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 
Pumpkin, if you have a sharp decrease in speed on the symbol search test, will you most likely make up for that with a boost of the same amount of time, but with fast speed?
If your a man and live in the city and you have Conservative Values: Reproduce protect , provide for, and have a large family (3+ children), have community love, status outside of work. Then you have no choice but to be a criminal, join a gang, and live life as an outlaw to achieve said values.
When men apply traditional, country, farming, feel good family values to the city, we get groups like outlaw biker gangs. A group of men that have to fight tooth and nail to preserve an ideology that has no place in city life, and an us vs them mentality develops.
The city is not the place to be wholesome, and pious. Theres no difference between living in the city, and living in an amusement park. The city is all about turning a profit, attracting foreigners to indulge in vices. Even if your naturally a good person, city life will turn you into an uncaring, unfeeling, shell of a human being. Just walk down a New York street, and feel how how cold the atmosphere is, even in the Summer.
In the city, what you naturally know to be right, is wrong and what is wrong is right, and I don’t think you have to be a genius to see that, its not going to change.
Every day people complain about how miserable their lives are, despite, having entertainment, food, and technology at their fingertips 24 7. The fact people really complain about waiting 5 minutes to get their Wendy’s meal, and are not grateful they don’t have to spend all day hunting the food themselves, just shows over saturation of pleasure and vice, just makes a person take all pleasure, for granted, and thus without their constant stream of chemicals, and entertainment, a person irrationally feels as if their life is absolutely terrible.
When the older generation says that we are “entitled” we look at them like wtf are they talking about? We are not realizing we have more entertainment at our fingertips that we just take for granted.
so an IQ test normed on/developed for white people…china people score higher…so flushton concludes china people are smarter.
(if flushton went by the performance of canadian or american boxwallahs he’d conclude that south asians are the master race.)
anyone who has actually known china people knows they do not present as smart. most of them present as morons.
the difference between presentation and reality depends on the IQ test.
for political reasons IQ test makers want to give the impression that their tests aren’t culturally loaded.
but it’s an only an impression.
it’s only marketing.
the culture free IQ test is impossible.
china people excel at some subtests of IQ tests and not others. so their excel-lence depends on the IQ test.
in the US support for free speech is correlated with IQ, but china people hate freedom of speech.
china people are NOT superior.
you’d have to be a black lesbian who hates neil armstrong to think that.
flushton can’t explain why china people have always been behind.
the ag revolution started in egypt and iraq not china.
the industrial revolution started in western europe not china.
the information revolution started in the US not china.
etc.
etc.
etc.
Except most historians claim East Asians independently created civilization while whites & blacks did not, and more independent civilizations were created by mongoloids than by caucasoids, although non-white caucasoids created the first one
peepee knows what “most historians” claim.
i should have added greece and anatolia to egypt and iraq.
When you google independent civilizations, you often read about the big six. From Wikipedia:
Current scholarship generally identifies six sites where civilization emerged independently: Mesopotamia, the Nile River, the Indus River, the Yellow River, the Central Andes, and Mesoamerica.[6][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]
What about the Maya? Throws a wrench in your theory. But then you’ll just say they’re “Mongoloids” to salvage it. But they’re not.
How are they not mongoloid?
They’re Native American. Rushton’s tri-racial BS is wrong. Even Dutton disparaged it in his biography of Rushton. See also Michael Hardimon and Quayshawn Spencer.
None of those people understand the difference between evolutionary taxonomy & cladistics. The 3-race model is BS based on the latter but not the former.
Hardimon’s minimalist/populationist race concept is sound. Native Americans derive from a specific continent, they share ancestry. Spencer’s Blumenbachian partitions is what Americans say race is. He further argues, using Rosenberg et al 2002, that they capture a meaningful partition of human genetics.
Rushton, on the other hand, groups them because it gave his r/K theory more weight. Though we know that his theory is dead and so is his tri-racial theory. There are five races of man.
Why are you so intent on using cladistics when phenotype is the superior way to delineate races? Have you read any Hardimon or Spencer? Why do you cling to Rushton’s thirty year old, outdated arguments?
If I showed people a white man, an East Asian man & a Native American man & asked them to pick the odd man out, most would pick the white guy. This proves that East Asians & native Americans share a common taxon that is not shared by whites.
Simple as that
Nope this is dumb. Read Hardimon and Spencer. Specifically “A Radical Solution to the Race Problem” by Spencer.
Why is it dumb?
I don’t see how it follows that East Asians and Native Americans are the same race.
Because races are just the broadest groups a species can be divided into based on commonly inherited overall phenotype. If native Americans & East Asians share an overall phenotype inherited from a common ancestor that is not shared by other humans, then by definition they share a race.
Your claim fails by virtue of Spencer’s Blumenbachian partitions argument. In any case, they’re genetically (Rosenberg et al 2002) and phenotypically distinct (Hardimon, 2017; Spencer, 2014).
“By definition” they don’t share a race since they (1) are phenotypically distinct from East Asians; (2) they are linked by common ancestry peculiar to them; and (3) they derive from a distinct geographic location (the Americas). These are Hardimon’s three conditions for minimalist racehood. Then we can use Hardimon’s argument:
1 There are differences in patterns of visible physical features which correspond to geographic ancestry.
2 These patterns are exhibited between real groups.
3 These groups that exhibit these physical patterns by geographic ancestry satisfy conditions of minimalist race.
C Race exists.
Now we can say:
1 If Native Americans and East Asians are phenotypically distinct, then they are different races.
2 Native Americans and East Asians are phenotypically distinct.
C Therefore Native Americans and East Asians are different races.
“By definition” they don’t share a race since they (1) are phenotypically distinct from East Asians;
Distinctiveness is relative. Compared to the phenotypic variation in japan, a Native American & East Asian look distinct but compared to the phenotypic variation in the entire species, they are very similar
(2) they are linked by common ancestry peculiar to them;
They also share a common ancestry in northern Eurasia before proto-native Americans colonized the americas
and (3) they derive from a distinct geographic location (the Americas).
See above
(1) They look nothing like East Asians.
(2) Their ancestry is distinct from that of East Asians. STRUCTURE picks them out, so they’re genetically and phenotypically distinct.
(3) Have you read Rosenberg?
How is the cladistic race concept more sufficient than the minimalist race concept and Blumenbachian partitions?
1) they look more like East Asians than either group looks like any other, thus they cluster with East Asians
https://images.app.goo.gl/B8tHT3otczPBgfVJ7
2) the whole point of STUCTURE is to find distinctions. If you only gave it East Asian data, & said K = 3, it would subdivide East Asians into 3 races.
Besides STRUCTURE is based on DNA, most of which is neutral or phenotypically irrelevant. Junk DNA exaggerates the differences between phenotypically similar peoples who’ve been separated by time because it functions as a molecular clock
3) no
I’m not defending cladistics; you are. By grouping people based on similar DNA, you are essentially grouping by clad
By contrast I’m grouping by phenotype shared with common ancestor
That’s brilliant, actually. I think that the native peoples of the Americas were based off of a Asian gradient, if that makes sense. North Americans were more Mongol, Central Americans were like the Chinese, and South Americans were like Southeast Asians. This makes sense, if you think about the melanin levels of each potential group of people.
The Central Andes were like Southeast Asians, whereas the Mayan might’ve been like the Chinese. If that makes sense, it verifies the fact that native populations of the Americas are basically descendants of Mongoloids in their respective regions.
there’s no legitimate difference between cladistics and taxonomy now that genetic relatedness can be measured.
natives americans and ne asians are closer genetically than either is to any other group precisely because they share a common ancestor later in time than either shares with other groups.
phenotype taxonomy is now passe and retarded.
look at the melanesians. they have black skin and kinky hair, but they are closer to europeans than to black africans genetically because more recent common ancestor.
races are: bantus, koi-san, caucasians, china people and se asians, abos, the various “-nesians”, native americans.
native americans differ greatly in phentype but one race because genetically so similar. inuit and aleuts are china people because arrived in new world much more recently from siberia.3
phenotype taxonomy is now passe and retarded.
look at the melanesians. they have black skin and kinky hair, but they are closer to europeans than to black africans genetically because more recent common ancestor.
Which is precisely why phenotypic taxonomy is still needed. It’s not how recently you shared a common ancestor that matters, it’s how MUCH of that common ancestor you shared.
One of the great things about using phenotype is you can look across time & space & say “wow, this taxon was super successful. It survived for so long in so many different places”
But with genetic taxonomy, anything separated by time & space by definition becomes a new taxon, so successful taxa’s are defined out of existence.
the negritos of the malay archipelago and andaman and nicobar islands and the dravidians of s india are most closely related to abos and melanesians iirc.
this is what spencer wells recounted in his Journey of Man.
these were the very first out of africa people. iirc there were homo-erectus-es living in australia at the same time as the neolithic revolution, 10,000 years ago.
recall human ancestors did their own out of africa thing. peking man, java man, etc. were not human.
H. heidelbergensis was dispersed throughout Eastern and Southern Africa (Ethiopia, Namibia, Southern Africa) as well as Europe (England, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Spain).
anything separated by time & space by definition becomes a new taxon
FALSE.
1. in general any two organisms will be genetically similar to the extent that their last common ancestor is more recent.
2. genetic change over time varies from none to a lot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth
3. there are no environment independent successful traits.
4. humans are so recent that the rate of change in various human lineages is going to be near identical.
