pumpkinperson rating: 7/10
Tales of the City is a provocative series about a group of gays in San Francisco, one of whom is a genetic superior.
The genetic superior is lesbian but her girlfriend transitioned into a man, causing great confusion in the relationship.
Although the genetic superior wants to be open-minded, woke and supportive of her girlfriend becoming a man, deep down she wishes he was still a she, and so the two break up.
Sensing an opportunity, an older very wealthy bisexual woman gets naked in the Jacuzzi, hoping the genetic superior will take an interest.
She does:
Later that day, the older woman gets a knock on the door of her mansion. When she opens, it’s the genetic superior who grabs her and passionately kisses her.
Aside from the genetic superior, the show has little racial diversity, aside from a somewhat black gay guy who looks like a young Obama.
The black guy is dating an older white man who takes him to dinner with his older white friends. This turns out to be a huge mistake when the black guy tries to lecture his elders that the term “tranny” is politically incorrect.
An older gay is furious that the young black would dare lecture them about political correctness, because they were the generation that fought for the very gay rights he now enjoys, the generation that saw half their friends die of AIDs, so how dare this young kid sit on his politically correct high-horse and try to police their vocabulary.
Humiliated by the backlash, the black storms out of the house and feels betrayed than his older boyfriend did not defend him.
Pumpkin Person 
Yikes. Philosopher must be traumatized after having work view shattered. It’s okay buddy I can help you pick up the pieces. You just have to become more open minded.
stupid people don’t know they’re stupid.
Indeed. So you’ll probably never understand the absurdity of your spamming.
what a loser! “muh conspiracy theory” is like “muh racism” or “muh socialism” or “muh anti-semitism”. it’s just name calling used to shut down debate. and “muh conspiracy theory” in particular is a STRAW MAN.
whenever there is a small minority:
1. which has yugely disproportionate power.
2. with interests significantly different from the demos at large.
the result is anti-democracy.
the result is a de facto conspiracy.
it’s true of mongolians, the rich, rich mongolians, homosexuals in certain industries, etc.
if “muh conspiracy theory” has fooled you, then you’re a FOOL.
You have no justification for your ideas. Which is why you can only name call to try and shut down a debate. You’re not only socially stupid, but also a hypocrite.
I agree the conspiracy theories involving specifically the rich are probably true to at least some extent.(big pharma) It becomes stupid when you try to bring ethnicity into it. You’re abritrarily shifting the blame and in the process creating a less powerful hypothesis.
Ich Will is referencing Triumph des Willes is referencing schopenhauer.
hitler carried a copy of The World as Will and Representation in his rucksack.
george will has full blown autism but he was correct when he said…
the first world war is the second greatest event after the resurrection…
my point is…
i DON’T believe the flushton claim that slants have bigger cc’s.
he made it up.
How obvious could your insecurities be?
khazar-pedia claims the average height of a mongolian male is 5′ 6.5″.
hard to believe (given mongolia’s sumos), but if you transplanted andre the giant’s head onto a 5′ 6.5″ body…
it would LOOK…
YUGE.
bottom line is:
i DON’T believe the flushton stats on cc’s.
Translation: he doesn’t have evidence or any logical reason to doubt rushtons thesis. He’s insecure. Period.
so fucking retarded i can’t stand it.
1. neanderthals had YUGE brains 1600 cc’s and were short and stupid.
2. melo isn’t even half “asian”. he’s half filipino or something like that.
3. the point is whenever i try to find actual data on cranial cc’s flushton is the only author. but then i found morton whose sample DID show european > mongo > black. but his sample was olf and small.
show me the money.
and stop being a low IQ austronesian.
The guy who thinks I’m Pumpkin is calling me retarded. That’s hilarious. More proof that he has no social intelligence
1. Their brains were not larger than their homo sapiens contemporaries They were also not stupid.
2. Filipinos have considerable Southeast and East asian DNA.
3. Didn’t Pumpkin literally just post a study corroborating rushton? Does morton control for body size?
The single biggest dataset on race and brain size is smith & beals & it confirms rushton:
Click to access TimeMach1984.pdf
Oh wow I forgot about that study. It’s one of my favorites thank you
1. Neanderthals had slightly smaller brains than cromags (much smaller if you adjust for body mass)
2. Neanderthals were short & stumpy because cold, just like Inuit
3. Neanderthals May have been smarter than modern humans before about 50 kya.
4. Rushton’s head size data has been scrutinized six ways from Sunday by skeptical liberals. The data is legit but because cranial capacity is not directly measured but only estimated from head height, width & length, critics argue that old regression equations give biased results depending on head shape
so europeans and those in the european diaspora are obsessed about mongolians, but if there were a parallel universe where all the mongolians were swapped out for armenians they’d be just as obsessed with armenians.
the only popular thing idid amin did was kick out the streetshitters from uganda.
