what heidegger terms “dasien” and what the hindus termed “atman”. both heidegger and the ancient hindus identified atman with brahma/Sein.
esse est percipi.
you should both read berkeley if you haven’t yet.
the ancient “emission theory” of vision describes the ontological reality. the “innerweltlichsein” is given being by dasein.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory_(vision)
kant called it the transcendental unity of apperception.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_apperception
the “emission theory” is ontically false but ontologically true.
it is the difference between seiendes and Sein, beings and Being.
basically what is called “philosophy” in america is just blue haired lesbians arguing over who has the bigger “dick”.
genuine philosophers are extremely rare.
the last genuine philosopher died in 1976.
his period of “flourishing” overlapped with the nazis’.
many have claimed that because he was a hitler-o-phile that his thought must be re-interpreted.
no.
heidegger was so obviously a genuine philosopher that his hitler-o-philia requires a re-appraisal of nazism.
ancient philosophy was greek. modern philosophy was german.
but neitzsche was rabble. nietzsche is like the slightly higher IQ ayn rand. gay. he died from butt sex, tertiary syphilis.
supposedly he has the record for the 100m for high school students.
What’s the record?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/matthew-boling-100m-teen-nicknamed-white-lightning-runs-100-meter-dash-in-9-98-seconds/
Too bad about the 4.2 mph wind. Still a great feat though.
Obsessed by white athletes… and it’s a single adult male…
apparently not. these are probably his biological parents.
https://images.app.goo.gl/YnRg5pUx7sQZUjbv8
maybe his mother injected testosterone directly into her womb.
an example of peepee logic:
P1. “intelligence” is the ability to achieve one’s goals whatever they are using one’s mind.
P2. IQ tests measure “intelligence”.
C. people with high IQs would have been good at hunting woolly mammoths.
No, my logic is:
P1. Human evolution selected for brain size
P2. IQ tests select for brain size
C. High IQ people would have done well during human evolution
Yes you need a big brain to survive in the elements outside of Africa thats for damn sure. Jus go out and try camping in the freezing cold.
“P1. Human evolution selected for brain size”
What do you mean?
“P2. IQ tests select for brain size”
How?
“C. High IQ people would have done well during human evolution”
Just-so stories.
Human evolution selected for brain size in that brain size tripled in 4 million years of evolution. IQ tests select for brain size in that people selected for high IQ average larger brains.
So-called brain size progress vanishes when functional specialization is taken into account. See Deacon.
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1017/s0140525x00078250
Sounds like nonsense. What functional specialization caused brain size to triple in 4 million years of human evolution?
Why’s it nonsense?
I just told you why
Did you read the paper?
RR I think you may have the wrong link. That article seems to be about encephalization in cetaceans not primates. Also I don’t think he’s meaning “progress” in the way you are. He’s just noting an upward trend in the size of a particular trait.
We also see the diverse ways in which correlations can be interpreted. It is not the least bit surprising that g also correlates with head size, brain size, stature, general health, and so on, which, through nutritional, endocrinal, and other aspects of social privilege/exclusion, are also correlates of social class. (Richardson, Demystifying g)
We also see the diverse ways in which correlations can be interpreted. It is not the least bit surprising that g also correlates with head size, brain size, stature, general health, and so on, which, through nutritional, endocrinal, and other aspects of social privilege/exclusion, are also correlates of social class. (Richardson, Demystifying g)
This was debunked by Jensen over 20 years ago. The correlation between IQ & head size (and by inference brain size) holds even among siblings in the same family who grew up with the same social privilege. Stop citing hacks.
“Stop citing hacks”
Funny, because you cite Rushton, Lynn and Jensen.
Even Flynn has great respect for Jensen. Rushton was considered incredibly competent until his research became politically incorrect.
What research from Rushton? His social learning stuff? Have you read his 1980 book? I have, I think it’s pretty good.
I’ll return to the previous discussion when I get home tonight.