What I’m say is that under phenotypic taxonomy, Africans & andaman island types would be considered a single taxon that existed for over 70k years on multiple continents, but under genetic taxonomy, no single taxon can exist in different regions for tens of thousands of years, because if you do you form different clads & modern taxa must be monophyletic.
However in palaeontology they seldom have DNA so they still rely on phenotype & allow for paraphyletic (but not polyphyletic) clads.
For this reason erectus is is said to have been an extremely successful species existing on multiple continents for 2 million years. But when they get the DNA they will decide erectus was many different species since neutral DNA mutates at a predictable rate so by by definition changes into something new over long time spans. However when it comes to the DNA that actually dictates phenotype, erectus was perhaps one continuous species all that time but will be denied credit for that achievement
What the fuck, Ian!? I hope you’re not lumping the entire Americas together. Too genetically distinct, may be there own race, to be frank. No way would an Amazonian and Sioux tribe member be considered one race. They correspond to various places in Asia that they descended from.
“punctuated equilibrium” is a thing…such a thing that creationists/anti-evolutionists are right when they point to the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record.
but this is over millions of years and AMHs have been around for at most 100,000 years.
so the idea of more or less evolved humans, humans with a greater genetic distance from the first AMH is totally out of place/inappropriate.
Even with punctuated equilibrium, rushtons theory is still tenable
You could argue humans started as black & then stability for tens of thousands of years until caucasoids suddenly appeared & then long stability until mongoloids appeared
Look:
Cladism about human races reduces to the claim that human races are subspecies. The main proponent of this view is Andreason. The view is, obviously, a racial realism view (not in the “HBD” meaning, either, in the philosophy of race meaning). The best defense of cladistic race theory (Andreason, 1998) fails. There is no justification for why bio-species is valid to use in cladisticts; there is no justification for identifying cladistic subspecies at every level in a conspecific monophyletic hierarchy; and lastly no justification for why breeding population is a valid kind to use in cladistic race theory.
How is cladistic race theory epistemically useful PP?
Even then, PP’s claim that East Asians and Native Americans are the same race is refuted by social classifications, too. Ask an East Asian if Native Americans are the same race and vice versa. Social constructionists about race are racial realists too, contrary to (ignorant) pontifications.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/04/21/social-constructivists-about-race-are-realists-about-race/
This is put in the best way by the new AAPA statement on race and racism:
“… race has become a social reality that structures societies and how we experience the world. In this regard, race is real, as is racism, and both have real biological consequences.”
…
““race” as a social reality — as a way of structuring societies and experiencing the world — is very real.”
Thus, Native Americans and East Asians are social kinds. This, too, refutes your contention PP.
“The Central Andes were like Southeast Asians, whereas the Mayan might’ve been like the Chinese.”
What does this mean?
“If that makes sense, it verifies the fact that native populations of the Americas are basically descendants of Mongoloids in their respective regions.”
This isn’t the claim under contention; no one denies that they are descended from Siberian populations. There were even back-migrations from the Americas to Asia as well.
In any case, the second point does not justify the claim that East Asians and Native Americans are the same race.
“Therefore, census racial discourse is national racial discourse. Furthermore,
since ‘race’in census racial discourse has the extension blacks, whites, Asians, American Indians, and Pacific Islanders, so too does ‘race’ in its US meaning.”
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1086/677694
Census racial discourse is just national racial discourse. The census uses defers to the OMB to define race. How does the OMB define race? The OMB defines “race” as “sets of” populations. Race in US racial discourse designates a set of population groups, thus, race is a particular, not a kind.
Spencer then defends the use of STRUCTURE and the small differences between human populations and therefore successfully defends the race concept. Obviously, since race is both social and biological, therefore, Native Americans and East Asians are separate races.
Spencer discusses the results from Tishkoff et al (2009), saying that when they added 134 ethnic groups to the ones found in the HDGP sample of 52, the K=5 partition clustered Caucasians, Mongoloids, and three distinct sets of Africans. Mongoloids, in this case, being East Asians, Native Americans, and Oceanians. But Tishkoff et al oversampled African ethnic groups. This, though, does not undercut my argument: of course when you (1) oversample ethnic groups you will get the result of Tishkoff et al (2009) and (2) since Africans were oversampled, the populations more genetically similar were grouped into the same cluster, which, of course, does not mean they are the same race.
Rushton was completely clueless to the literature in the philosophy of race.
“Even with punctuated equilibrium, rushtons theory is still tenable”
Rushton’s theory has been refuted time and time again.
So let’s recap: (1) on biological grounds, Native Americans and East Asians are distinct; (2) socialrace theory shows that they are distinct; (3) Rushton was a lumper instead of a splitter because it lent credence to his idiotic and long-refuted r/K selection theory, though we now know that Rushton has been refuted numerous times, all of his analyses were shown to be wrong, and he still chose to write bullshit.
Incredible.
Nice selective picture.
“the whole point of STUCTURE is to find distinctions. If you only gave it East Asian data, & said K = 3, it would subdivide East Asians into 3 races.
Besides STRUCTURE is based on DNA, most of which is neutral or phenotypically irrelevant. Junk DNA exaggerates the differences between phenotypically similar peoples who’ve been separated by time because it functions as a molecular clock”
You don’t understand. STRUCTURE meaningfully demarcates genetic structure solely on the basis of genetic markers. It is a race-blind procedure. STRUCTURE shows that the continental races are genetically structured. Further, Native Americans have a distinct phenotype which corresponds to their geographic ancestry, your selective picture aside (that woman looks admixed, in any case). Show a picture of a Maya and say that they look East Asian. Laughable.
If you look at the graph in Rosenberg et al, you’ll see clear demarcation, they are genetically distinct units, so they are therefore distinguishable on the basis of genetic information alone.
Spencer defended the use of STRUCTURE, so read section 4 in A Radical Solution to the Race Problem and get back to me.
“I’m not defending cladistics; you are. By grouping people based on similar DNA, you are essentially grouping by clad”
I just explained how cladism about human races is false. Grouping by microsatellites is sufficient to delinate race. Hardimon’s argument (which I provided above), in any case, is sufficient enough to delineate racial groups without the use of genetics. I’ve further defended the distinction between East Asians and Native Americans using the socialrace concept, to which you’ve yet to respond to.
So since race is both social and biological, and social categories pick out the two groups as distinct, and genetic analyses along with other arguments show that they are distinct, then they are distinct races.
In any case PP, What is “race”? How do you define “race”?
You don’t understand. STRUCTURE meaningfully demarcates genetic structure solely on the basis of genetic markers. It is a race-blind procedure.
What don’t I understand? You can decide how many races you want by setting K to whatever number you want. If you picked a smaller number than 5 for K like 2 or 3, it might lump native Americans & East Asians together, but since most DNA is junk, it hardly matters what STRUCTURE does
And you dispute clads but your 5 races correspond almost perfectly with the clads on cavali-sforza’s tree
I define race as the largest groups into which a species can be divided by phenotype inherited from a shared ancestor.
Race is to species as species is to genus. So just as the homo genus can be divided into habilus, erectus, Neanderthals, denisovans, humans, etc; the human species can be divided into negroids, caucasoids & mongoloids
And microsattelites information about human genetic diversity its geographic distribution. They don’t show bio-signifigance; they don’t have influence on phenotype; they are racial markers. That does not, of course, undercut the argument since you’ve yet to contend with Spencer’s argument and defense of the use of STRUCTURE.
So PP, enlighten me: how do you define race? what is race and why are Natives and East Asians the same race? Just asserting that they are the same race without defining what race is doesn’t make sense.
A “race” is a subdivision of Homo sapiens—a group of populations that exhibits distinct patterns of genetically transmitted characters which corresponds to geographic ancestry belonging to a bio-line of descent initiated by geo-separated and repro-isolated founding populations.
“What don’t I understand? You can decide how many races you want by setting K to whatever number you want. If you picked a smaller number than 5 for K like 2 or 3, it might lump native Americans & East Asians together, but since most DNA is junk, it hardly matters what STRUCTURE does”
Did you read my comment or not?
“And you dispute clads but your 5 races correspond almost perfectly with the clads on cavali-sforza’s tree”
So what?
“I define race as the largest groups into which a species can be divided by phenotype inherited from a shared ancestor.”
How do you know what the shared ancestor looked like? Your definition fails and Hardimon’s, which I’ve provided in my previous comment, is the best I’ve come across and accurately captures what “race” is.
You need to read the philosophy of race literature. You seem to be a realist about race (obviously) but have no way to ground your philosophy of race. Because even social constructivists about race are race realists since they think race exist, and that, again, buttresses my point that NAs and EAs are separate races.
“the human species can be divided into negroids, caucasoids & mongoloids”
This is just an assertion; Rushton didn’t provide any justification for this, nor did he provide any definition for race. I’ve argued at length in numerous articles that the five-race model is the most sufficient; Hardimon’s and Spencer’s defense of the use of STRUCTURE is sufficient, though you’ve yet to read either one.
Did you read my comment or not?
Did you read mine? K = 5 is arbitrary. If i set structure to K = 3, native Americans cluster with East Asians & you get something very similar to the negroid, caucasoid & mongoloid model rushton invoked
“And you dispute clads but your 5 races correspond almost perfectly with the clads on cavali-sforza’s tree”
So what?
So you’re being a hypocrite
“I define race as the largest groups into which a species can be divided by phenotype inherited from a shared ancestor.”
How do you know what the shared ancestor looked like?