Steve Sailer is not an uncle goy.
He’s a field goy.
I could be pure aborigine and I’d still have a higher IQ than you.
What’s Rushton’s thesis? I love how no one responded to all of the papers showing that Gould was right about Morton’s biases.
We’re talking specifically about brain size data you cinnamon roll.
I love how no one responded to all of the papers showing that Gould was right about Morton’s biases.
i love how rr keeps LYING like the TURK he is.
You’re such an ass backwards person. Get help.
If he was actually intelligent he would realize that the aforementioned source is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Sad!!
Where I live Chinese men (not women) always have the biggest head in the room (I only see them in the train), despite being less than 2% of the population. I guess this has to do with biased sampling? I mean they must be international students or something, and people on the train must be lower iq than non train users? Idk, but the Chinese heads I see are massive, almost always.
Chinese people have smaller heads than whites or blacks. I lived in Singapore for a year and have been to China 3 times.
But I do believe that they have a IQ advantage especially over blacks.
So this means puppys little thumb rule about head size is not true.
In the U.S., East Asians have bigger heads than whites who have bigger heads than blacks
Click to access iq-brain-size-rushton-intelligence-1992.pdf
Worldwide, you may need to adjust for body size to keep East Asians above whites.
Why would you need to adjust for body size? That still undermines the whole point about head size.
because otherwise elephants would be smarter than people
PP,
“because otherwise elephants would be smarter than people”.
I not sure if the need for brainmass relative to body size follows linearly. I think that more height generally translates into more free brain mass for non-bodily functions of consciousness.
the fact that elephants have bigger brains than himans and arent ad smart proves my point.
but when you adjust for body size, humans have far and away the largest brains of any animal. nothing else even comes close.
Puppy are you making speciest statements?
Your comment might be funny if I were anti-hbd, but since this is an hbd blog, there’s no hypocrisy to expose.
Capiche?
PP, do you realize that the term “biodiversity” was a term coined for the conservation of species—meaning it’s a political concept? Case in point:
“[E.O.] Wilson began to move in new directions, becoming a tireless and influential ***crusader*** for <strong?***the cause of biodiversity***, the ***movement*** devoted to the ***preservation of the diversity of animal and plant species***.”
http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9911/darwin.html
So what?
Humans have no subspecies so “biodiversity” is a redundant concept. I recommend reading “What is Biodiversity?” by Sterelny.
Are we trying to conserve human populations (I bet WNs would say yes)?
Biodiversity is a synonym for phenotypic and genotypic variation. Humans are not homogenous clones of each other. The existence of subspecies is irrelevant to this fact. Therefore the term is not redundant.
“HBD” proponents do call it a “movement”, so they have that down-pat. And those who do push “HBD” do attempt to use it for political motives. It’s a political “movement”. Ask Jensen the eugenicist.
The study of HBD is not a political movement. Some HBDers are alt right which is a political movement. They try to use the science of HBD to justify their political views. If we’re going to worry about the semantics, then HBD is exactly how I stated it.
“[American Rennaisance]: Well, what do you think should be done [about low black IQ]?”
Jensen: … the best thing the black community could do would be to limit the birth-rate among the least able members, which is of course a eugenic proposal.”
https://www.amren.com/news/2012/10/arthur-jensen-has-died/
That quote does not prove Jensen was politically motivated.
He was simply asked a straightforward question and gave a factual answer.
Rushton was probably politically motivated but Jensen’s motives were beyond reproach.
Imagine how retarded you have to be to think your personal anecdotes Trump scientific evidence.
Wow so autocorrect capitalizes the word “trump” now.
Disgusting.