Human evolution selected for brain size in that brain size tripled in 4 million years of evolution. IQ tests select for brain size in that people selected for high IQ average larger brains.
vs
Human evolution selects for brain size. Brain size tripled after 4 million years of evolution. IQ tests select for brain size. High IQ people average larger brains.
Human evolution selects for brain size. Brain size tripled after 4 million years of evolution. IQ tests select for brain size. High IQ people average larger brains. Therefore, hi- IQ people have done well during evolution.
Another way you could articulate Pumpkin’s point.
Big brained people are more intelligent. Big brained people do well out in nature. Big brained people do well on IQ- Tests. People that do well on IQ-Tests have big brains. People that do well on IQ-Tests, do well out in nature.
Pumpkin is trying to say. If society breaks down and all the city people, have to move out into the country side, big brained, Hi IQ individuals will still achieve more status, resources, etc. Than their peers also living out in the country,
What i’m saying, (and what Pumpkin may also be trying to say?) Is that for whatever reasons, in humans, greater Intelligence is highly adaptive for surviving/reproducing, out in nature.
In our modern IQ-tested walled in society. Greater Intelligence is highly adaptive for economic output. Which is what we as citizens are born and bred for. Ergo, Hi IQ, big brained citizens will do well out in the country side. Which is exactly what is happening.
“The most interesting finding here (below, far right) is that once income was taken into account, people who moved from the city center to rural areas actually showed a slight jump in cognitive ability over those who stayed.”
https://www.citylab.com/life/2014/07/the-smartest-people-move-into-and-out-of-cities/373760/
”average larger brains.”
How average*
I mean, 60% or+ of HIQ people have bigger brains*
[redacted by pp, April 30/2019]
namely “IQ” for bill gates and “IQ” for bill gates in the ice age aren’t the same thing. there was no written language, no math beyond 1, 2, many, etc. if given a non-verbal IQ test question cave man bill gates would just spit on you. non-verbal tests have been flynned the most because abstraction inculcated by more formal edumacation. this is what flynn himself says. cave man bill gates doesn’t do abstraction. he’d have to be tested with a very concrete problem…the kind no IQ tests have.
Baby Bill Gates takes, time machine, grows up in IQ 65 environment. Would be IQ 130.
And I agree that Flynn has respect for Jensen, I’m saying he’s a hack.
“People that do well on IQ-Tests, do well out in nature.”
Prove it.
And PP, buddy, Rushton was demolished by Anderson and Graves. (In all actuality, Anderson’s paper began my all-out assault on Rushton’s BS. Just a fun fact.)
No the all-out assault on rushton began immediately after rushton read his own paper at the AAA and was 100% political.
Anderson & Graves just nitpicked on minor points & were unable to lay a glove on the actual substance of his work. Neither of them were qualified to review him.
Theoretically rushton’s work is perfection. Where it’s lacking is empirical support.
Name the nitpicks. How wrw they “unable to lay a glove on the actual substance of his work”, when they responded to the meat of the theory, r/K selection?
Nobody with any common sense doubts rushtons theory.
Rr why do you keep calling your blog not politically correct when you are uber pc police here.
Someone with common sense might doubt rushton’s theory if they were racially liberal like me
However RR is a racist so for him to doubt rushton’s theory shows low IQ
Mug of Pee is a high IQ racist so for him to doubt rushton’s theory shows severe autism
“Someone with common sense might doubt rushton’s theory if they were racially liberal like me”
Is that the only reason a liberal would doubt it?
“However RR is a racist so for him to doubt rushton’s theory shows low IQ”
I went from being a fervent defender of it to one of its biggest detractors. What do you mean by calling me “a racist”?
A lot of working class southern Italians are racist, not you only:
Just answer my question.
Common sense now is liberal…
Because majority of people have a common opinion it’s doesn’t mean they are ABSOLUTELY right about it…
Rushton used people in different demographic transition stage to be compared.
Damn, why white people gotta ruin the one thing we have dominance over? lol
Billy the only answer is to become white like michael jackson
But then Puppy will start bullying you.
