The following is the abstract from J.P. Rushton’s original 1989 paper that launched him to international controversy:
Genetic distance estimates calculated from DNA sequencing indicate that in years since emergence from the ancestral hominid line, Mongoloids = 41,000, Caucasoids = 110,000, and Negroids = 200,000. Data also show that this succession is matched by numerous other differences such that Mongoloids > Caucasoids > Negroids in brain size and intelligence (cranial capacity = 1448, 1408, 1334 cm3; brain weight = 1351, 1336, 1286 gm.; millions of excess neurons = 8900, 8650, 8550; IQ = 107, 100, 85); maturational delay (age to walk alone, age of first intercourse, age of death); sexual restraint (ovulation rate, intercourse frequencies, sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS); quiescent temperament (aggressiveness, anxiety, sociability); and social organization (law abidingness, marital stability, mental health). This pattern is ordered by a theory of r/K reproductive strategies in which Mongoloids are posited to be more K-selected than Caucasoids and especially more than Negroids. (K-selected reproductive strategies emphasize parental care and are to be contrasted with r-selected strategies which emphasize fecundity, the bioenergetic trade-off between which is postulated to underlie cross-species differences in brain size, speed of maturation, reproductive effort, and longevity.) It is suggested that this pattern came about because the ice ages exerted greater selection pressures on the later emerging populations to produce larger brains, longer lives, and more K-like behavior. One theoretical possibility is that evolution is progressive and that some populations are more “advanced” than others. Predictions are made concerning economic projections and the spread of AIDS.
One especially interesting part of Rushton’s theory was the idea that later emerging populations are more advanced than early emerging populations, but Rushton never fully elaborated, beyond saying that Negroids emerged 200 kya, Caucasoids 110 kya and Mongoloids 41 kya.
Rushton’s source for these dates has always come from one 1988 paper from CB Stringer and P Andrews. Nowhere in the paper do they explicitly state that Negroids emerged 200 kya, so Rushton must have infered it from this paragraph:
If mtDNA changes are assumed to accumulate at a steady rate, genealogical trees constructed by minimizing genetic changes (through maximum parsimony analysis) distinguish two main branches. One leads exclusively to a number of African (or African origin) individuals, whereas the other leads to all other individuals of African or non-African origin. Dates for the branching points of the tree can be estimated from rates of mtDNA evolution in other organisms. This gives a date for the origin of the mtDNA of Homo sapiens at between 140,000 and 290,000 years ago, assuming constant rates of change at 2 to 4% per nucleotide site per million years…
Nowhere in the paper do they state that Caucasoids and Mongoloids emerged 110 kya and 41 kya respectively, but Rushton must have infered it from this paragraph:
Protein analyses, however, show a consistent split between “negroids” and the other groups, in accordance with most results from mtDNA and nuclear DNA. There mav be stronger selection on blood group types, and there is a less clear relationship between blood group phenotype and nucleotide sequence. Since the body of data from protein systems is also larger, the results from protein analyses are probably the most relevant here, and support the recent African origin model. These have been used to calibrate divergence times (again assuming selective neutrality and absence of gene flow) of about 110,000 years ago for the African-non-African split and about 41,000 years for the EuropeanAsian split (38).
In short, the paper seems to be saying the following:

So it seems that Rushton would have interpreted the above tree as showings Negroids emerged 200 kya, Caucasoids emerged 110 kya, and Mongoloids emerged 41 kya.
My reading of the tree would be Negroids emerged 110 kya and Caucasoids and Mongoloids both emerged 41 kya, if emerged is defined as branching off the main trunk of the human evolutionary tree.
Rushton once told me that he believed “Mongoloids branched off from Caucasoids in a superior form”, but his citation only claims a Mongoloids and Caucasoids split from each other, not that one split off the other.
Nonetheless Rushton was probably right. The last common ancestor of Mongoloids and Caucasoids probably looked and behaved more like a Caucasoid than a Mongoloid. If so, it seems reasonable to say Mongoloids branched off from Caucasoids.
Im not sure youre using the the term ‘progressive evolution” t mean the same as rushton. But ive never read hos books [redacted by pp, 2019-06-14]
his book is here:
Click to access jp-rushton-race-evolution-behavior-unabridged-1997-edition.pdf
PEEPEE STILL HASN’T APPROVED MY COMMENTS.
HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I AXED HER TO APPROVE MY COMMENTS?
I WILL SEE A COMMENT COLUMN OF IAN SMITH/MUGABE/VIDELA OR I WILL CYBER-RAPE PEEPEE…
IT HAPPENS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide
I THINK THE GREATER CC IS…
FAKE NEWS.
“I THINK” SOUNDS GAY.