Doesn’t refute my contention that the term ‘biodiversity’ is a political concept, and, hence, that “HBD” is, too, political, as I’ve shown with a word-for-word quote from the “great” Jensen. Similar quotes can be shown from Lynn. The same with Rushton. SO the “three giants” of “HBD” all had political motives, showing that “HBD” is a political movement.
https://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=35498
“Biodiversity is a synonym for phenotypic and genotypic variation. Humans are not homogenous clones of each other. The existence of subspecies is irrelevant to this fact. Therefore the term is not redundant.”
We have a discipline for that already and it’s not “biodiversity” (a political concept)—it’s called “population genetics.”
“From the beginning, the goal has been to include biodiversity not only in the political agenda, but also in the scientific agenda by showing that it is a relevant research topic. Biodiversity loss was constructed as both a political and scientific problem and it is this double nature that we need to understand.”
http://www.set-revue.fr/construction-biodiversity-political-and-scientific-problem
https://www.un.org/en/events/biodiversityday/convention.shtml
Click to access cbd-ts-41-en.pdf
Population geneticists study human genetic variation. “HBD” is a wholly political thing, contra what “HBDers” say.
Eugenic thinking has been around for thousands of years and, since the Greeks, it has been spoken of as being State-mandated.
How would the black community decrease the birth-rate amongst their “least-able” members? Through what measures? Jensen did give a political statement. Lynn is another. The three main IQ-ists are eugenicists.
If you believe human traits are genetic, it naturally follows that you’ll support eugenics, but that doesn’t prove you’re work is politically motivated.
“SO the “three giants” of “HBD” all had political motives”
The opinions of the “three giants” does not define HBD. In the same way Charles Darwin’s views do not define the modern synthesis, just as Newton’s opinions do not define modern physics.. Jesus christ.
“it’s called “population genetics.”
No. HBD is a broad term that encompasses multiple disciplines, including Genetics, Anthropology, Anatomy, Neuroscience, Physiology, etc. It’s literally the study of Human Biodiversity. I am an HBDer and I am a highly liberal person.
Semantics is subjective. You can say my definition is wrong all you like, but that’s not going to stop how I and others use the term. What establishes the meaning of words is the agreement between the people using the words. I don’t care for semantic arguments, and I’ suggest that you stop clinging to them. That is, if you want to be taken seriously. Arguments from definition are inherently fallacious this way.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cFzC996D7Jjds3vS9/arguing-by-definition
I read your citations, now read mine.
“If you believe human traits are genetic”
I don’t know what this means; genes are resources used by and for the developmental system and are causes only in a passive sense. There is no privileged level of causation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262309/
Do tell, PP, how would the black community decrease the birth-rate amongst their ‘least-able’ members, if not through a State-mandated program?
I don’t know what this means; genes are resources used by and for the developmental system and are causes only in a passive sense. There is no privileged level of causation.
Phenotypic variance is either genomic or environmental. If it’s mostly genomic, even among people raised in wildly different environments, then that’s what it means for a trait to be genomic. Capiche?
Do tell, PP, how would the black community decrease the birth-rate amongst their ‘least-able’ members, if not through a State-mandated program?
I don’t deny eugenics is political, I deny Jensen was politically motivated. He did not pursue HBD research because he was trying to advance a eugenics agenda. His pro-eugenic views were the product, not the cause of his research.
Hmm. You do realize that the comment from Pumpkin you quoted does not contradict your reply? So I’m sort of confused as to how you don’t know what that means….
“Phenotypic variance is either genomic or environmental. If it’s mostly genomic, even among people raised in wildly different environments, then that’s what it means for a trait to be genomic. Capiche?”
Nice false dichotomy. Read Richardson, Noble, Jablonka and Lamb, Moore, Oyama, Griffiths, Stotz and others to fix your confusion.
“I don’t deny eugenics is political, I deny Jensen was politically motivated. He did not pursue HBD research because he was trying to advance a eugenics agenda. His pro-eugenic views were the product, not the cause of his research.”
“HBD” research IS politically motivated—full-stop. Again: we have disciplines for studying human genetic variation—it’s called population genetics, not “HBD”—which was coined by some accountant in a 90’s email list.
That “eugenics is political” and Jensen had “pro-eugenic views” means that “Jensen was politically motivated”. How can you prove your contention that he wasn’t politically motivated when his two pals—Lynn and Rushton—clearly are?
Nice false dichotomy.
What’s false about it?