You don’t need to. You simply assume any shared appearance between groups is inherited from a common ancestor until evidence to the contrary at which point you ignore that particular trait.
If I were to select 100 random people from around the world & asked people to group them into the smallest number of categories they could based on overall phenotype, most smart people would probably agree that 3 is the smallest number of groups that make sense
If you don’t trust human judgement,you could measure humans on many different phenotypes (i.e. skin colour, height, head shape, muscle mass etc) & have a computer sort them into a minimum number of groups by using hierarichal cluster analysis
Your definition fails and Hardimon’s, which I’ve provided in my previous comment, is the best I’ve come across and accurately captures what “race” is.
Hardimon’s definition is incomplete because terms like geographic ancestry could mean anything from common village to common planet & phenotypic distinctiveness is also relative & open to interpretation. By contrast I’ve given clear instructions on how even a computer could determine how many races there are
You need to read the philosophy of race literature.
No you need to read about hierarchical cluster analysis. It was invented precisely to settle these types of disputes as objectively as possible
You seem to be a realist about race (obviously) but have no way to ground your philosophy of race.
I know exactly how to ground it. It’s you who is entirely dependent on arbitrary parameters (k = 5) & relative adjectives (phenotypically distinct).
Because even social constructivists about race are race realists since they think race exist, and that, again, buttresses my point that NAs and EAs are separate races.
I’m talking strictly taxonomy. Political or cultural definitions are irrelevant to the science
This is just an assertion; Rushton didn’t provide any justification for this, nor did he provide any definition for race. I’ve argued at length in numerous articles that the five-race model is the most sufficient; Hardimon’s and Spencer’s defense of the use of STRUCTURE is sufficient, though you’ve yet to read either one.
Both the three race and five race are equally arbitrary. Only a hierarchical cluster analysis of many random phenotype measurements from many random people can tell us the correct number. In my opinion the correct number is 3, but until someone does the analysis, it remains anyone’s guess
Yes I read your comment. K = 5 shows clear demarcation between each population. I’ve explained the justification for it; read Spencer.
I’m not being a hypocrite. Just because they “correspond almost perfectly with the glad on cavali-sforza’s tree” doesn’t mean it’s a cladistic race concept. I hold to Spencer’s Blumenbachian partitions and Hardimon’s minimalist/populationist concept. Spencer specifically dispenses with the cladistic concept in his paper What ‘Biological Racial Realism’ Should Mean.
“You find need to. You simply assume”
That doesn’t work.
I quite obviously trust human judgment as the Blumenbachian partitions are partly social in nature.
Re HCA: you do realize that is irrelevant? You realize that how races are delineated is the realm of philosophy? You need to philosophize about race; doing genetics and telling computers X, Y and Z won’t demarcate races. The reality of race is a philosophical, not biological, matter.
“Hardimon’s definition is incomplete”
Ancestry is essential to the term race. Races are morphologically marked ancestral groups. Of course you may be able to delineate races based on phenotype alone but you must appeal to ancestry must be appealed to for a full metaphysical characterization of what race is. The visible physical features in C1 are features that vary by geographic ancestry.
Indeed, for support for this we can just look to Linneaus’s americanus, europaeus, asiaticus, and afer; Blumenbach’s Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malay; UNESCO’s Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid; and the OMB’s black, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, American Indian, and white which are ancestral groups. So the fit between the examples provided provides the support for the claim that geographic ancestry is an essential part of the concept of race.
Rushton has never provided a definition of what race is. You do realize that the question “What is race?” is a philosophical question, and then the further question “Does race exist?” is, again, another philosophical question making the race debate philosophical in nature right?
I’m talking taxonomy regarding two of the arguments and the third is what people think about race, which also follows in Spencer’s Blumenbachian partitions. Science doesn’t have the last say on if races exist, how many there are or what race is: philosophy does and we need to look to philosophers of race for the answer.
The correct number isn’t 3, it’s five. You’ve not pointed out an error in the social classification argument, nor Hardimon’s (what you said about ancestry isn’t relevant and was defended), nor have you rebutted Spencer’s argument nor his defense of the use of STRUCTURE. You’ve also not given a good definition of race, just like Rushton. It seems you just assume what race is without a definition behind it. Meanwhile Hardimon and Spencer have, at length, discussed if races exist, what race is, the conditions of race, how many races there are, and have defended their concepts against numerous objections. They are real biological racial realists—Rushton, it seems, just assumed the existence of race without an argument. He gave no justification for his lumping together Native Americans with easy Asians into a “Mongoloid” race. It seems his only justification for that was because it fit his idiotic theory, which of course is not justification at all.
And by the way, Cavali-Sforza was an anti-realist about biological race.
Yes I read your comment. K = 5 shows clear demarcation between each population. I’ve explained the justification for it; read Spencer.
By clear demarcation I assume he means there’s a clear geographic barrier separating each of the 5 races (i.e. an ocean, a mountain, a desert). The problem with that is Lynn claimed there were 10 races and he too cited geographic barriers such as the Caspian sea separating whites from the darker caucasoids who he considered a separate race, yet which you group with whites. So what to consider a demarcation point is itself arbitrary, and indeed the geographic barrier separating East Asia from the Americas is relatively recent.
I’m not being a hypocrite. Just because they “correspond almost perfectly with the glad on cavali-sforza’s tree” doesn’t mean it’s a cladistic race concept. I hold to Spencer’s Blumenbachian partitions and Hardimon’s minimalist/populationist concept. Spencer specifically dispenses with the cladistic concept in his paper What ‘Biological Racial Realism’ Should Mean.
What makes STRUCTURE superior to using clads? Both are measures of genetic relatedness.
I quite obviously trust human judgment as the Blumenbachian partitions are partly social in nature.
Re HCA: you do realize that is irrelevant? You realize that how races are delineated is the realm of philosophy? You need to philosophize about race; doing genetics and telling computers X, Y and Z won’t demarcate races. The reality of race is a philosophical, not biological, matter.
Nonsense. Taxonomy is a scientific method by which living organisms are classified into categories, subcategories, and subcategories within categories. Philosophy can inform the system, but in order to be useful, there needs to be clearly measured empirical data and clear rules on how said data is analyzed. If all you have are philosophical arguments that different people interpret different ways, then you haven’t solved the problem.
I could use Hardimon’s definition to support almost every racial classification I wanted, from K = 1 to K = 100. Let’s take K = 1. All humans have a geographic origin (Africa). All humans have phenotypic traits that can be distinguished from neanderthals (round dome shaped skull, face tucked under the cranium, flat face, high relatively short cranium, gracile skeleton,small jaws, a chin). Ergo, there is only one race: the human race. See how useless his definition is without a hierarchy of clusters telling you whether we’re talking about race, species, or genus, order etc. I’m very concerned that you don’t grasp the hierarchical nature of taxonomy and thus are failing to provide definitions that distinguish race from its subsets and supersets:
“race” is a word. i can use it however i wish. but some ways of using it are better than others.
i could speak of the race of spaghetti eaters, but that would be ridiculous…like bodybuilding.
human races are sets of people such that it may be said of every member of the set…at some near or distant date in the past he shares all of his ancestors with every other member of the set.
“the philosophy of race” = anal-lingus. “the philosophy of race” is just an affirmative action scheme to get blacks into philosophy departments.
almost all you need to know about race in one picture (here you can see that s chinese and se asians are actually less related to native americans than caucasians are):
“By clear demarcation I assume he means there’s a clear geographic barrier separating each of the 5 races (i.e. an ocean, a mountain, a desert).”
Nope. Genetic demarcation. Read Rosenberg.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/02/18/minimalist-races-exist-and-are-biologically-real/
Furthermore, since the Blumenbach partition is useful for explaining a portion of human genetic variation, and since our evidence for this comes from well-executed human genetic clustering studies in population genetics, it is hard to deny that US race is biologically real, even if it has also been socially constructed.
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1086/677694
And here is Spencer’s argument for what ‘biological racial realism’ should mean:
(1) The meaning of ‘biological racial realism’ in the race debate should be a metaphysically minimal interpretation of important scientific kindhood that also does the most justice to what counts as an important scientific kind.
(2) A “metaphysically minimal” interpretation of important scientific kindhood is one that does not adopt unnecessary and contentious metaphysical assumptions.
(3) The interpretation of important scientific kindhood that does the most justice to what counts as an important scientific kind is the one that best captures epistemically important scientific kinds—or ‘EIS kinds’ for short.
(4) The candidates for important scientific kindhood in the race debate are naturalo kinds, naturali kinds, naturalu kinds, naturalp kinds, realp biological kinds, reali biological kinds, and genuine kinds.
(5) No kind of kind in the race debate is both metaphysically minimal and does a better job of capturing EIS kindhood than genuine kinds.
(6) Therefore, the meaning of ‘biological racial realism’ in the race debate should be ‘race is a genuine kind in biology’.
https://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=phil
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/03/16/race-as-a-genuine-kind/
“he too cited geographic barriers such as the Caspian sea separating whites from the darker caucasoids who he considered a separate race, yet which you group with whites”
He’s wrong, they’re not a separate race. Then again, most of what Lynn writes is wrong.