Usain Bolt still has the record in the 100 and 200 m dash and I don’t think he’ll lose it. The crazy part is, he doesn’t need to change anything in his running technique to have a faster time: he only needs to be faster off the gun and it’s possible he could run it in 9.53 s. Incredible.
Blacks and whites have different centers of gravity which then lend itself to differences in running and swimming. Asians could be better than whites at swimming, but they’re not since they’re not as tall as whites.
Just-so stories
He’s not going to get it Pumpkin.
Blacks on average are worse swimmers and this has to do with anatomy and physiology. There is a black-white drowning gap and that’s cultural in nature due to access to pools in the 60s, along with it being looked at as “something white people do”, along with other cultural factors.
Click to access w2014.pdf
That gap can be closed. The elite swimming gap, however, cannot, and it’s due to center of gravity along with anatomy and physiology. For these same reasons, whites aren’t as good at running as blacks.
Here’s the center of gravity reference:
Click to access D&NE050301f.pdf
Here we explain a much avoided phenomenon in the evolution of speed sports for men and women: The world
records in running tend to be set by black athletes and in swimming by white athletes. We show that this
phenomenon is predictable from physics. Locomotion is a ‘falling-forward’ cycle, in which body mass falls
forward and then rises again. Mass that falls from a higher altitude falls faster, down and forward. In running,
the altitude (L1) is set by the position of the center of mass above the ground. In swimming, the altitude is set
by the upper body rising above the water, and it is proportional to H – L1, where H is the height of the athlete.
The anthropometric literature shows that the center of mass in blacks is 3 percent higher above the ground than
in whites. This means that blacks hold a 1.5 percent speed advantage in running, and whites hold a 1.5 percent
speed advantage in swimming. Among athletes of the same height Asians are even more favored than whites in
swimming but they are not setting records because they are not as tall.
Thid is infinitely more interesting than “IQ” gaps.
This 3 percent difference in center of gravity can account for why the two races excel in running and swimming. When it comes to the runners (blacks), the 3 percent increase in center of mass translates to a 1.5 percent increase in winning speed for the 100 m dash, and a 1.5 percent decrease in winning time, from 10 s to 9.85 s, for example. So the 3 percent difference in running is a huge advantage for blacks.
“Just-so stories”
Nope. There’s empirical data behind it and the cultural and social factors explain the drowning gap. Read Weltse.
What’s the just-so story? Usain Bolt or the swimming/drowning gap?
Wiltse (2014) notes three reasons why blacks may be bad swimmers compared to whites: (1) white swimmers denied blacks access to pools; (2) cities provided few pools to black communities and the pools they did provide were small; and (3) the cities closed many public pools after desegregation occurred. White parents taught their children how to swim, but black parents hardly ever did. As this occurred as swimming became popular in American culture, this could be one reason why blacks aren’t as represented in swimming when compared to whites.
Wiltse’s (2014) argument is that past discrimination to blacks from whites when it came to swimming explains the drowning disparity between the races. Whites passed down their swimming knowledge, whereas blacks had little to no chance to pass theirs down—if they even knew how to swim, that is. This type of cultural transmission could explain most—if not all—of the disparity in drowning between the races. It is simple: to address the disparity, the claim that swimming is “what white people do” needs to be addressed. I would assume that this claim grew from the 60s and desegregation from when blacks were barred from swimming pools, as Wiltse (2014) notes.
that’s the same reason china people aren’t as good as whites who have china people proportions. china people aren’t as tall, and even when they are they aren’t as “sturdy”. the ideal body type for swimming and football are identical. phelps might’ve been a great footballer. although his legs are so absurdly short maybe they’d be too short.
that’s the same reason china people aren’t as good as whites at football who have china people proportions.
”more interesting”
Just so story
“He’s not going to get it Pumpkin.”
Just explain it. What’s just-so? Bolt or swimming?
Race Realists theory gives an credible explanation for why Middle Easterners, are the absolute worst athletes on the planet. Seriously they hardly ever win anything at any Olympics, if they enter at all. They can do strong man competitions bare minimum.