Read Richardson, Noble, Jablonka and Lamb, Moore, Oyama, Griffiths, Stotz and others to fix your confusion.
Who died and made them king?
“HBD” research IS politically motivated—full-stop. Again: we have disciplines for studying human genetic variation—it’s called population genetics, not “HBD”—which was coined by some accountant in a 90’s email list.
Jensen never used the word HBD afaik.
That “eugenics is political” and Jensen had “pro-eugenic views” means that “Jensen was politically motivated”.
It doesn’t make his research politically motivated.
How can you prove your contention that he wasn’t politically motivated when his two pals—Lynn and Rushton—clearly are?
He’s also pals with ultra-liberal James Flynn who speaks very highly of Jensen.
Pumpkin,
“Phenotypic variance is either genomic or environmental. ”
No. Genes cannot act without environmental input. It’s holistic. It’s a feedback loop. RR’s mistake is that he assumes something with multiple simultaneous causes can not have causes at all. There is no privileged level of causation(except a temporal one) that doesn’t mean genes are not mechanisms. Period.
No. Genes cannot act without environmental input. It’s holistic. It’s a feedback loop.
I understand but it’s statistically possible to partion the variance by holding either DNA or environment constant and allowing the other vary. For example the variance in IQ (the SD quared) is 225 points. If everyone in the developed world were a clone of each other, we might find the variance drops to 112.5 points. We might then say, half the variance in IQ is genomic.
RR’s mistake is that he assumes something with multiple simultaneous causes can not have causes at all. There is no privileged level of causation(except a temporal one) that doesn’t mean genes are not mechanisms. Period.
What does causation really mean? I’ll leave that to the philosophers, but in science definitions must be empirical, so in science A causes B if:
1) A occurs before B
2) A is associated with B in virtually all known environments
So for example, the Y chromosome occurs before human height develops and is associated with greater height in all known environments, hence the Y chromosome CAUSES height.
“How can you prove your contention that he wasn’t politically motivated when his two pals—Lynn and Rushton—clearly are?”
Do you seriously not see how fallacious your reasoning is?
“So I’m sort of confused as to how you don’t know what that means….”
What does it mean for trait T to be “genetic”? The way to cure genetic reductionism is to take a systems view of development. Again: I don’t know what it means for “human traits to be genetic”.
“The opinions of the “three giants” does not define HBD. In the same way Charles Darwin’s views do not define the modern synthesis, just as Newton’s opinions do not define modern physics.. Jesus christ.”
What defines it? The opinions of bloggers and others?
“HBD is a broad term that encompasses multiple disciplines, including Genetics, Anthropology, Anatomy, Neuroscience, Physiology, etc”
We have those fields; there is no “HBD” department in any university but there are genetics, anthropology, anatomy and physiology and neuroscience departments at universities.
“I don’t care for semantic arguments, and I’ suggest that you stop clinging to them.”
I literally showed you that the term “biodiversity” started as a conservation movement—a political one. Biodiversity is a movement to conserve species. Are we attempting to conserve human populations? I know the altright is attempting to conserve Europeans, hence they’re a political movement. I also showed that Mr. Sociobiology was a proponent of biodiversity—but not of the type ‘HNBers’ are.
“What does it mean for trait T to be “genetic”?”
It means trait T cannot exist without a gene or set of genes to catalyze it. This should be obvious.
“What defines it? The opinions of bloggers and others”
You and I are what define it. As I said if we’re going to take the semantics seriously then my definition is the most literal and therefore the most correct.
“The way to cure genetic reductionism”
Without reductionism you would not be able to post these ludicrous opinions on the internet. Check yourself before you wreck yourself.
“there is no “HBD” department in any university”
And?
“I literally showed you that the term “biodiversity” started as a conservation movement”
So you didn’t read the citation?
“I understand but it’s statistically possible to partion the variance by holding either DNA or environment constant and allowing the other vary. For example the variance in IQ (the SD quared) is 225 points. If everyone in the developed world were a clone of each other, we might find the variance drops to 112.5 points. We might then say, half the variance in IQ is genomic.he variance drops to 112.5 points. We might then say, half the variance in IQ is genomic”
You’re absolutely correct, sorry for the confusion. Now all we have to do is get RR to understand this simple concept. Good luck, to both of us.
“hence the Y chromosome CAUSES height.”
EXACTLY!!!!!