“In recent years the concept of the continent has come under fire for not being well defined. 59 It is of interest that the formation of the concepts CONTINENT and RACE are roughly coeval. One wonders if the geneses of the two ideas are mutually entwined. Could it be that our idea of continent derives in part from the idea of the habitat of a racial group? Could it be that the idea of a racial group gets part of its content from the idea of a group whose aboriginal home is a distinctive continent? Perhaps the concepts should be thought of as having formed in tandem, each helping to fix the other’s reference” (Hardimon, 2017: 51)
Hardimon (2017: 112) explains how his populationist concept (what he calls the “scientization” of the minimalist race concept) is scienctific concept:
“… concept C has the “form” of a scientific concept in biology if
(i) it is formulated in a “biological vocabulary”,
(ii) it is framed in terms of an accepted biological outlook,
(iii) it is suitable for deployment in an accepted branch of biological inquiry, and
(iv) it presents the scientific ground of the phenomenon it represents” (Hardimon, 2017: 112).
This concept satisfies all four conditions. It satisfies (i) since it uses biological vocabulary (e.g., phenotype, reproductive isolation). It satisfies (ii) since it’s framed in what Mayr terms “population thinking” (which is the rejection of essentialism—“the view that some properties of objects are essential to them.”. It satisfies (iii) since it is suitable for deployment in ecology, ethology and evolutionary biology. Areas of study, for example, can focus on how and why differing populationist races have differing patterns of visible physical features (i.e., how and why phenotypes changed as migration occurred out of Africa into Eurasia, the Pacific Islands and the Americas). And it satisfies (iv) in that representing populationist races as having arisen from reproductively isolated founding populations.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/06/22/the-existence-and-reality-of-populationist-races/
So what is Lynn’s definition of race? Or does Lynn just assume its existence like Rushton without grounding in philosophy?
“What makes STRUCTURE superior to using clads? Both are measures of genetic relatedness.”
I explained how cladism about races fails. What makes it superior is the fact that the populations used were define by geography, culture, and language, not assumed race.
“Philosophy can inform the system”
You don’t seem to understand that no one—not even eliminativisits or social constructivists—admit that there is no genetic variation between populations. Exactly HOW TO INTERPRET THIS VARIATION is the realm of philosophy; this holds for STRUCTURE, PCA, HCA, etc. Again: The existence of race is a philosophical, not scienctific, matter. The question “What is race?” is a philosophical question. The question “Do races exist?” is a philosophical question. The question “If races exist, how many races are there?” is a philosophical question.
“If all you have are philosophical arguments that different people interpret different ways, then you haven’t solved the problem.”
If all you have are a bunch of psychologists who assume that races exist without any argument and strong grounding in philosophy, then you haven’t solved the problem.
“See how useless his definition is without a hierarchy of clusters telling you whether we’re talking about race,”
Haha nope/ Hardimon’s four premise argument that I have provided above is, even then, sufficient for delineating race. You can delineate races based on phenotype and phenotype alone. You don’t need genes, clusters, etc, to delineate race.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/01/04/you-dont-need-genes-to-delineate-race/
“I’m very concerned that you don’t grasp the hierarchical nature of taxonomy and thus are failing to provide definitions that distinguish race from its subsets and supersets:”
I’m very concerned that you don’t grasp that no one denies that genetic variation exists, and that whatever interpretations any kinds of clusters one gets with any kind of system is interpreted through philosophy. I’m very concerned that you don’t grasp that your racial ontology needs to be grounded in a strong philosophical system and not merely assumed that they exist. This is where Hardimon’s and Spencer’s arguments come in.
You, Rushton, and Lynn need to ground your belief in the existence of races into a sound philosophical ontology. You are of course racial realists, but how do you ground your racial realism? In what kind of philosophical system is your belief that races are biologically real grounded? Showing genetic variation is not enough, as constructivists and eliminativists about race can contest it. Hardimon’s and Spencer’s arguments about race are grounded strongly in metaphysics. Yours, Lynn’s, and Rushton’s are grounded in nothing but the assumption that races exist.
Lynn provides somewhat of a definition on page 7 of Race Differences in Intelligence, I don’t find Lynn’s defense of whether or not races exist particularly compelling. In any case, how Lynn defines race is very similar to Hardimon’s populationist race concept. But even Lynn recognizes Native Americans as a separate race, which is how this discussion got started. (Of course, Lynn doesn’t tackle the stronger arguments against the existence of race, but being a psychologist and not a philosopher of race, I don’t blame him.) In any case, stating truisms (geographic barriers, physical differences) does not ground one’s beliefs on the ontology of races, and he too, fails. I don’t think you understand the importance of the metaphysics of race.
In any case, I have defended the race concepts I push from criticism. I have defended the use of Native Americans as a separate race from East Asians. In any case, there is/was geographic isolation between the two, now physically distinct, racial groups. So if you’re using Lynn now, then he recognizes that Native Americans are a different race. Good job, we agree.
Nope. Genetic demarcation. Read Rosenberg.
STRUCTURE genetically demarcates any K value you choose. That’s the whole point of it. So you have yet to explain how K = 5 is anything other than an arbitrary choice.
Furthermore, since the Blumenbach partition is useful for explaining a portion of human genetic variation,
ANY partition is useful for explaining a portion of human genetic variation, so again, the decision to go with K = 5 because it matched Blumenbach’s model or because it roughly matches the continents is wholly arbitrary.
Again: The existence of race is a philosophical, not scienctific, matter. The question “What is race?” is a philosophical question. The question “Do races exist?” is a philosophical question. The question “If races exist, how many races are there?” is a philosophical question.
And you have yet to provide any coherent answers to those questions.
If all you have are a bunch of psychologists who assume that races exist without any argument and strong grounding in philosophy, then you haven’t solved the problem.
My philosophy is that taxonomy is hierarchical and so we should use the objective mathematical method of hierarchical clustering to decide how life forms are divided into subsets and supersets, because it can be applied to all taxonomical levels, from ethnic groups to races to species to genera to the very kingdoms of life. Your philosophy is there are five races cause muh five continents and muh Blumenbach. I actually have a coherent strategy to move the entire field of taxonomy forward and you just have an ad hoc assertion.
Haha nope/ Hardimon’s four premise argument that I have provided above is, even then, sufficient for delineating race. You can delineate races based on phenotype and phenotype alone. You don’t need genes, clusters, etc, to delineate race.
As I just proved, Hardimon’s rules fail to differentiate race from its subsets and supersets. Lots of populations differ geographically and phenotypically regardless of whether they are races or species or genera or ethnic groups or large clans within ethnic groups so you can’t objectively apply his rules to count how many races there are.
Yours, Lynn’s, and Rushton’s are grounded in nothing but the assumption that races exist.
My proof that races exist is that they form mathematical clusters that can be independently inferred by anyone who takes random phenotype measurements and enters them into a cluster calculator. Since phenotypes exist and mathematical clusters exist, it follows phenotypic clusters exist. Where’s your proof that race exists? And if we both agree that they exist, the only relevant question is how many exist. You’re simply assuming that there are five, while I’m proposing a mathematical technique to count them.
So if you’re using Lynn now, then he recognizes that Native Americans are a different race. Good job, we agree.
No Lynn’s 10 races are about as arbitrary as your 5 races.
“You have use to explain how K = 5 is anything other than an abritary choice.”
I just did. There is a clean demarcation, it objectively partitions individuals into each K value.l drawing from microsatellites.
“matched Blumenbachs model or roughly matches the continents”
You don’t seem to understand that the American concept of race is based on the Census while the Census defers to the OMB and the OMB talks about sets of populations. Please read Spencer.
“you have yet to provide coherent answers to those questions”
Sure I have. It’s not a scientific matter.
“taxonomy is hierarchical”
Taxonomy is socially constructed. My philosophy of race is grounded in metaphysics. It’s grounded in spun arguments. Yours is grounded in your love for Rushton. It’s not an assertion, that’s are many arguments for them which I have provided.
“Hardimon’s rules fail to differentiate race from its subsets and supersets”
What do you mean? His argument for the existence of race “objectively” points out that races exist. That’s point 1. Pont 2 is based on Rosenberg.
In constructing clusters corresponding to the five continental-level minimalist races on the basis of objective, race-neutral genetic markers, structure essentially “reconstructs” those races on the basis of a race-blind procedure. Modulo our assumption, the article shows that it is possible to assign individuals to continental-level races without knowing anything about the race or ancestry of the individuals from whose genotypes the microsattelites are drawn. The populations studied were “defined by geography, language, and culture,” not skin color or “race.”
“they form mathematical clusters”
Source? And even if they do form clusters and “anyone who takes random phenotype measurements” can see this, you need arguments and a philosophy to ground this in. No one denies that clusters exist and that phenotypic clusters exist. You need to have a defense from anti-realists, which you don’t seem to have.
“Where’s your proof race exists?”
In my previous comments in this thread. I’m not assuming that five races exist. Race is social and biological. The American aspect of socialrace grounds the ontology of race with the Census and OMB, while Rosenberg shows that these clusters are genetically structured. Read Spencer and point out the flaws in his defense of STRUCTURE.
“Lynn’s 10 races are about as arbitrary as your 5 races.”
No they’re not. Lynn assumes they exist. Lynn states things people, even anti-realists and constructivists agree with. Lynn’s and Rushton’s ontology isn’t grounded in metaphysics and yours aren’t either. You can make clusters with mathematical models, STRUCTURE, or what not. Your philosophy isn’t, again, grounded in anything. You’re just saying “muh mathematical models” without any source. So provided a source for them.
“You have use to explain how K = 5 is anything other than an abritary choice.”
I just did. There is a clean demarcation, it objectively partitions individuals into each K value.l drawing from microsatellites.