WHAT I MEANT TO SAY WAS…
THE GREATER CC IS FAKE NEWS.
“I THINK” SOUNDS GAY.
WHAT I MEANT TO SAY WAS…
THE GREATER CC IS FAKE NEWS.
BECAUSE…
ULTIMATELY…
A PINK PENIS IS SEXIER THAN A BLACK PENIS…
EVEN IF IT’S SLIGHTLY SMALLER….
Pumpkin, would having a 7 letter practice trial before going to the actual trials, would it artificially inflate the score?
Pumpkin, would doing numbers a trillion times transfer over to letters?
PP, you already know that eastasians evolved too much to civilization earlier than westasians resulting in minion-level.
Evolution = development. It can be for ideally better or off.
actually the first civilization was in west Asia (Mesopotamia)
Yes, we can say actually the same thing for middle easterners, the first caoscausian civilizations evolved too earlier and died by the same problems which affect civilizations: exploitation, alienation… excessive cycle of entropy and construction.
In the end, middle easterners ”still’ dominates, jews for example.
East asians evolved too much for tameness
Middleners evolved too much for social astuteness and they were, in the end, tamed by islam.
rushton’s theory has nothing to do with civilization. he believes racial differences are caused by climate, cold adapted populations being the most organized and least aggressive
At around 12,000 years old, Göbekli Tepe in south-east Turkey has been billed as the world’s oldest temple. It is many millennia older than Stonehenge or Egypt’s great pyramids, built in the pre-pottery Neolithic period before writing or the wheel.
Eskimos are very aggressive. They kill baby seals wjo are adorable.
I don’t wrote this…
But
He used socio demographic data of the three major races to use as evidences for his theory.
I would say the eskimos moght even be more aggressive than blacks. Eskimos are well known to eat other humans if they cant find food on the tundra and sth like 90% of eskimos babies are raised by wolves and polar bears.
Actually cannibalism still exists in africa as well so im wrong. I remember reading that a manhood ritual in some tribes in africa was for a young man to fight a lion. You can see that only those that survived procreated leading to subsequent rap music, sky high rape rates, 45% lifetime incraceration, the 100m sprint dominance and sadly, the complete absence of any black geniuses since records began in africa (by whites)
Rushton’s r/K selection theory is refuted (Anderson, 1991; Graves, 2002). Evolution isn’t “progressive (Gould, 1989, 1996).
Gould is refuted (pumpkinperson, 2017):
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/06/29/marching-up-the-evolutionary-tree/
Rehashing old discussions. You’ve been shown time and time again how sophomoric and wrong your readings of phylogenies are.
No I’ve been shown time & time again that you’re too dumb to understand why descendants of fewer phylogenetic splits tend to be more evolutionarily conserved.
Please pass an 8th grade biology class before discussing this issue.
I’m a bio major. I’ve read a ton about reading phylogenies. I know that you’re reading them wrong. Please pass a college course in biology.
I’m not misreading anything.
You simply don’t understand why population splits correlate with evolutionary change, nor do you understand what evolutionary change really means.
Yes you are misreading it. You’ve been shown by a biologist that you’re misreading it.
actually the biologist got taken to school.
kebabs make me tired man.
hahaha
peepee quotes herself in order to “prove” gould is refuted.
I’m the one who refuted him
lol
You can lol all you want.
Doesn’t change the fact that Gould’s speculation really has been debunked by my clear, crisp, empirical analysis. I just wish he were alive to read it:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/06/29/marching-up-the-evolutionary-tree/
I think your disagreement with gould is more of a semantic thing. If I recall evolutionary progress to you is just directional selection of novel phenotypes. RR probably doesn’t understand this(as usual). Which is why he’s triggered. Gould’s criticism was highly emotional. It’s going to be anytime your contention relies on the definition of words. Your definition isnt wrong it’s just vacuous.
I think your disagreement with gould is more of a semantic thing. If I recall evolutionary progress to you is just directional selection of novel phenotypes.
I don’t think it’s semantic because Gould doesn’t focus on the definition of progress.
Gould agrees that life on earth has “progressed” over time but argues this is because when you start at near-zero complexity, you have no where to go but up.
So elGould argues increased complexity is incidental while I argue it’s been selected because it’s more adaptable, thus lineages that experienced more extreme selection events (population splits) tend to have bigger brains
This can’t be explained by gould’s nohere to go but up argument, because it’s possible for brain size to decrease or even vanish without the lineage going extinct. Gould’s nowhere to go but up argument only works at the very primitive levels where decreasing complexity is impossible
“The above correlation between brain size/encephalization and number of splits on the evolutionary tree, are all positive, and in some cases, extremely strong, suggesting 1) evolution is progressive, 2) some extant organisms are more evolved than others, 3) organisms that branch off the evolutionary tree prematurely, and don’t do anymore branching, tend to resemble the common ancestor of said tree.”