RR thinks that genes cannot cause the expression of traits because other things( like the environment) also have a causal influence on traits. This is erroneous. Just because genes cannot explain the entirety of the data does not mean genes do not have some influence to the variation that we see. It just means saying “genes cause trait x” is vacuous. It doesn’t mean the statement is wrong.
As far as the philosophy of causation goes. It is indistinguishable from correlation.
Now prepare for RR to bombard me with questions on this thesis.
“What’s false about it?”
The ontogeny of phenotypic traits is neither “genetic” nor “environmental”, as they both work in concert to produce the trait in question throughout the development of the organism.
“Who died and made them king?”
Who died and made Rushton, Lynn, and Jensen kings, when they had to contend with what developmental systems theorists wrote on the ontogeny of phenotypic traits? Have you read those authors or not? eg:
https://www.academia.edu/791831/The_nurturing_of_natures
“Jensen never used the word HBD afaik.”
That doesn’t mean he wasn’t politically motivated and that comment was to Melo, not you.
“It doesn’t make his research politically motivated.”
Why?
“He’s also pals with ultra-liberal James Flynn who speaks very highly of Jensen.”
He was also friends with Shockley and Cattell. A good read on Cattell is The Cattell Controversy by William H. Tucker, who chronicles Cattell’s eugenic religion called “Beyondism”: See eg:
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1007/bf02259519
peepee calls me of all people a “racist” because she has been brainwashed by zion, just like melo and rr.
this is very sad.
thank God northern italians are smart enough not to brainwashed by zion like southern italians.
“Genes cannot act without environmental input”
Genes cannot “act” without input from the physiological system which occurs through environmental input **
“RR’s mistake is that he assumes something with multiple simultaneous causes can not have causes at all. There is no privileged level of causation(except a temporal one) that doesn’t mean genes are not mechanisms.”
It’s not that something “can not have causes at all”, it’s that causation is multi-level and there is no priviliged level of causation (as you admit). I already stated that genes are passive—not active—causes.
“It means trait T cannot exist without a gene or set of genes to catalyze it. This should be obvious.”
Trait T cannot exist without X, Y, Z, and G—what’s the point? Then trait T is environmental and all other levels that comprise the organism. Systems biology > genetic reductionism.
“You and I are what define it”
This is boring. Biodiversity is a political concept—end of story.
“Without reductionism you would not be able to post these ludicrous opinions on the internet. Check yourself before you wreck yourself.”
Systems biology > genetic reductionism.
““there is no “HBD” department in any university”
And?”
And…we have the aforementioned disciplines you brought up—“HBD” only exists on internet blogs and not in Unis, there are departments in Unis for the aforementioned disciplines and not “HBD.”
“So you didn’t read the citation?”
“HBDers” equivocate on “biodiversity.” Are we attempting to conserve human populations from extinction or not? Yes, I read the citation. My first cite in this thread shows that it was—is—a political movement to conserve endangered species.
PP, read Oyama’s The Ontogeny of Information to cure your confusion about heritability estimates along with Moore and Shenk’s The Heritability Fallacy.
“I understand but it’s statistically possible to partion the variance by holding either DNA or environment constant and allowing the other vary”
How can one hold DNA or environment constant in regard to humans?
Extending from my last response on my most recent reply, the problem with HBD is methodological/technological, not conceptual.
Mugabe,
“thank God northern italians are smart enough”
Actually, Italians tend to be pretty stupid.
RR,
“Genes cannot “act” without input from the physiological system which occurs through environmental input **”
You’re simply adding more detail to my initial comment. That’s not the same as correcting me.
“Then trait T is environmental and all other levels that comprise the organism. ”
Trait T is also genetic. That’s Pumpkin and I’s point.
Reductionism>holism.
“This is boring.”
Philosophy is boring
-RR,2019
“Systems biology > genetic reductionism.”
You could not know anything about biological systems without reductionism. End of story.
“And…we have the aforementioned disciplines you brought up”
He still doesn’t get the point….
“Yes, I read the citation.”
Your first two sentences indicate that you did not. I’ll be waiting. It’s pretty easy.
“How can one hold DNA or environment constant in regard to humans?”
If you’re educated in this sort of field, it’s pretty obvious that we can isolate factors in regard to non-human/simplistic subjects. So why would this be any different for human ones? If it wasn’t for moral realism we could answer this question.