”Middle Easterners, are the absolute worst athletes on the planet. Seriously they hardly ever win anything at any Olympics, if they enter at all. They can do strong man competitions bare minimum.”
Interesting speculation. Maybe they has been adapted to civilization earlier.
Mikey, Middle Easterners do well in mid- to long-distance running if I recall correctly.
RR look at how many medals they win at the Olympics, they hardly win anything, and usually don’t even enter.
Africans dominate running
far east Asians dominate, agile competitions like table top tennis.
whites dominate all winter sport categories, and come 2nd in running, and 2nd in agile competitions.
Middle Easterners (Desert dwellers) are complete garbage at athletics, and again tend to not even sign up.
Africans, and every other non white race for the matter, also do not sign up for winter events, because they know there gonna lose.
There seems to be something about living in a barren wasteland, desert, environment, that causes people to be nonathletic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Games (research medals by country)
Ethiopians are ”half” middle easterners
what does mikey or rr mean by “middle-eastern”?
india has only won gold in men’s field hockey, a sport only played by women in the rest of the world.
1b people and they can’t even beat australia at cricket.
and rr is WRONG. middle easterners can’t run worth a tinker’s damn. rr is confusing north africa with the middle east.
the great north african runners are from the atlas mountains, far west north africa.
middle east = eastern turkey to the iran pakistan border
south asia = former raj
south east asia = indo-china + malay archipelago
north east asian = china people
those are not middle easterners, yemen, saudi, thats middle east the desert. Look at pics of Ethiopians and pics of Yemens, 2 countries close geographically, but drastic difference in looks. They are not the same race
Yemeni are middle eastern. Eathiopians are half middle eastern
Ethiopians are not half middle eastern. They are fucking African dude.
No he’s correct. They’re roughly half middle eastern
Just read my articles. I’m positive I know more about this than anyone here
“and rr is WRONG. middle easterners can’t run worth a tinker’s damn. rr is confusing north africa with the middle east.
the great north african runners are from the atlas mountains, far west north africa.”
You’re right dude. Sorry I was drunk and tired last night. 12+ hours of work and 4 Guinness stouts (cans) will do thsy to you.
You know someone is partially Arab when you notice their narrow faces and or close-together eyes lol. I’ve noticed this from some Iberians, and it’s pretty much the same for a lot of Ethiopians.
Pure araboids/mediterraneans often have gracile body structure as common among mediterranean people, less on balkanic and anatolian places.
you cant be half middle eastern. You can’t be half asian, you cant be half european. You either are from that continent or you arent.
Like Pumpkin do you call yourself European, or do you call yourself Canadian?
Anyway as I was saying Desert dwelling, full middle eastern nations are the worst athletes on the planet. Race Realists theories give a credible reason why.
RR
You make a valid point regarding the center of gravity of blacks vs whites however it has long been known that perhaps the greatest reason for African dominance in the sprints is the fact that they possess the actn3 gene at rates far greater than any group of people on earth. This gene has been dubbed the sprinting gene and it is one of the most important genes for top flight power athletes(particularly sprinters). So important is this gene that all but one of the elite olympic sprinters tested in an Australian study had this particular gene and while 20% of people of European ancestry tend to have two copies of this allele, 80% of people of west african ancestry have two copies, a rate significantly greater than Europeans.
Of course this is not the only “power” gene there is(there are at least 10 others) but it appears to be one of the most important ones for sprinting. Sadly as a former sprinter myself i did not have the actn3 gene but based on my research I have almost the full set(except for the actn3 and one other) hence why I was a fairly gifted sprinter albeit prone to injury which is why my sense is/was(which has been backed by my research) that the actn3 allows sprinters to pound out longer harder training sessions and avoid injury(due to muscle fibers being more resilient to wear and tear and catastrophic failure) which would otherwise take them out of the game for a long time and significantly hinder their athletic progression at the elite level. Given that almost all west africans have at least one allele producing actn3(<1% that have none compared to 18% of Europeans that have none) it is fairly obvious that they have a significant advantage in the sprints as a group and this is mostly due to qualitative musclular differences.