(1) and (2): Nope. That doesn’t license the claim that “evolution is progressive.” (3) What does “branch[ing] off the evolutionary tree prematurely” mean?
In any case, you didn’t refute Gould’s argument from Full House which is along the lines of:
P1 The claim that evolutionary “progress” is real and not illusory can only be justified iff organisms deemed more “advanced” outnumber “lesser” organisms.
P2 There are more “lesser” organisms (bacteria/insects) on earth than “advanced” organisms (mammals/species of mammals).
C Therefore evolutionary “progress” is illusory.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/04/14/evolutionary-progress-goulds-full-house-argument/
P1 is completely false.
What justifies the claim is if complexity correlates to time. Which it does. Bacteria and insects breed and rapidly faster rates. Of course there is more of them.
“Why are trees liable to misinterpretation? Some evolutionary biologists have proposed that nonspecialists are prone to read trees along the tips (1, 7), which in this case yields an ordered sequence from fish to frogs and ultimately to humans. This incorrect way to read a phylogeny may explain the widely held but erroneous view that evolution is a linear progression from primitive to advanced species (8)”
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1104&=&context=bioscifacpub&=&sei-redir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fscholar.google.com%252Fscholar%253Fhl%253Den%2526as_sdt%253D0%25252C23%2526q%253DBaum%252Bet%252Bal.%252Btree%252Bthinking%2526btnG%253D#search=%22Baum%20et%20al.%20tree%20thinking%22
RR you keep missing the point. I’m not reading trees from left to right, I’m counting the number of splits before a lineage branches off.
How can you still not understand after all these years?
How was it “emotional”? Quote Gould.
His criticism is mostly about his feelings on the word “progressive”. Even pumpkin knows Evolution is conscious. It’s semantic and therefore shallow.
It still holds: looking at branching/splitting/laddering trees does not license the claim that evolution is “progressive”, as trees can be made in very different ways using the same taxa.
No you can’t alter the number of splits while maintaining all the same taxa unless one of the trees is less accurate.
Splits aren’t arbitrary,they reflect real population separations that actually occurred
“His criticism is mostly about his feelings on the word “progressive”.”
Can you quote an “emotional” passage from Gould?
“Even pumpkin knows Evolution is conscious”
What does this mean?
“No you can’t alter the number of splits while maintaining all the same taxa unless one of the trees is less accurate.
Splits aren’t arbitrary,they reflect real population separations that actually occurred”
What justifies realism about species? See the phylogeny at the bottom of pg 2 in Baum, Smith, and Donovan (2005): which phylogeny is correct and why?
What justifies realism about species? See the phylogeny at the bottom of pg 2 in Baum, Smith, and Donovan (2005): which phylogeny is correct and why?
Both tell the same story: humans & rodents are descended from 4 splits, lizards from 3, frogs from 2, fish from 1, so both are equally correct
What justifies realism about species?
What do the trees say?
By rotating nodes on a tree, you can get the same information, but a so-called “trend” is not apparent.
“What justifies the claim is if complexity correlates to time.”
Gould’s “Drunkard’s walk analogy” establishes this: it’s not evidence against his thesis.
“This can’t be explained by gould’s nohere to go but up argument, because it’s possible for brain size to decrease or even vanish without the lineage going extinct. Gould’s nowhere to go but up argument only works at the very primitive levels where decreasing complexity is impossible”
That’s exactly the point (as you previously said): life started with minimal complexity, so it had no where to go but “up” in complexity. When you start hitting the right tail of “complexity”, then it can’t go “more right”, but it can go “left” (decreasing complexity).
Is the increase in primate intelligence driven or passive? Why?
I also recommend reading Stephan Jay Gould’s Critique of Progress by York and Clark.
Evolution development is just like a snowball changing to avalanche. When a trends starts, more adaptable or strong it stay, more stubborn it become. It’s mechanic.
Maybe, we can say that ”incidentally” humans evolved to have big and complex brains, but even this term sound quite excessive here. Incident is something that happen in complete involuntary/unexpected way.
Miracle-like is an incident*
Just like, from nothing a snowball changed to avalanche.
Only valid fact we can extract from that is ”humanity don’t evolved voluntarily to open the ‘pandora box’ ”. The awareness about our own mortal and senseless life-condition made humankind to invent the adapted madness, with ”religion”/mythology/arts, basically the original distortion of what philosophy should be.
as i’ve said so many times…
viruses evolved from bacteria.
the point is…
1. the most advanced/sophisticated/complex/whatever organism is more advanced/sophisticated/complex/whatever at time 2 than at time 1 given time 1 > time 2.