Provide a cited quote stating that ONLY K = 5 gives a clean demarcation of races in STRUCTURE. Saying there are 5 races because some software can divide human genes into 5 populations is a bit like a serial killer saying we have 5 body parts because he likes chopping people into 5 equal parts. It’s dumb.
so when hitler referred to the japs as “lost aryans” he might’ve been right, phenotype can be VERY misleading…or at least easily observed phenotype.
japs, koreans, and n chinese are more closely related to whites than they are to s chinese and se asians.
i thought my local weather man was a light skinned black. nope. he’s just an italian with kinky hair.
in america “black” means any noticeable black ancestry.
I havent read the ‘debate’ between RR and puppy because I have a feeling it will be about who can cite the dictionary more but to say n.e. asians are more similar to whites than s.e asians doesn’t sit right.
We know for a fact that Han chinese for example constitute pretty chunky proportions of the malaysian, singaporean, indonesian and thai populations. And obviously there is another faction in those societies of mixed ancestry. And linguistically the languages of the region are related more to ne asia than anything ‘aryan’.
I always thought aryan was actually more about linguistic heritage than actual genetic heritage.
But filipinos really are quite different. I would think they could have substantial overlap with pacific islander people.
I think the natives of hawaii have some shared heritage with the japanese but i don’t know if thats from recent immigration or an older link.
uhhh…
you grok that overseas chinese were excluded from the se asian genetic tests, right?
here’s an example from the NBA. patty mills:
peepee’s FALSE theory that negritos are more closely related to africans is contradicted by her out of africa theory.
the FIRST people out of africa were the negritos, dravidians, abos, new guinea people.
My point is race should be defined not by how recently you share an ancestor, but by how much of the ancestor you share
“Provide a cited quote stating that ONLY K = 5 gives a clean demarcation of races in STRUCTURE”
I never claimed that “ONLY K = 5 gives a clean demarcation.” My only claim was that THEY ARE DEMARCATED on the basis of GENETIC MARKERS which CORRESPOND TO GEOGRAPHIC ANCESTRY and that RACE was NOT ASSUMED for the analysis.
Crucially, each cluster is clearly demarcated from the cluster immediately adjacent to it. Modulo our assumption, the graph represents the five continental-level minimalist races as being separated by lines marking relatively sharp allele frequency breaks—lines that are clear to the naked eye. The five continental-level minimalist races turn out to be “genetically discrete units,” in that they are distinguishable on the basis of genetic information alone.
It is clear why this is so. If the populations of the five major areas are continental-level minimalist races, to assign individuals to clusters corresponding to the five major areas is to assign them to clusters corresponding to clusters corresponding to continental-level minimalist races. When structure assigns an individual I to one of the clusters corresponding to the five major areas, it eo ipso assigns I to a continental-level minimalist race.
The assumption that the five populations are continental-level minimalist races entitles us to interpret structure as having the capacity to assign individuals to continental-level minimalist races on the basis of markers that track ancestry. In constructing clusters corresponding to the five continental-level minimalist races on the basis of objective, race-neutral genetic markers, structure essentially “reconstructs” those races on the basis of a race-blind procedure. Modulo our assumption, the article shows that it is possible to assign individuals to continental-level minimalist races without knowing anything about the race or ancestry of the individuals from whose genotypes the microsatetllites are drawn. The populations studied were “defined by geography, language, and culture,” not skin color or “race.”
Structure’s “capacity” to assign individuals to continental-level minimalist races is parasitic on its ability to assign individuals to clusters on the basis of markers that track ancestry. Structure does not “track” race directly. It tracks race indirectly via the sequences of DNA (the microsatellites) it analyzes. These markers can be seen as doing double duty, functioning as indirect markers of race and direct markers of ancestry. The reason they can perform both duties is that minimalist race is morphologically marked geographic ancestry. The markers track minimalist race by tracking geographic ancestry that is morphologically marked.
As philosopher of science Quayshawn Spencer notes, Rosenberg’s K = 5 result is robust if a worldwide sample of ethnic groups is used. He points out that “it has been reproduced in 69% of worldwide human genetic clustering studies since 2002 using different sets of genomic polymorphisms, humans, human ethnic groups, and clustering algorithms.”
[…]
Now, as critics have pointed out, the number of clusters structure forms is researcher predetermined. Set K (the number of clusters) at 4 and you get four clusters. Set K at 5 and you get five clusters. So the fact that the number of clusters structure generated at K = 5 in the 2002 study is not surprising. What is surprising is that the 5 clusters constitute well-formed, clearly demarcated segments that show the populations represented are genetically “structured,” which is to say, meaningfully demarcated solely on the basis of genetic markers. This result was in no way guaranteed by setting the K at 5. Using language introduced in the Rosenberg and colleagues 2005 paper, we can say that the K = 5 graph exhibits “high clusteredness,” which is to say that that extent to which each individual was placed fully in a cluster by the K = 5 run of structure is high. High clusteredness is not guaranteed by the choice of K but instead reflects the specific genetic structure of the populations. (Hardimon, 2017: 86-88)
So races differ in microsatellites, these microsatellites can be partitioned in individuals and they can be placed in continental-level minimalist races. Rosenberg’s study shows that there is a small—albeit important—genetic difference between human population groups (races), and this small difference is what the morphologic/phenotypic differences are, in part, caused by.
In any case, read Spencer’s “A Radical Solution to the Race Problem” for more defense of the use of STRUCTURE.
“Saying there are 5 races because some software can divide human genes into 5 populations is a bit like a serial killer saying we have 5 body parts because he likes chopping people into 5 equal parts. It’s dumb.”
You don’t understand what STRUCTURE does.
If you look at the actual graphs it’s obvious why they picked k = 5. It’s the only one where each genetic cluster corresponds to a specific phenotype. For every other k level you get inconvenient results like mongoloids & australoids sharing the same cluster but only k = 5 fits one of the traditional racial models.
So I suppose you could define race as the minimum number of genetic clusters that each correspond to its own phenotype & by that definition k = 5 is justified
That’s not a bad way of doing it, but there are better ways
I just explained why they chose it. I told you to look at the graph and read Rosenberg and Spencer days ago. I showed you Spencer’s argument on what “biological racial realism” should mean in the race debate. I explained the minimalist race position and how it’s based strictly on phenotype, geographic ancestry, and geographic location. So now you’re finally getting it. So now you should finally see that Hardimon’s and Spencer’s arguments establish that Native Americans are a separate race distinguished from East Asians. They’re also distinct in virtue of the argument for socialraces.
What “better ways” exist to delineate race? Now, do you have a cited quote showing that HCA distinguishes the number of races you believe exist? How many races exist? What are they? What is race? How is your belief of what race is different and superior to the arguments I’ve put forth from Hardimon and Spencer?
I just explained why they chose it. I told you to look at the graph and read Rosenberg and Spencer days ago. I showed you Spencer’s argument on what “biological racial realism” should mean in the race debate. I explained the minimalist race position and how it’s based strictly on phenotype, geographic ancestry, and geographic location. So now you’re finally getting it.
I’m not getting anything. Your source gave the following justification for K = 5:
Now, as critics have pointed out, the number of clusters structure forms is researcher predetermined. Set K (the number of clusters) at 4 and you get four clusters. Set K at 5 and you get five clusters. So the fact that the number of clusters structure generated at K = 5 in the 2002 study is not surprising. What is surprising is that the 5 clusters constitute well-formed, clearly demarcated segments that show the populations represented are genetically “structured,” which is to say, meaningfully demarcated solely on the basis of genetic markers. This result was in no way guaranteed by setting the K at 5. Using language introduced in the Rosenberg and colleagues 2005 paper, we can say that the K = 5 graph exhibits “high clusteredness,” which is to say that that extent to which each individual was placed fully in a cluster by the K = 5 run of structure is high. High clusteredness is not guaranteed by the choice of K but instead reflects the specific genetic structure of the populations. (Hardimon, 2017: 86-88)
By contrast my justification for K = 5 is that it’s the only K value for which each genetic group has its own phenotype. However upon further thought, that’s not really true. Oceanians don’t really have their own phenotype. Papua New Guineans and Andaman Islanders look more like Africans than they do like Australian Aboriginals.
If they insist on using STRUCTURE to determine race, K = 3 arguably works just as well as K = 5. Neither works perfectly, but with K = 3, you get 3 colors: orange, blue, and purple:
Almost everyone in purple would be classified as Mongoloid according to craniofacial anthropology, while blue and orange correspond to Caucasoid and Negroid respectively. K = 5 might be supported by Blumenbach and the census, but K = 3 is supported by Rushton, skull shape, forensics, the Bible, and ancient maps like this:
You’re attempting to rationalize Rushton’s false model. It’s not working.
“K = 3 is supported by Rushton”
And? So what?
“the Bible”
Be serious.
In any case I’ve proven my point. You’ve also not refuted the contention that socialrace identifies Native Americans as a separate race. And since Spencer’s partitions AR partly social, that definitively proves my point.
The three race model is bunk. It’s all about the five race model. My point is proven.
You’re attempting to rationalize Rushton’s false model. It’s not working.
No, I’ve simply proved that k = 3 makes just as much sense as K = 5
“K = 3 is supported by Rushton”
And? So what?
So what that K = 5 is supported by blumenbach?
“the Bible”
Be serious.
It’s just as serious as creationist blumenbach
In any case I’ve proven my point.