https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs1815739
A good way to think of it is to imagine the muscle fibers as the engine and actn3(a Z-line actin binding protein) as the crank shaft but in the case of people that lack actn3 that crank shaft is made of a cheap/weak alloy. The engine may produce the power necessary but the crank can't handle the load. Which means under heavy rapid repeated torquey load, failure is more likely. However with sports like weight lifting the movement is rapid but it is not repeated for a prolonged period of time and it is slightly more controlled, meaning that the "crank" does not have to undergo a catastrophic number of cycles at excess loads. Which is IMO why we tend to see Europeans dominate weightlifting(perhaps THE power sport) and virtually no prominent Africans at the elite level. Of course it is a little more complicated than that with weight lifting as body mechanics do play an important role(shorter limbs and a longer torso favors weight lifters) nevertheless it appears that the advantage actn3 affords Africans in the sprints does not matter nearly as much in weight lifting. Perhaps I chose the wrong sport!
Those fast-twitch muscle fibers not only act on the legs, but the upper body and torso as well. Ever seen a street fight with some black kids? Shit is insane, mainly because they’re so fast at throwing and bringing their hands back to the original position that they have such a clear advantage over most white dudes. Their punches are lightning quick and to recenter back to a defensive stance is also quick. That’s why some of these fights can be lethal.
N.B. you won’t find this in boxing because boxing is more of an endurance sport and requires less fast-twitch muscle fibers in order to defeat an opponent. This is not the case in most street fights with black kids. Quick fights with lethal, fast punches that will destroy most of the white kids on the block, honestly.
Did I mention that most street fights are usually between black ectomorphs? Don’t know what it is, but those kids can surely brawl. There’s no way that any pathetic Asian boy or white kid can compete. Their bones are much denser, creating a lot of power in their punches too.
Personally, I don’t think muscles actually help in a fight whatsoever, actually slowing one’s punches down and preventing full-capacity power. Sure it adds extra weight, but in terms of punching, not pushing or pulling, you’re not gonna get the best results. It all comes down to bone density, honestly.
Pumpkinhead,
ACTN3 is, like all genes, context-dependent. Sure the RR genotype leads to increased force production which lends otsf to better performance in certain sports. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4773019/) Athleticism is, however, irreducible to biology.
Also see my discussion on analyses of power genotypes.
I’ll respond to you in depth later.
And buddy, thanks for the information but I’m well aware of all of it and I agree with you.
See my explanation for how movement occurs:
So the structure of skeletal muscle can be broken down like so: epymyseum > muscle belly > perimyseum > fascicle > endomyseum > muscle fibers > myofibrils > myofilaments > myosin and actin. Note diagram (C) from above; the sarcomere is the smallest contractile unit in the myofibril. According to sliding filament theory (see Cook, 2004 for a review), a sarcomere shortens as a result of the ‘z-lines’ moving closer together. The reason these ‘z-lines’ converge is because myosin heads attach to the actin filament which asynchronistically pulls the actin filament across the myosin, which then results in the shortening of the muscle fiber. Sarcomeres are the basic unit controlling changes in muscle length, so the faster or slower they fire depends on the majority type of fiber in that specific area.
But the skeletal muscle will not contract unless the skeletal muscles are stimulated. The nervous system and the muscular system communicate, which is called neural activiation—defined as the contraction of muscle generated by neural stimulation. We have what are called “motor neurons”—neurons located in the CNS (central nervous system) which can send impulses to muscles to move them. This is done through a special synapse called the neuromuscular junction. A motor neuron that connects with muscle fibers is called a motor unit and the point where the muscle fiber and motor unit meet is callled the neuromuscular junction. It is a small gap between the nerve and muscle fiber called a synapse. Action potentials (electrical impulses) are sent down the axon of the motor neuron from the CNS and when the action potential reaches the end of the axon, hormones called neurotransmitters are then released. Neurotransmitters transport the electrical signal from the nerve to the muscle.
there’s also the “near east” category.
i would prescribe its use for western turkey, egypt, and the levant.
the very word “asia” comes from a kingdom in western turkey.
not a joke. have you seen those high t vs low t pictures? guy looks like super high t.
https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=361751&stc=1
my face is definitely high t. when i was in hs and college i worried about how pretty i was. i didn’t realize that my face was sending another signal.
imagine ted bundy level handsome + idris elba level sexy + buffalo bill level creepiness.