2. BECAUSE there is a hard limit to how simple a life form can be, but no limit to how advanced/sophisticated/complex/whatever.
3. it’s like the wax melting around a candle.
RR
“Can you quote an “emotional” passage from Gould?”
No. I’m simply talking about the crux of his argument. His criticism is shallow as it’s more about the semantics of the metaphors some biologists use. So the fact that he’s written a book about this subject implies that his motivation is largely an emotional one. As I said most realize Evolution is not conscious.
“What does this mean?”
I meant Is not* as iterated above
“Gould’s “Drunkard’s walk analogy” establishes this: it’s not evidence against his thesis.”
Again that is not the point. P1 does not disprove the original idea.
PP
“Gould agrees that life on earth has “progressed” over time but argues this is because when you start at near-zero complexity, you have no where to go but up.
So elGould argues increased complexity is incidental while I argue it’s been selected because it’s more adaptable, thus lineages that experienced more extreme selection events (population splits) tend to have bigger brains”
So how does that prove evolution is not “progressive” It doesn’t, unless he is contesting how we define and use the word “progressive”. His argument is semantic.
“So the fact that he’s written a book about this subject implies that his motivation is largely an emotional one.”
If say it’s more philosophical than “emotional.” I don’t recall any emotional arguments in his book (other than discussing his battle with cancer), but if you have quotes then please, provide them.
“Again that is not the point. P1 does not disprove the original idea.”
Yea it is “the point.” If life started at a minimum level of complexity then logically, over time, it’d have no where to go but up. That complexity correlates with time has been addressed by Gould in FH and McShea across many papers.
The whole argument shows that evolution isn’t “progressive.”
I’d also recommend reading Ruse (1996) for a discussion of Progress and progress. One denotes cultural progress and the other denotes evolutionary progress.
“I don’t recall any emotional arguments in his book”
His motivation behind the arguments is more emotional than scientific. It is philosophically shallow.
“Yea it is “the point.””
It is not my point.
P1: states The claim that evolutionary “progress” is real and not illusory can only be justified iff organisms deemed more “advanced” outnumber “lesser” organisms.
This is invalid. The existence of more “lesser” organisms does not necessarily entail there is no trend in increased genomic or phenotypic complexity. Whether you call this trend “progress” or not is completely opinionated.
Just blanketing “It was emotional cuz X” doesn’t tell me anything about his emotional motivations (so-called) in his book. Now you’re going to make me read it again and take notes. I just want you to back your claim of “emotional” arguments from Gould.
Premises are either true or false, not “invalid.”
I never made the claim that “The existence of more “lesser” organisms does not necessarily entail there is no trend in increased genomic or phenotypic complexity”, I accept complexity has increased. My claim is that the environment existence of “lesser” organisms (and more of them) proves that evolutionary “progress” is false.
If progress were true, we’d see more “advanced” than “lesser” organisms. But we don’t see this, as Gould shows in Full House, since bacteria outnumber more “advanced” organisms. Read Planet of the Bacteria by Gould.
I still say that you (and PP) need to read Ruse’s book on evolutionary progress.
“Just blanketing “It was emotional cuz X” doesn’t tell me anything about his emotional motivations (so-called) in his book. ”
How does it not? Its an opinion, he could just be a pedantic individual like yourself.
“Premises are either true or false, not “invalid.””
Im aware, but the premises of one argument can be the conclusion of another.
“I accept complexity has increased.”
Then you accept progress by how I define it. Directional increases of complexity. The existence of existence of more “lesser” organisms does not refute this point.
“I still say that you (and PP) need to read Ruse’s book on evolutionary progress.”
Well I say that I don’t. I don’t care about this argument I was simply stating that Gould’s first premise is absurd.
“How does it not? Its an opinion, he could just be a pedantic individual like yourself.”
I’d like to parse so-called “emotional” quotes from his writing, is all.
“Im aware, but the premises of one argument can be the conclusion of another.”
I’m not aware of my doing this.
“Then you accept progress by how I define it. Directional increases of complexity. The existence of existence of more “lesser” organisms does not refute this point.”
It refutes “progress” by how Gould has defined it. In any case, that life began at a left wall of minimum complexity and has increased towards a right wall of complexity necessarily means that there was nowhere to go but towards greater complexity. Gould (and myself) accept this. But this does not license the claim that “Evolution is progressive.”
“The cases may seem quite different at first: improvement in baseball as decrease in variation by spread away from a left wall of minimum complexity, misconstrued as an inevitable, overall march to progress in the history of life.”