When all your arguments support multiple Ks, you’ve proved nothing
You’ve also not refuted the contention that socialrace identifies Native Americans as a separate race.
Depends on the time & place.
The three race model is bunk. It’s all about the five race model. My point is proven.
You’re too dogmatic for me. Maybe I’ll discuss this with spencer himself
“just as much sense as k =5”
No it doesn’t as it groups PIs with blacks and NAs with Mongoloids which doesn’t make sense. Spencer’s model is based partly on the social. The social dictates NAs as a separate race from “Mongoloids.”
It’s not that K = 5 is supported by Blumenbach; the point is that it justifies the concept of folk races, which Rushton’s model doesn’t.
“just as serious as creationist Blumenbach”
Nope.
“support multiple Ks”
They don’t. I’ve provided the justification for K = 5 with both Spencer’s and Hardimon’s arguments.
“Depends on the time and place”
We’re talking about the US concept of race when referring to Spencer. His model justifies it. In any case the concept of socialrace proves my point.
“Maybe I’ll discuss this with Spencer himself”
Oh, please do because he does respond to emails in regard to his work. Don’t forget to email him about it either and please do show me what he says and make a blog post on it.
I may just email him myself this weekend.
Actually k = 3 groups Oceanians more with East Asians than with blacks
I want to read Spencer’s full paper before I ask questions
What questions do you have about his model? I’ll ask them for you.
Most anthropologists recognize 3 or 4 basic races of man in existence today
https://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/how-many-major-races-are-there-in-the-world/
Did Rushton say PIs were “Negroid” or Asian or did he not write about them?
Let me know your questions when you read it.
The article is alright; but it doesn’t refer to Native Americans at all. In any case, as I’ve stated previously, race is a philosophical, not biological or anthropological, matter.
Which article is alright?
Rushton said it was uncertain whether Polynesians were mongoloid or caucasoid so would do two separate analyses using both assumptions just to cover all objections
He never said there ONLY 3 races,instead he said there were AT LEAST 3 races. He admitted that some scientists recognize amerindians & Australian aboriginals as additional races but rushton chose to study only the races that were best established
The article you linked with the anthros is alright.
What did his analyses uncover?
I agree that there are ATLEAST 3 races. But five specifies the races better in my opinion.
The article mentions native Americans in the mongoloid section. Rush found it made no difference whether Polynesians were mongoloid or caucasoid since they were too small a sample to alter the brain size aggregates.
I don’t think rushto cared that much how many races there are. He even endorsed lynn’s Book which had a 10 race model. As long as whites were near the top & dark skinned peoples were at the bottom, rushton was flexible.
And I’ve sufficiently argues that Native Americans aren’t Mongoloids.
Lynn’s model is wrong too.
No you haven’t rr
Anyone who thinks native Americans & East Asians are different races does not understand taxonomy or metaphysics in general
Even your fan phil78 who believed in a 5 race model too lumped native Americans with East Asians
Even mug of pee does the same
When 2 categories are more like each other than they are like any other categories, you merge those categories. This is a BASIC rule of logic
Now you can argue East Asians & native Americans are different subcategories within a category, but you can’t argue they’re different categories
You and spencer are wrong
What don’t I understand about the metaphysics of race? If race is partly social, and Americans defer to the Census while the Census defers to the OMB, and the OMB talks about sets of population groups, how are Native Americans not a distinct race?
Europeans are a subrace of Caucasians; Native Americans are distinct because they satisfy Hardimon’s 3 conditions. I’m worried you don’t understand that.
You & spencer don’t understand how categorizing works because you don’t understand the difference between categories & their subsets or supersets.
Europeans satisfy hardimon’s conditions too
Why don’t you explain to me what I don’t understand about them? You’ve not refuted Hardimon’s nor Spencer’s argument.
Europeans are a subrace, which Hardimon recognizes in his book. Read it.
Just as the caucasoid race can be subdivided into Europeans, MENA & south asians, the mongoloid race can be subdivided into East Asians, Arctic people & amerindians
Nope – NAs are distinct on the basis of C1-C3.
And this, again, is verified by STRUCTURE.
Email Spencer about that point. I’d love to see his response.
”Rush found it made no difference whether Polynesians were mongoloid or caucasoid since they were too small a sample to alter the brain size aggregates.”
What
y’all are confusing appearance, easily observed phenotype, with genetic similarity. the two are related but not the same.
the fact that negritos etc share features in common with black africans means only that they may share genes for these features. but that’s a tiny fraction of the genome.
if you’re going to claim that because new guinea people can look like black africans they must be like them in many other ways, i’m going to claim you’re ‘tarded.
Mug of Pee Africans & Papuans look alike because they’re both living fossils preserving the race that all humans belonged to 70 kya. They are genetically different only because most of the genome is irrelevant & precisely because it’s irrelevant, mutates at a predictable rate thus serving as a clock to time how long ago they split
Modern humans could continue to exist in our current form for another billion years, but based on genetic distance we’d be closer to flowers than to our future fellow humans because genetic distance is largely a measure of time
So I repeat, it’s not how recently you share an ancestor it’s how much of that ancestor you share.
Finnish people are the smartest gentile whites. Finnish people also have the lowest number of Nobel Prize winners of whites. Asians are the smartest gentiles. Asians have a disproportionately low number of Nobel Prize winners. This seems to be more of a personality difference, as whites are the most entrepreneurial, individualistic race – seemingly, perfectly situated with their IQ at 100. Asians are relatively inbred, collectivist, and stringent to the core; Finnish in likeness, called the Japan of Europe for their meek, collectivist, and unassuming personalities, and a penchant for order.
Collectivism imprisons the mind and limits ambitions to the status-quo; it renders the person to be a subject of the whims of the whole. IQ is only one aspect of personality, and I’m not even sure if it’s a large part. Openness is the proxy for IQ, and how much it correlates with IQ is not particularly strong; and being already considerably pliant to environment, it makes IQ more of a support than a leading force. Thus, a collectivist order can dampen inquisitiveness. Because we understand that certain environments allow for and perhaps are necessary for an exceptional individual to thrive, a system concentrated on order will be less likely to delve into things that change it without means to address negative contingencies. A collectivist, order-oriented mind is seeking to establish circumspection before innovation. It seems that Asians are genetically predisposed to this order, collectivist orientation.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282411443_Why_do_Northeast_Asians_win_so_few_Nobel_Prizes_1
Are the Chinese psychotic? What explains their behavior? Did the cultural revolution change the genetics of China? Like the Chinese honestly do some crazy, disgusting, near-demonic things. Just completely reprehensible behavior. Some serious mental malfunction going on.
Not only are East Asians collectivists and completely lacking in originality, but there personalities and integration into the West solely relies on them taking bits and pieces of white culture and bringing upon themselves. They imitate everything the white man does. Their cultures are so bland to begin with.
Even when they come to the West, they’re completely collectivist still and don’t perform much better in terms of original thought.
Ron Unz has a good article about how the Chinese state had such a successful anti-crime / pro authority system for thousands of years they literally bred individualists out of existence.
Loaded,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions
‘ Even they come to the West, they’re completely collectivist still and don’t perform much better in terms of original thought. ‘
There are a lot of east asians innovating in the west too.
Nah, you’re retarded. Asians haven’t done a single thing in America. They’re very easily influenced by Western culture. They never think for themselves. They can only mimick the behavior of others.
In fact, I’ve never met a single Asian that had any capability of divergent thought. They’re so shallow with their intellectual accomplishments. They innovate and invent things that require good spatial ability. Aside from that, they’re complete garbage.
EXACTLY!
the “china people high IQ because cold winters” FLUSH!
the “china people high IQ because SELECTED post neolithic” DON’T FLUSH!
Loaded,
There are many asians in universities r&d departments in the west that are innovating. Also taoism, feng shui ,eastern philosophy require a lot more than spatial intelligence. And ofcourse quite a few of the inventions too mentioned in the link that I posted.
And traditional east Asian clothing would I imagine be hard to wear for most east asians in the modern world.
Eastern philosophies are rudimentary. Doesn’t require any bit of creativity on the part of the person inventing it. Also, have you noticed the theme that all of them have a spatial component? Seems odd, doesn’t it?
Compare eastern philosophy with philosophy with philosophies of those time period.
Also just because they have a spatial component, east asians have only spatial creativity.
Darn I typed from my phone.
I meant to say ” it doesn’t mean east asians have only spatial creativity
”Not only are East Asians collectivists and completely lacking in originality”
And Japanese*
Remember about gold era of inventions in China. You mean current east asians, but even if it was the case… not at all.
Pumpkin, if you practice your ass off on the SAT to get a 1100 to 1400 increase. if you retook the test 1 year six months later, would your score be 1400, or will it be 1100?
Probably closer to 1400. Improving your score by that much would probably mean that your overall reading comp and math skills improved in addition to your test performance, which would make subsequent testing go better than it did at first.
This is just a guess, though. I’m sure PP could link you to a more exact answer.
You might be right. If you had such huge score improvements, it’s not simply a practice effect. Apparently, your brain is pretty malleable before the age of 18 (fluid IQ is apparently malleable before the age of 25). For the math section, it could be practiced heavily, but if you improved by a large margin on reading comprehension, you probably improved your verbal intelligence by a bit.
it’s interesting how the terms “near east” and “middle east” overlap in their extensions.
and how “arab” has come to mean anyone whose first language is arabic, but low IQ americans still think atlas mountains and environs people are saudis.
they can’t be blamed. north africans and arab-ians look alike.