My face looks like the face on the far left. Even after I, took steroids, and a few years later I have a much more masculine although still androgynous face. Theres something to say about the foundation you just happen to have been born with.
I come from a long line of masculine faced males. So I don’t understand what happened.
my sister looks like the girl on the far right.
Is there a way you can improve spatial intelligence?
Carpentry.
rr should move to whatever town UG is in and train matthew boling with ‘roids.
then a whiteboy can win a medal in the olympic 100m.
dee other great non-black sprinters of the last idk are jeremy wariner, also from texas, and the saffer who may be tri-racial afaik, white, malay, black…but he has a boer name. both were 400m men, not really a sprint.
I might start training for a marathon soon but I don’t want to lose my muscle mass.
Ok I got around to looking up a monetary economics textbook I had in college and they don’t explicitly say it, but basically the money supply seems to expand by pressing the copy paste function on banks’ keyboards with little real relation to the monetary base. Apparently monetary economists think the central bank can control the money supply by manipulating reserve requirements but real life central bankers focus just on the flow of funds by manipulating the interest rate. It doesn’t explicitly say it though. Ill read the next chapter soon.
i’d love to be able to claim it’s genetic, but you know…
Did anyone see this? Those who had their debts lifted unexpectedly performed better on “cognitive tests”, with error rates falling from 17 to 4 percent while generalized anxiety fell from 78 to 53 percent. Nice evidence for Richardson’s sociocognitive-affective nexus.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/getting-rid-of-debt-may-actually-make-your-brain-work-better-2019-03-29
Also their “present bias” improved, favoring instant gratification which dropped to 33 from 44 percent, which ue a sign that their impulse control improved. How weird… What’s the HBD explanation?
could peepee please explain the idris elba thing.
he just looks like an average black guy who looks slightly south asian.
so it must be his voice and “personality”.
benedict cumberbatch is UGLY, yet he’s a sex symbol for women.
bring back the days when male sex symbols were actually good looking.
brando, dean, newman, redford, denzel, clift, holden, the young john wayne and young eastwood, etc.
Denzel is not good looking
Denzel Washington? That dude absolutely slays pussy for a living.
Ive heard lots of rumours about denzels personal life. Lets just say hes not the role model black women want for a husband.
Maybe it’s just old white women who like him then.
”could peepee please explain the idris elba thing.
he just looks like an average black guy who looks slightly south asian.
so it must be his voice and “personality”.
benedict cumberbatch is UGLY, yet he’s a sex symbol for women.
bring back the days when male sex symbols were actually good looking.
brando, dean, newman, redford, denzel, clift, holden, the young john wayne and young eastwood, etc.”
you GAY
Cumberbatch is cute. Your capacity to understand variations seems reduced.
Denzel looks and acts like a sophisticated gangster or mob boss; those roles are perfect for him. Idris looks and acts like a gentleman; certainly has a James Bond vibe going for him. If they’re going to enrich James Bond, might as well use Idris.
the dating sites’ stats are confirmed:
what women want is much more variable.
for example:
alain delon is reckoned top 10 sexiest actors ever by some women…
but to others he just looks like bill gates.
but i still don;t get the audrey hepburn thing.
she looks like a stick i could break in half over my penis.
the thing is movie stars have to be attractive to men & women…
this means male stars will tend to look like girls or be super butch but female stars will always be strong…
Hepburn is the gild standard
“the thing is movie stars have to be attractive to men & women.”
What are you smoking?
G.A.Y
Obsessed with Alain Delon, at least you have a good taste there.