Gould’s main point in FH (that I gathered) was that life began with a bacterial mode and it will end with the same mode; the increase in complexity is inevitable due to life’s beginnings at the left wall, though it’s not a marker for evolutionary “progress.” His main point is that the mode of complexity has not—nor will it ever—changed. Mean complexity has changed, but Gould argues at length in FH (chapter 4) that means are inappropriate measures of skewed distributions.
Gould discussed this at length (chapter 4, part 4): complexity is not a marker of progress.
Hahaha still quoting crooked gould
You’re so Girly girl!!
Speaking of Rushton’s storytelling, what do you (PP) think of this quote from Maurizio Meloni’s book Impressionable Biologies: From the Archeology of Plasticity to the Sociology of Epigenetics, which proves the contingency of the observations of “intelligent populations”?
“Aristotle’s Politics is a compendium of all these ideas [Orientals being seen as “softer, more delicate and unwarlike” along with the structure of militaries], with people living in temperate (mediocriter) places presented as the most capable of producing the best political systems:
“The nations inhabiting the cold places and those of Europe are full of spirit but somewhat deficient in intelligence and skill, so that they continue comparatively free, but lacking in political organization and the capacity to rule their neighbors. The peoples of Asia on the other hand are intelligent and skillful in temperament, but lack spirit, so that they are in continuous subjection and slavery. But the Greek race participates in both characters, just as it occupies the middle position geographically, for it is both spirited and intelligent; hence it continues to be free and to have very good political institutions, and to be capable of ruling all mankind if it attains constitutional unity.” (Pol. 1327b23-33, my italics)
Views of direct environmental influence and the porosity of bodies to these effects also entered the military machines of ancient empires, like that of the Romans. Offices such as Vegetius (De re militari, I/2) suggested avoiding recruiting troops from cold climates as they had too much blood and, hence, inadequate intelligence. Instead, he argued, troops from temperate climates be recruited, as they possess the right amount of blood, ensuring their fitness for camp discipline (Irby, 2016). Delicate and effemenizing land was also to be abandoned as soon as possible, according Manilius and Caesar (ibid). Probably the most famous geopolitical dictum of antiquity reflects exactly this plastic power of places: “soft lands breed soft men”, according to the claim that Herodotus attributed to Cyrus.”
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/06/13/how-things-change-perspectives-on-intelligence-in-antiquity/
those of Europe are full of spirit but somewhat deficient in intelligence and skill, so that they continue comparatively free, but lacking in political organization and the capacity to rule their neighbors. The peoples of Asia on the other hand are intelligent and skillful in temperament, but lack spirit,
If by Asia, he meant East Asia, then he agrees with Rushton that East Asians are more intelligent and socially organized than whites, but less spirited (i.e. aggressive, excitable, sociable). He just has their ancestral climates confused.
He meant all of Asia.
How do you know?
No he didn’t you fucking idiot.
PP,
In antiquity Asia term was used to describe lands from anatolia to the east, including east asia. Asian continent.
I’m wrong. I admit that, fucking idiot.
If you’d actually do proper research you wouldn’t of made such a “sOpHMoRic” mistake.
“Asia” was known up to India back in Aristotle’s time, as far as I’m aware.
“sOphOMoRic”*
That was on purpose you cringefest.
cringefest, yet you continue to talk to me.
…well why do you talk to me?
I talk to you because I like our discussions. I don’t call you “sophomoric” names though.
rr has finally come out.
Lol. I like our discussions too, you just frustrate me(and others) sometimes.
By asia they meant persia and maybe india at most. Not much was known about china until marco polo in the west.
Example of toxic millenar stupidity of white irrational ”philosophers”…
”Environmental influence” where retarded/sociopathic general whites would can’t recruit retarded white toxic males because they would can’t change their natures…
It was what i read…
The ”body” don’t appear so porous based on this text…
Actually, very deterministic.
rr knows that when aristotle refers to “people of asia” he is NOT refrring to china people, right?
“asia” was a kingdom in ancient turkey.
aristotle would have known about indians, but not about china people.
so the translator is using “asia” to mean what is today called the “near east” and “middle east”. aristotle wasn’t even talking about south asians as he couldn’t have known very much about them.
i’ve already demonstrated countless times that flushton was an academic fraud. his stealing from the pioneer fund merely confirmed his criminal bent.
1. europeans are a mixture of people from turkey, europe, and siberia, and only turkey MAY have been warmer than NORTHERN china for most of human history. for most of human history europe was COLDER than china, korea, and japan. siberia was obviously colder. and where did the han, koreans, and japs originate? did they invade from the north or the south, or did they never invade? western europe is warmer today than ne china, about the same as korea and japan, but colder than southern china. eastern europe is STILL COLDER than any china people countries.