“What does causation really mean?”
“Causation is multiply contingent, and influences both select each other and determine each other’s effects.”
“Stability is dynamic, clearly depends on both participants, and may be maintained to the extent that variation from one or both directions be compensated for. Attributing the general outcome to one camper and trivial details to the other would falsify the process. I hasten to add that I don’t consider this an adequate measure of ontogeny but rather an illustration for a rather simple point about causation: that it is multiple, interdependent, and complex.”
“Causation is endlessly interlocked, and the biological “meaning” of changes depends on the level of analysis and the state of the whole.”
“Ontogeny may proceed despite failure of an inductive event because of multiple causation; if a change in early development is introduced by a mutation, developmental processes may retain their integration and allow the perpetuation of genetic change. Canalization, or developmental homeo-stasis, is here seen as a result of a system of relationships and their consequences, not some regulating force emanating from the genome. It demonstrates that what is sufficient in a developmental system may not be necessary. The principle of interaction, in turn, shows us that what is necessary is not always sufficient.” (Emphasis Oyama’s.)
“Asking about parity in developmental causation doesn’t just help us discover how categorizations and privilegings are justified; it leads to conceptual reconstruction if the justifications don’t work (see Oyama, 1998).”
(uotes from Oyama’s The Ontogeny of Information.)
“Multi-level interactions form a central aspect of Biological Relativity since causation is then not restricted to one level and is necessarily bi-directional.”
“The illusion has become so strong that many people think we know exactly what a gene is and how genes control the body. These are also illusions. Recent experimental work in biological science has deconstructed the idea of a gene, and an important message of this book is that it has thereby dethroned the gene as a uniquely privileged level of causation. As we will see, genes, defined as DNA sequences, are indeed essential, but not in which they are often portrayed. They are passive, not active, causes.”
(Quotes from Noble’s Dance to the Tune of Life: Biological Relativity.)
See also:
http://nautil.us/issue/68/context/its-the-end-of-the-gene-as-we-know-it
https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/so-what-gene
“You’re simply adding more detail to my initial comment. That’s not the same as correcting me.”
I wasn’t sure if you were leaving it out.
“Trait T is also genetic. That’s Pumpkin and I’s point.
Reductionism>holism.”
Haha what an empty phrase. “Pumpkin and yours point” doesn’t make sense when looking at a multi-level biological system.
“Philosophy is boring
-RR,2019”
No, I love philosophy. I showed you the point of my contention.
“You could not know anything about biological systems without reductionism. End of story.”
Right—that doesn’t mean that genetic reductionism > systems biology. We need to look at the organism. See Sterelny and Griffiths (1999: chapter 5). That we “could not know anything about biological systems without reductionsim” is meaningless—organisms aren’t reduced components, organisms are comprised of whole, interacting multi-level systems and looking to reduce the organism like that has us overlook a whole slew of organismic processes that are irreducible
“He still doesn’t get the point….”
There is no point. “HBD” is just some blog-o-sphere thing that “HBD” comprises the disciplines you brought up is irrelevant. There is no “HBD” journal—we have fields that “HBD” comprises.
“Your first two sentences indicate that you did not. I’ll be waiting. It’s pretty easy.”
“I can define words to mean what I like.” — Melo, 6/30/2019
Which is to say: People insist that “X, by definition, is a Y!” on those occasions when they’re trying to sneak in a connotation of Y that isn’t directly in the definition, and X doesn’t look all that much like other members of the Y cluster.
Where am I doing this?
“If you’re educated in this sort of field, it’s pretty obvious that we can isolate factors in regard to non-human/simplistic subjects. So why would this be any different for human ones? If it wasn’t for moral realism we could answer this question.”
How can we partition environmental and genetic variation in humans?
RR, is good lasagna partly caused by good recipes? Please answer yes or no.
“Extending from my last response on my most recent reply, the problem with HBD is methodological/technological, not conceptual.”
Human genetic variation already has disciplines—which you have already brought up. What does combining them into “HBD” (which is only discussed by non-specialist bloggers on a small corner of the internet) do?
“RR, is good lasagna partly caused by good recipes? Please answer yes or no.”
Now PP is grasping at straws. Yes, and also ingredients, the person making it, cook-ware, etc. In any case, I’ve shown my point on genes and causation and what “biodiversity” means.