Hahahahaha Santo is openly gay and called robert gay as an insult hahahahaha what an idiot.
No fool, he don’t mock mug of pee for being gay. He mock him for being in the closet.
Well why even say it if its not meant to be an insult?
”SJW” aka self-named the philosopher, lovely known as pill,
No, PP already explained for you, 😉
Maybe.. are you capable to understand it now*
Secondly, i’m no’t openly gay, not yet even because i’m not completely gay at all.
pill,
i also think you’re on the closet… many of the most homophobic guys in the room are on the lgbt spectrum. They try to be the most homophobic in front of their social circle to wipe out all of suspictions about them. ”Freud don’t need explain it”. I don’t think you’re that gay but a non-exclusive heterossexuali..
”Well why even say it if its not meant to be an insult?”
Different people have different prefferences which means different positive, neutral and negative opinions.
[Welcome to the world out of your schizophrenic subjectivity]
Average people [mostly conserfs] just hate smarter people.
One of the most bullied people in the world are… smarter people. Smarter you are, more discriminated by people as pill you will be.
And remember about bissexuality that’s basically at the very similar parity with heterossexuality.
Most of typical ”insults” are just words which are excessively enphasised on negative aspects. Often a melodramatical [drama queen] way to define something.
People often memorize insults based on culture they are, specially during childhood. It’s not even a conscious thing, but sanity is never your strenghts… well, i think you no have one.
Even about ONLY thing you supposedly exccel…
”jewishology”, you are not better than an average redneck. Right now you’re sucking zionists like trump and bozonaro.
Youre conflating ‘smarter people’ with gays and bisexuals. When I was growing up there were a lot less people bullying nerds than the feminine or later turned out gay kids in my area.
I’m comparing different but often co-related groups to conclude:
Avg people full of prejudices and little of reflections of their actions are mostly irrational. Avg people are exactly like the derrogative term of ”the masses”.
Today the term nerd was exceptionally expanded. Any gamer can be confined into this big spectrum but the original nerd is still there and tend to be little more ”afeminate” than the avg man in the street.
Well, your ghetto is not a universal parameter of well behavior, end of this debate…
What you never will understand because you’re not full-human is:
– discriminate derrogatively another people is, at priori — always wrong and dumb
– opinion is not the whole of given truth
– negative feelings often mean: fear, mirrored inferiority complex, lack of self-awareness [or excess of sub-humanity]
– universal morality IS absolutely superior to particularism, WHAT you always deffend.
Particularistic morality IS basicaly NEPOTISM to ”family” you belong.
And, the cake cherry of universal morality, its essence is the existentialism.
Because, i supposed, you know your life is finite, humanly meaningless and that when you will die you will at the same place of all people and other living beings, you must embrace this absolute reality.
What i mean**
Hug islamic terrorists*
Not so fast, but bear in mind this truth.
Unfortunately most of universally existentialist people transcendend without the accumulation of that negative reality you toxically embeb.
You’re realist, but you’re hyper-realist, because you don’t want have fixed in your thoughts these absolute truths.
Realist people is on parity with that food chain reality.
Hyper realist people is inequally inferior with the whole of the reality.
”You’re not hyper realist”
Hyper realist perspective result in religion’s’ but it’s so ultimative that just the fantasy of art to ”save” and imprison people in its special limbo.
We have these feelings of hate for a reason. The reason is survival related. Thats just the way it works. [redacted by pp, may 2, 2019]
He’s smoking dicks, that’s what he’s smoking!
Alain Delon have a little dick.
RR has to admit that…
ultimately you have to conclude that arnold’s “aesthetics” were GENETIC or at least CONGENITAL.
RR, Blacks don’t excel in swimming also because of denser bones,along with the factors you mentioned.
Mikey, South asians have the least athletic overall body type. Middle east may have won fewer medals I think because sport infrastructure is even less developed than compared to India.
Not in other sports, but I think indians can do well if not excel at badminton on a global scale . Pullela gopichand won the all england championship once.