2. the idea that china people evolved in colder climates is belied by their smaller mass and smaller heart relative to their mass. see bergmann’s and hesse’s rule. whether it is belied by their glaborousness is less clear as the most hirsute caucasoids are not the northernmost. that is, italians and other turks are generally hairier than norwegians. am i wrong about that?
mongolians are super hairy, but mongolians are super glabrous.
vs
\\\
In his original paper rushton wrote:
It seems reasonable to postulate that as populations moved north they encountered more challenging environments, including the last ice age which ended just 12,000 years ago, and thus the more stringent were the selection pressures for intelligence, forward planning, and sexual and per- sonal restraint. The Siberian cold experienced by Mongoloid populations was more severe than even that experienced by other pale skinned populations in Northern Europe.
Of course we know a lot more now than rushton knew in 1989. Much of European ancestry was in the Middle East during ice age
“The nations inhabiting the cold places and those of Europe are full of spirit but somewhat deficient in intelligence and skill, so that they continue comparatively free, but lacking in political organization and the capacity to rule their neighbors.”
Then Alexander-the-Pretty-Good comes down from the North, conquers Greece then the rest of the known world.
The most advanced race are the lizard people who control the west and most of the middle east through warfare.
Illuminati confirmed.
I keep seeing references to east asians having higher iq than whites. is this actually vetified. It s the same with having less autism. I think whats going on is that the west measures its population for iq and autism better.
it’s based on the RPM and PISA scores.
the evidence is that recent mongo immigrants to the US score higher in math and score higher on the visuo-spatial factor, but flynn found that chinese americans in california used to score slightly lower than whites while their academic performance was like that of whites with IQs of 120.
also whites aren’t homogeneous. whites in minnesota score the same as china people on IQ tests. the finns score very well on the PISA.
stats for the PRC are not going to be representative of chinese in general. but stats from s korea, japan, and hong kong are believable.
but even then the advantage is small. the ashkenazi advantage outside israel is 2x in some tests.
or so i have read.
that is, 2x the advantage of china people.
it depends on the test. china people and ashkenzim have mirror image IQ “profiles”.
Also approx 10% of the westetn population are illegal immigrants like loaded which drag down average iq considerably.
Dude you’re retarded. How many times do I have to tell you I was born here, you complete dumbfuck. Plus, my IQ is considerably higher than yours, I speak better English than you, I’m more attractive than you, and I could kick your ass despite my height. All things into consideration, I’m a superior human than you.
Everyone is the same!!
”Also approx 10% of the westetn population are illegal immigrants”
It’s IMMORAL**
Loaded drags down the average IQ for his area considerably too.
don’t reify IQ.
the full scale difference between whites and china people is so small it can be explained entirely by culture.
but the profile can’t be.
the unimpressive scores of israel can’t be explained solely by the “arab jews”, the sephardim, mizrahim, mountain jews, etc.
but the israeli IQ data is for the RPM iirc. so it wouldn’t pick up their specific advantage.
In Brazil, it’s very clear that, otherwise many people think, white people here is one of the greatest problem, responsible since 1500, for all fundamental problems. No, your dearest ”race” is complete irresponsible, insane, pretend to be ”superior”…
When will you stop living in hatred?
I love whites as Schoppenhauer loved women
You have the anti white animus because of the election of a great man like Bolsinaro. Someone had to put their foot down and finally stand up to the depravity of you people.
Or your are a low quality sarcastic joker or your medicine is no longer having an effect. Your existence and of millions of white trash toxic people and its historical chain of stupidity and evilness just prove all my points.
Pumpkin, does practicing digit span without changing your strategy (say for instance you were chunking, if you continue to chunk)- artificially increase your score. You are doing it with different items.
Pumpkin, would doing a digit span digits 2-8, two trials each, help reduce anxiety during real test, or does it just cause practice effect?
it’s interesting how…
1. unz’s knock-out blow to HBD involves the irish. (the lowest IQ in europe in 1970 something. same as the estonians in today.)
2. the irish were the first euopeans to distill liquor…and the first humans to drink it.
3. hannity has the same hair as jack dempsey. they’re “hair-alikes”.
or was i thinking of gene tunney?
or was i thinking of elvis?
i mean hannity has super thick luscious hair and he’s 100 years old.
Pumpkin, I practiced (rehearsal strategy, no mnemonics) the living shit out of number span for a couple of days. One day, after I did my practice for numbers, I could get 8 letters. I tried letter span yesterday, but I only got one trial of 7 and one trial of 8. Can I still assume my letter span score was accurate the very first time I ever took one?
Pumpkin, I kindly request that you answer this question.
Not if you practiced before the first time
With letters? I only ‘practiced’ with numbers.
I mean, we can debate all we want about which race is most evolved, but clearly I am the most evolved individual to ever live.