Pumpkin, why is Comprehension included within the VCI. Wouldn’t a lower score than other subtests on Comprehension suggest a lower social intelligence than lower Verbal Intelligence?
The comprehension test measures both verbal & social cognition, but because there are several verbal subtests, they tend to form a cluster. The wechsler doesn’t have enough strong measures of social cognition for a social cognition cluster to emerge, so comprehension gets categorized as verbal
Also, pumpkin, would the SAT practice effects wear off after a year even if you worked your ass off all day every day studying for it?
Why can’t you ask questions the usual way?
Who cares
I think PP cares.
I care!
The smartest dumb guy i’ve ever seen in my life, was a wigger.
Pumpkin, wouldn’t the Information + Similarities + Vocab provide a much more accurate verbal intelligence score than comprehension added to any two of those? Also, more specifically, wouldn’t similarities and Vocab be enough for a very accurate score. What’s the point of having an extra Information test?
If you studied your ass of for a test similar to the SAT, improved your score a lot on that test, then took the actual SAT a year and half later, would your score be inflated because of that 5 month ass work off you did?
phenotype taxonomy was ALWAYS just an attempt at cladistics prior to the DNA revolution.
phenotype taxonomy was ALWAYS just an attempt at cladistics prior to the DNA revolution.
That might be true but evolutionsry taxonomists allow for paraphyletic taxa meaning not all descendants of a common ancestor are included in the taxon.
An example would be excluding birds from the dinosaur taxon because they don’t look like dinosaurs, even though they’re part of the same clad
but this is just a convention in the use of words, it’s not REALITY.
speaking of high IQ US military people.
the air force, army, and navy academies have very low admissions rates. from 12 to 9%…according to wikipedia.
i worked with a guy from the naval academy.
1. he wasn’t a genius. it took him a long time to pass all the actuarial exams, and his brother had gone to the city state school and got him the job…but his brother died in his early 50s.
2. and the guy was never married at 41 despite his income. but he was short. and the navy attracts homos and closet homos. he reached captain on a sub. he told me david robinson was excused early because too tall.
average standardized test scores are quite low for them though (particularly at USMA), compared to other “elite” schools…
no reason not to post the above comment.
the very fact that some US schools have acceptance rates less than 15% is proof of what i’ve claimed so many times on this blog and other HBD blogs…
and proof of what a shitty county the US is…
if admissions are OBJECTIVE, like they are in almost 100% of the rest of the world…
anything short of 90% acceptance would be due to lack of communicating the OBJECTIVE standards for admission.
people who don’t make the OBJECTIVE scores don’t apply.
don’t apply.
don’t apply.
so high acceptance rate of those who do make the scores.
my dad got into harvard because he had an OK SAT + president of hs class + academic hs + he visited all the schools he applied to + athlete + interviewed by Life +…
a bunch of shit which had nothing to do with his ability.
and because harvard accepted 20% of applicants at the time, whereas now it accepts like 5%.
Everyone knows if Harvard only used scores as a criteria there would be a lot less jews there and a lot more east asians.
I remember seeing a guy on linkedin, asian guy, who was a qualified accountant, tax technician, CFA, CAIA, and MBA. If that guy was in his late 20s/early 30s. That would basically mean he was studying flat out since high school for nearly 20 years.
Funnily enough, I don’t know if he was employed.
yeah. that’s the REAL reason why the US can’t go the exams only route.
but…
the problem isn’t too many asians at elite schools…or too few blacks…
the problem is the very existence of elite schools.
which isn’t to say there shouldn’t be elite schools.
it is to say that the ruling elite should not be drawn almost exclusively from a few schools…
the economic and political consequences of the school one attends should be MUCH LESS.
AND…
the tests can always be “jiggered” to be more neutral when it comes to race…
BUT…
there’s a limit because g.
46 years and secretariat still wins. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/04/sports/kentucky-derby-live.html
there are no more motivated or well funded breeders than racehorse breeders.
sad!
sad!
sad!
etc.
etc.
etc.
this is why i say…
the single most FREAKISH performance in the history of sport is secretariat’s belmont.
breath it in. love it.
Secretariat is an outlier
It’s much harder to increase the best score through selection than it is to increase the mean score
Increasing the mean score is just a matter of weeding out the bad scores but increasing the best score may require a freak mutation
So the average speed of race horses might still be improving, but the maximum speed has plateaued.
the more recent species the less its genetic diversity…
but humans are even less diverse than expected because volcano…
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/04/23/bernie-sanders-israel-middle-east-netanyahu-vpx.cnn
This is good from bernie.
I wonder what libertarians think of the media. I mean according to their very intelligent principles it would mean the media should be unregulated? So then why are they censoring right wingers all over social media all of a sudden? Well libertarians would say private companies can choose who they want to serve…………..oh oh does this mean we can bring back Plessy Ferguson?
…private companies can choose whom they want to serve…
congress granted immunity from law suits so long as the social media platforms were just platforms.
when they start editing they are no longer immune.
but because the legal profession is 100% corrupt prosecution may never happen…even though it would be an incredibly easy case to win.
I’d like to get Ron Pauls opinion on Jim Crow actually. That would be amusing. Socieities define themselves by the types of people they promote and the types they exclude.
Lion used to constantly claim Ron Paul had aspergers because his suits didn’t fit. Of course the real reason he hated him was he thought he was an antisemite (ron Paul was one of the few republicans to oppose the Iraq war & he was against the federal reserve)
His son Rand Paul opposed forced integration of businesses for libertarian reasons. YouTube his interview with Rachael Maddow
“Lion used to constantly claim Ron Paul had aspergers because his suits didn’t fit.”
Hahahahaha
Ron Paul doesn’t have aspergers. Hes a normie but hes as close to on the spectrum as you get within normal parameters. There is a lot of naivete.
I remember during the Iraq War he was speaking out and couldn’t understand why the party endorsed and supported these dumb wars. I AGREE with Ron but Ron thinks people chose to go to war because of ‘poor intelligence from the CIA’ hahahaha. Poor Ron should read devils chessboard.
Since he also opposes the federal reserve, I’m pretty sure Ron Paul shared your views on reasons for the Iraq war, he just couldn’t say it publicly
Perhaps you have it backwards. Maybe aspies are the most resistant to brainwashing
Yeah maybe youre right. Ive seen him say the russia stuff is nonsense as well.
Because brainwashing exploits the social instinct to follow the leader. If autistics lack social instincts, they’ll be harder to brainwash.
That might also explain why they’re so many autistic types on hbd blogs including this one. Hbd contradicts everything our leaders tell us to think
there’s no “right” when peepee inhabits a parallel unicerse.
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_spectrum
this is a picture of oprah is peepee’s universe:
I never claimed oprah was beautiful. It’s you who finds blacks attractive (if they’re men)
In fact I find her fascinating precisely because she had so much against her (not conventionally beautiful, poor, illegitimate, sexual abused, overweight, black, female) yet still became the most influential billionaire on the planet.
Indeed growing I remember all the white suburban soccer moms chatting “I think Oprah’s VERRRRY smart, she had everything against her, yet spun it into gold”
And then i find out all that adaptability is perfectly parallel by an XXXXXXX large hat size, so it’s only natural I’d be intrigued
lion is an idiot. Paul is not an “anti-Semite.” That’s just a buzzword people use.
what (((people)))?
if rr ever took the red pill he wouldn’t understand it.
“libertarian” is just another word for autist.
needless to say, libertarians don’t unuhstan dis n shieet.
he’s commented on it many times…
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/161217-paul-says-he-would-have-opposed-civil-rights-act
“Paul appealed to the free market, and argued that if a business owner were to post signs declaring segregation in his or her business, people wouldn’t patronize it.”
https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/halima-aden-sports-illustrated-hijab-burkini-style-scli-intl/index.html
Hahahaha, the danes have a good sense of humour. I;ll give them that.
pretty sure SI is non-mongolian media.
Terry tao is a good example of how math IQ is genetic.
He reminds me of the black players on the welsh football team or the predominance of half blacks among englands youth internationals.
Would imagine half white/half asian people are better than whites at math.
but “math IQ” after the age of 11 is mostly “interest in math”. to be a great mathematician you have to really really really like math.
the guy who scored highest on the AHSME in my HS was clinically autistic, and…
he was a horrible chess player. genuinely horrible.
Lion posted this recently:
“Alan Dershowitz writes:
Finally, there is some good news. One traditional anti-Semitic trope is that “the Jews control the media.” People who peddle this nonsense often point to the New York Times, which is, in fact, published by a prominent Jewish family, the Sulzbergers. Anyone who reads the New York Times will immediately see the lie in this bigoted claim: Yes, the New York Times has long been controlled by a Jewish family. But this Jewish family is far from being supportive of Jewish values, the nation-state of the Jewish people or Jewish sensibilities. If anything, it has used its Jewishness as an excuse to say about Jews and do to Jews what no mainstream newspaper, not owned by Jews, would ever do.”
Lion would ban me if I was to make a comment on this comment.
yes!
lion has ZERO credibility on the JQ.
Chanda Chisala has a forthcoming paper:
Weak Genes or Strong Germs?
Chanda Chrisala, Stanford University
Abstract: Presents an alternative biological hypothesis to the Jensenian genetic hypothesis for Black-White IQ differences in America. Looks at some of the most recent epidemiological findings on infections that were previously not known to directly lower cognitive ability, and that happen to be much more prevalent in African Americans than European Americans. This pathogenic hypothesis invites serious consideration to replace Jensen’s default hypothesis as it appears to also predict other phenomena that have persistently defied simple hereditarian models.