I mistakenly posted my comment here.
George Clooneys wife amal is very good looking. Like better than most hollywood actresses even.
But i keep reading rumours that george is gay. I have no idea if theyre true. I think he stoked the flames a bit by saying “even if i was does it mattet?”.
One of clooneys exes stacy keibler used to be on wrestling that i watched 20 years ago haha.
Its funny the way cloonry is known just for looking like a movie star and not hos movies. i actually cant name a movie hes in off the top of my head. On the other hand dwayne johnson was hollywoods highest earning actor last year and i dont think he can act. I will watch jumanji 2 and see for sure.
The oscars crave a black person who can make a decent film or even act a character that isnt himself. Im still waiting for a black person to turn in a performance like the shining of a violently psychotic writer under the influence of evil spirits.
Every year the oscars happen and you can now even bet money on a black to win won of the top awards just for being black. You never see latinos complain.
I have a theory that blacks dont actually care about oscars or promotions or white collar jobs or awards and that all the problems are basically jews pretending blacks are angry that denzel didnt win the best actress oscar or whatever. So dumb.
im not joking btw. If you look at tge sabrina rubin elderly journalist scam it shows jews are desperate to stir shit.
I bet race relations without jews would actually BE BETTER than if jews didnt come from eastern europe to overthrow whitey.
Blacks latinos whites would probably not even consider race as much if it wasnt in the fucking media and ads every minute.
Why are you guys judging men based on what you think a good looking man looks like, instead of what women say a good looking man looks like?
The dude that plays Legalas from Lord of the rings, Orlando Bloom (in his prime). Is the type of looks women judge to be the gold standard of facial attractiveness.
and thus the only standard that matters you freaks o.0
i a’ready be explainin that an’ shieet.
womens be very inconsistent.
like i even heard that some womens be thinking oprah is beautiful an’ shieet.
i would classify afghanistan as part of central asia.
because russian empire and soviet empire there are or were lots of russians in central asia, but the indigenes look like china people or a cross between china people and persians.
almost all of the atheletes from central asia are ethnic russians iirc.
Results
The highest age-adjusted prevalence of overweight (BMI ≥ 25) was in Hawaiian/Latino men (88%; n = 41) and black/Latina women (74.5%; n = 79), and highest obesity (BMI ≥ 30) rates were in Hawaiian/Latino men (53.7%; n = 41) and Hawaiian women (39.2%, n = 1,247). The prevalence estimates for most admixed groups were similar to or higher than the average of the prevalences for the ethnic groups with whom they shared common ethnicities. For instance, the prevalence of overweight/obesity in five ethnic admixtures—Asian/white, Hawaiian/white, Hawaiian/Asian, Latina/white, and Hawaiian/Asian/white ethnic admixtures—was significantly higher (P < 0.0001) than the average of the prevalence estimates for their component ethnic groups.
Results
The highest age-adjusted prevalence of overweight (BMI ≥ 25) was in Hawaiian/Latino men (88%; n = 41) and black/Latina women (74.5%; n = 79), and highest obesity (BMI ≥ 30) rates were in Hawaiian/Latino men (53.7%; n = 41) and Hawaiian women (39.2%, n = 1,247). The prevalence estimates for most admixed groups were similar to or higher than the average of the prevalences for the ethnic groups with whom they shared common ethnicities. For instance, the prevalence of overweight/obesity in five ethnic admixtures—Asian/white, Hawaiian/white, Hawaiian/Asian, Latina/white, and Hawaiian/Asian/white ethnic admixtures—was significantly higher (P < 0.0001) than the average of the prevalence estimates for their component ethnic groups.
For instance, the prevalence of overweight/obesity in five ethnic admixtures—Asian/white, Hawaiian/white, Hawaiian/Asian, Latina/white, and Hawaiian/Asian/white ethnic admixtures—was significantly higher (P < 0.0001) than the average of the prevalence estimates for their component ethnic groups.
so australians are fat because half abo. and fat “white” americans are actually half injun or half black.
SAD!