For sure, son!!
Jesus loves you
It’s all what matter in life!!! ;))
Jesus never existed. Sorry.
Do you have a prove about it??
I don’t have any scientific proof, but I can almost with certainty guarantee that a “traditional” after-life does not exist. No Heaven, no Hell, possible reincarnation, Plus, everyone knows that Jesus and any other Biblical prophet was just a compilation of stories from different people.
Majority of Christians don’t know that their beliefs are a compilation. Sorry, it’s very disrespectful.
Everyone is beneath me on a primitive level. I am the only rational human left. Everyone else is just talking shit at this point.
so korea and japan were colder than they are now, and half of turkey was as cold as northern china, korea and japan. as was britain. but the refugia of whg was not as cold, what is today mostly france.
but another map made by a japanese claims that the med was as cold whereas the rest was colder. or rather as cold compared to what it is today. but today the med is warmer than lots of northern chinastan.
but then parts of chinastan are and were warmer than any part of europe has ever been. ankara is colder than med and western euopean cities in january.
how does peepee know that modern day china people aren’t descended from their own equivalent of turks?
https://i1.wp.com/www.forest-monitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/LGM.jpg?resize=815%2C366
Pumpkin, no matter how much you practice number span, it will not transfer to letter span, no matter when you try the letter span, right?
That’s what one study found
Maybe breeding among homo sapiens and different/local species of humans had increased genetic distance of australians and asian groups.
It’s would explain why they look primitive [comparatively speaking] but is very genetically distant from ancestral homo sapiens in Africa. It’s mean a synthesis between out of africa theory with multirregional theory, or not..
And with the principle of general convergent evolution of different human species, if all of them for sure emerged from ”primates”.
East Asians don’t look primitive
Tropical-semitic mix noses (semitic noses that dont have much nasal bone, bulbous).
More prognathism, especially maxiliary. Larger nostrils.
Larger distance between eye brows and eyes (Blacks have this too, but its a feminine trait so perhaps more evolved, idk, but since its shared between those two populations so you make your mind).
Rounder and larger eyesockets (ironically),.
Shorter.
Are all traits that put them as more primitive than whites. The ones that might look more distant from our ancestors might be the very northern ones.
Southeast asians might have some primitive traits
All of this applies to all Asians, spare some individuals, meaning all asian avarages have these traits. Including Koreans, Mongolians, Chinese etc. I said that in the last paragraph.
So, no matter how much I practice my number span, even after just practicing it, and directly after doing a letter span, my letter span score will be most accurate. I took a lot of digit spans, but I’ve never taken a letter span. Would my letter span score be indicative of my actual working memory.
I have no more IQ questions after this.
According to one study there was no transfer to letter span even after people le had practiced digit span enough to increase their score ten-fold.
But it’s only one study so it could be wrong
Instead of asking me to speculate, what you should be doing is actual experiments & then publishing your results
Pumpkin, was my reasoning correct?
I kind of lied before. I had the intention of stopping these kinds questions and get on with some actual discussion.
Pumpkin, what books do I need to read to learn more about population genetics? Like armchair knowledge, preferably. I don’t want to read a textbook.
I really enjoyed this book as a kid and my mother enjoyed it too:
https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-06-016055-5
It’s an old book, but the science has held up.
It’s a great introduction to the field and a fascinating story.
From all the sources I’ve seen, nothing transfers. So, I’m going to assume that the first ever time I took a letter span, I got 8 letters. I’ll assume that’s my WM capacity. I took some a couple days back, but only got 1 trial of 7 and 1 trial of 8. Since I have good mental manipulation, my backwards and sequencing should b about the same.
Is it true pumpkin?
You sound like youre on speed.
So this guy was picked by Soros to run some of his money. So he must be very smart. And hes a self made billionaire from gambling. But then the stuff he says about economics, some of it is pretty dumb.
please repost. the video is “unavailable”.
Druckenmiller then says that sanders should support charter schools to help the magic negroes….wow…how can you be that smart and not realise the real reason why magic negroes have ‘bad public schools’. Its not rocket science.
He makes a joke about trump translating his tweets “from the original russian”. It really harms the credibility of people like Krugman when they talk about the russia stuff.
russiagate and wmd were both tests of autism.
So was 9/11. I passed all 3 tests. Mug of pee passed 2/3.
You’d have to be autistic to think Russia didn’t have a hand in the election.
And you’re a specialist in your disorder…
Actually the best way you could improve africa is open borders for africa (but closed borders nearly anywhere else). Basically if you changed the racial demographics like africa with more indians and chinese, I think you could turn most of africa into South Africa which is a middle income country.