…Presents an alternative biological hypothesis to the Jensenian [lost all credibility right there. should’ve been -‘s not -ian. gay black men are annoying.] genetic hypothesis for Black-White IQ differences in America…as it appears to [split infinitive] also predict other phenomena that have persistently defied simple hereditarian models.
i guarantee chisala isn’t as sexy as denzel.
Not possible to be uglier than Denzel. Denzel is the secretariat of human ugliness.
What a man, what a man, what a man,
What a mighty good man
My man is smooth like Barry, and his voice got bass
A body like Arnold with a Denzel face
peepee thinks oprah is “beautiful” and denzel is “not good looking”.
the only explanation is peepee lives in a parallel universe.
Nope, without makeup oprah is almost as ugly as Denzel
that means you think all black men are ugly.
Thornhill, who analyzes faces with a computer, says the ideal symmetrical male may be movie star Denzel Washington, with his perfectly proportioned facial features.
https://www.newsweek.com/biology-beauty-178836
self-hating black woman because #canadatoowhite.
Yes I know all about the study. Oprah discussed it on her show years ago when introducing Denzel. All the women in the audience were screaming for him but I didn’t get it. Maybe I’ve been brainwashed by the media into thinking whites are better looking
When I was kid there were few blacks in media besides oprah. Had I been raised in today’s white genocide media, I might have found Denzel good looking
Media is all powerful
Denzel is too prognathous for me. Prior to the 2000s, women in China & India would have literally changed seats if Denzel sat next to them on the bus. Black was a huge stigma in those days
joseph jordan (aka “eric striker”) was revealed to be a latino a few days ago. this doesn’t mean he’s not italian. his mother is from argentina, and so many italians immigrated to argentina that argentines speak spanish with an italian accent. but he’s probably not greek.
both the pope and messi are first generation italian argentines.
Pumpkin, if you increase your ravens score from IQ 104 to 122, how much will it increase on WAIS Iv matrix reasoning?
Pumpkin, wouldn’t the practice transfers from RPM be the same as the practice effect you’d get from taking the wais Iv matrix reasoning many times? It makes zero sense taking a test without many similarities to the wais Iv Test and then expecting a practice effect transfer, unless it’s incredibly small.
On the WISC, if you are 14 years old 11 months and 16 days, do they consider you to be 14 years 11 months or do they consider you a 15 year old, according to the manual.
This is obviously a troll
I have a higher social IQ than you and I say he’s not a troll. Overruled.
Naah, I ain’t a troll, I’m just very dumb. Pumpkin, I have my doubts about the comprehension subtest, does it really measure social intelligence? I got a scaled score of 12 on it, and there’s no fucking way I’m socially smarter than 40% of the population, let alone 75% of the population.
it measures part of social intelligence. There used to be a Picture Arrangement test that measured social intelligence too. Maybe that would have dragged down your overall social IQ
I can only speak for the WISC-R and on that test one would be considered late 14.
Anything East Asians have accomplished is due to their advantage in spatial intelligence alone. Maybe working memory too. They lack any fundamental flexibility as to thought, can’t associate things well, have shallow memory, don’t have complex emotions, and are too neurotic to actually build something new, even in groups.
I disagree. They’re so superior they just seem uncreative. When you’re too dumb to find the solution you must create the solution. East Asians always find the solution no need to create
What I’m trying to say is this…they don’t have any big-picture ideas. They live on a day-to-day basis with little thought about the future. They’re characteristically like blacks when it comes to this. They might be less prone to impulsive actions, but that’s because they’re too scared, haha.
They fail to empathize and follow-up on bigger concepts. They will do absolutely anything to satiate their thirst for power, from A.I. to anything. There is no sense of morality.
Loaded- That’s more cultural than anything.
I also disagree on the morality part.
Pumpkin, if you symbol search score at 30 seconds is 11, but in the first 18 seconds, you got 8 symbols, but only 2 symbols in 8 seconds, would you still most likely have a 9 symbol search score for the other 3 30 second interval periods? I read somewhere that the average scores per interval go like this- 11 (initial), 9, 9, 9.
so human differentiation looks like “phyletic gradualism” because humans are a very recent species…
rr seems to be bothered by the inherent vagueness of “race”. or by the fact that obama is “black” in the US even though he’s half white. whatever.
just more confirmation that the mezzogiorno didn’t send its best.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Punctuated-equilibrium.svg
so human differentiation looks like “phyletic gradualism” because humans are a very recent species…
Explain
An American thief, from Korean origins, killed an old
Shopkeeper in Italy because he didn’t want to pay jeans he had stolen while being caught. He just slaid the old man.
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/05/05/europe/viterbo-italy-murder-us-man-intl/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F
As for « creativity », when someone find a solution, not from memory, it’s the same process in his mind whether the solution is new (known by someone) or not.
But if the solution is new and not anecdotical,
in general it would have been much more difficult to reach it, else it wouldn’t be new.
So there is a difference in terms of level of intelligence , indendently of the question of the existence of a radical difference in another parameter (creativity). So society knowledge level is strongly correlated to the IQ of people who deal with knowledge in those societies, and thus moderately correlated to the IQ – both average and tails – of its general population.
The other thing is that when it’s new, it’s the only’way To check that the creator wasn’t only a regurgitator.
Its like in finance. Only the person who took the gain can prove he was right and had the idea before others, and not an a posteriori charades teller (or could have been people).
what happened to the austronesian speakers who started agriculture in china? the same thing that happened to them in taiwan. only 2.3% of taiwanese are classified as indigenes today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formosan_languages
the han originated near the wei river north of where agriculture started in china.
what unz actually found iirc was that pure IQ based admissions would effect:
1. the same number of whites as predicted from their fraction of the general population.
2. the same number of asians (ne and s) as are already admitted (10x greater than their fraction of the general population.)
3. LOTS fewer mongolians and almost no blacks and latinos.
4. so how can it be that asians are fairly admitted and whites not when asian APPLICANTS are more discriminated against than white applicants?
BECAUSE LOTS OF SUPER SMART WHITE KIDS…
DON’T APPLY TO ELITE SCHOOLS.
No. He showed, for Ivies, that non Jewish whites were the most discriminated against by far (25% when they should be 65-70%, their average share in general population). Asians (ne, s, chinese) are 13% and should be around 26% (three times their share in population). The jews should go from
25% to 6% (three times their’share), the 20% going to other whites. Latinos and blacks would disappear (30% that would go 10% for asian and 20% for Non Jewish whites).
So Unz work show that the real discrimination is non Jewish whites (ripped 250%) before asian (ripped 100%). The real beneficiaries are the Jews (+400% compared to merit and + 1200% compare to citizen over-representation) hiding among the whites and besides the blacks and Latinos.
Some said Jew reporting among Ivies is inflated and NMS under-estimate the number of Jews with high Sat and gpa
Scores. The problem is that universities don’t distinguish NJ whites scores from Jews, only way to know ….
[redacted by pp, may 6, 2019]
hasn’t it been proved that the whites who are admitted to elite schools have lower scores than the asians who are admitted, significantly lower?
unz’s stats on THOSE WHO ACTUALLY APPLY are wanting.
Pumpkin, how different are the specific items on Raven’s Matrices vs WAIS IV matrix reasoning?
This is me. I typed in my email wrong.
Pumpkin, I might have figured out the answer. I conducted an “analysis” of conceptual similarity, very little similarity, if any, it’s probably the very easy items. The hard items on WAIS and WISC reasoning are completely different from other problems within the same test. Ravens is not like that, the later items are just variations of the easier items. So, even if you do the RPM a ton, you’ll get a very small practice effect on the WAIS IV matrix reasoning, probably the same as you’d get if you did the WAIS IV matrix reasoning tons of times.
Am I correct Pumpkin?
There are two most likely centers of domestication for rice as well as the development of the wetland agriculture technology. The first, and most likely, is in the lower Yangtze River, believed to be the homelands of early Austronesian speakers and associated with the Kauhuqiao, Hemudu, Majiabang, and Songze cultures. It is characterized by typical Austronesian innovations, including stilt houses, jade carving, and boat technologies. Their diet were also supplemented by acorns, water chestnuts, foxnuts, and pig domestication.
so agriculture started in china independently but not started by china people.
sad!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austronesian_peoples
I never claimed agriculture or civilization started in China. I admitted that caucasoids did it before mongoloids but noted that East Asians did it before whites
but NOT ne asians, the people you think are superior. the e asians responsible never experience cold winters. dey was like filipinos n shieet.
if they were superior the ag and industrial and information revolutions would have been initiated by them. they weren’t.
so even if flushton were right, he’d be wrong.
are you talking about agriculture or civilization? Both were independently achieved in East Asia (but not in Europe). The latter is more significant because even the papuan new guineans are now thought to have independently invented agriculture, suggesting all humans were capable of it by the time it emerged.
But civilization was only independently created by Caucasoids/Mongoloids
Pumpkin, how close am I right answer, or, am I already there? Ok, that’s probably the last question I’ll ask about Matrix Reasoning. Would this be spam (probably)?
Pumpkin, if you did the raven matrices, and then did the Matrix reasoning test on WAIS IV, would the practice effect essentially be the same as if you did the wais is matrix reasoning for a second time, since the items are not very similar?