ZA is also one the world’s most unequal countries. it’s a developed country for most of its whites and a tiny minority of its black, and otherwise haiti.
east africa has lots of street shitters. west africa has lebanese.
lots of african countries have invited white farmers from ZA and zim. iirc sometimes they give them land for free.
The Lebanese and Indians are nowhere close to where the whites in za are in terms of power. Lebanese do control ivory coast and some civil war torn countries like Liberia. But they are not dominating the large countries like Nigeria or Senegal.
Pill believes all african peoples are just like their neigbors (it’s cajun dialect)
I agree with Krugman. I think Warren will win the nomination. Shes like a mix between Sanders and Biden.
AIDS was spread by the CIA to kill black people. i know because bill cosby told me.
I wonder what PP thinks about anti-realist’s arguments about race.
What does PP think about Kaplan and Winther’s (2014) arguments?
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1086/678314
They hold to anti-realism about biological race (i.e., the concept of race pushed by Jensen, Lynn, Rushton; Hardimon calls it “the concept of racialist race”); realism about social race (i.e., Hardimons’ socialrace concept, Haslanger’s socio-political concept, and Roberts’ political race concept); and conventionalism about their “bio-genomic cluster race” (i.e., Hardimon’s populationist race concept and Spencer’s Blumenbachian partitions). (“Conventionalism” meaning “that our best genomics forever underdetermines the existence of biologically real human races” [but I think Spencer (2012) in “What ‘Biological Racial Realism Should Mean” dispatches with their criticisms]).
In any case, what do you think of these examples on the metaphysics of race?
I just bought What is Race?: Four Philosophical Views by Glasgow, Haslanger, Jeffers and Spencer (2019) and Spencer gives more defense of K = 5 from Rosenberg et al (2002).
So entity e is biologically real if
“(3.4) e is useful for generating a theory t in a biological research program p; (3.5) using e to generate t is warranted according to the epistemic values of p to explain or predict an observational law of p; and (3.6) p has coherent and well-motivated aims, competitive predictive power, and frequent cross-checks.” (pg 107)
So human continental populations (derived from Rosenberg) satisfy (3.4) in that it is useful in pop genetics for generating a theory about human population structure (that the theory of the set of human continental pops is the population division at K = 5 in humans); it satisfies (3.5) since the theory in which e is posited is warranted according to “population-genetic epistemic values of empirical accuracy. completeness, and quantitative precision to predict a population-genetic observational law” (pg 110). The observational law is that human genetic structure (in K = 5) is geographically structured in the Americas, Africa, Oceania, Eurasia east and west of the Himalayas, and North Africa. Spencer assumes that population genetics satisfies (3.6) since it has been a successful research program in biology. (Also note that the K = 5 partition denotes barriers to interbreeding, like what Hardimon talks about with his populationist race concept.)
When will PP admit that Hardimon’s and Spencer’s race concept captures the biologically real population differentiation in the human species?
Here’s the sum up from Spencer (2019: 113):
“In this chapter, I have defensed a nuanced biological racial realism as an account of how ‘race’ is used in one US race talk. I will call the theory OMB race theory, and the theory makes the following three claims:
(3.7) The set of races in OMB race talk is one meaning of ‘race’ in US race talk.
(3.8) The set of races in OMB race talk is the set of human continental populations.
(3.9) The set of human continental populations is biologically real.
I argued for (3.7) in sections 3.2 and 3.3. Here, I argued that OMB race talk is not only an ordinary race talk in the current United States, but a race talk where the meaning of ‘race’ in the race talk is just the set of faces used in the race talk. I argued for (3.8) (a.k.a. ‘the identity thesis’) in sections 3.3 and 3.4. Here, I argued that the thing being referred to in OMB race talk (a.k.a. the meaning of ‘race’ in OMB race talk) is a set of biological populations in humans (Africans, East Asians, Eurasians, Native Americans, and Oceanians), which I’ve dubbed the human continental populations. Finally, I argued for (3.9) in section 3.4. Here, I argued that the set of human continental populations is biologically real because it currently occupies the K = 5 level of human population structure according to contemporary population genetics.”
When will PP admit that Spencer is right?
everyone of those are verbal distinctions only rr.
the meaning is the use.
the only people who don’t learn this at age 13 or earlier are anal-lingus philosophers.
stop being such a kebab.
More words = less meaning = Heidegger
no.
heidegger used as many words as necessary and no more.
remember, he was german.
he could think you under the table.
Any idea why Lynn’s Ulster Institute is hiding money in off-shore accounts?
One theoretical possibility is that evolution is progressive and that some populations are more “advanced” than others
“Advanced” in scare quotes LOL. Moon landing vs. eating grubs from a turned over rotting log buck nekked is just Eurocentric prejudice.