I’m going to sleep, as I’ve said enough and I’ll let both of you two have the last word.
But before I go: the EES (extended evolutionary synthesis; what I have partly been arguing for in this thread) has conferences, journals etc, “HBD” does not. The EES is an established scientific framework, “HBD” is not. “HBD” is an ideology.
Not grasping at straws, RR. Just making an analogy:
Recipe/ingredients are to DNA as cook/kitchen is to environment. Both cause variation in meal quality, just as both DNA & environment cause variation in phenotype quality.
Capiche?
“Both cause variation in meal quality, just as both DNA & environment cause variation in phenotype quality.”
They’re inseparable—you can’t untangle causes of phenotypic variation, which is the point of all DST thinking. This does not refute anything I’ve argued here, nor does it refute Oyama on causation.
saying You can’t untangle DNA from environment is like saying you can’t tell whether a meal is good because of the ingredients or the cook.
Have a different cook use the same ingredients.
Have a different environment rear the same embryo.
Capiche?
Genes work in concert with the environment. This is why h2 estimates fail, as Moore and Shenk note in their article The Heritability Fallacy.
Stop grasping at straws PP. This doesn’t refute Oyama nor Moore on causation.
And cooks work in concert with ingredients & cook differently based on how the ingredients react to their cooking styles.
But that doesn’t mean you can’t statistically separate the effect of the cook from the effect of the ingredients by randomly assigning identical ingredients to different cooks just like you can estimate heritability by assigning identical twins to different environments.
If some ingredients make good lasagna no matter who cooks them, then ingredients play a major causal role.
If some genotypes cause tall height no matter what environment, then DNA plays a major causal role.
Stop overthinking it & stop getting brainwashed by every liberal hack with a biology degree
You keep showing that you don’t understand biological relativity. Nothing you’ve said refutes Oyama on causation. No one claims that DNA sequences don’t play a role. It’s that they have no privileged causation in multi-level biological systems.
I’m not “overthinking” anything. You just don’t understand the principle of biological relativity. Said that your “HBD” ideology hinges on not understanding compled biological systems.
It’s that they have no privileged causation in multi-level biological systems.
Who the hell claimed they did?
Those who push the Modern Synthesis. If only PP knew that genes are passive, not active, causes. If only PP knew that DST/EES and Oyama, Noble, Moore and others upend his pet theories.
The central feature of this form of systems biology is that networks of causal interactions occur at all levels and between levels, and there is no a-priori privileged level of causation. In other words, the principle of biological relativity [7] is manifest not only for developmental/ontogenetic systems but also for inheritance systems, which involve, in addition to ontogenetic stabilizing processes, additional processes that lead to between-generation persistence.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452310018300611
The MS looks at the gene as the unit of selection whereas DST/EES looks at the organism/developmental system as the unit of selection.
Again: nothing you’ve said refutes Oyama, and saying that they’re “liberals with a biology degree” is irrelevant to this conversation. I don’t care about their politics (you don’t even know their politics), I care about the arguments they make.
If only PP knew that genes are passive, not active, causes.
An irrelevant distinction when talking about non-sentient concepts.
If only PP knew that DST/EES and Oyama, Noble, Moore and others upend his pet theories
None of my theories depend on genes being active or passive, nor do they depend on genes being more active than the developmental system. Both are largely caused by DNA & that’s what’s selected for.
Capiche?
The ontogeny of phenotypic traits is multi-level. PP shows once again that he doesn’t understand biological relativity. It’s not an “irrelevant distinction”, as genes are used by and for the physiological system.
both are using each other in that if the gene can get the system to use it, it’s more likely to get passed on.
Go back to grade eight biology or whatever your little guido college teaches.
Developmental Systems are inherited. See Moore and Shenk, The Heritability Fallacy. Genes are not the only unit of inheritance. PP again shows his genetic reduction hand and once again shows that he doesn’t understand systems biology and developmental systems theory.
Never claimed genes were the only unit of inheritance which is why I usually use the term DNA instead of genes
The DEvelopmental System is itself a heritable phenotype caused by DNA & environment
Capiche?
What is systems biology? How is it different from the Modern Synthesis? What are the aims of systems biology and how does it upend simple thinking about genes and what they do?
“Haha what an empty phrase. ”
When we say Trait T is genetic, we mean Trait T is caused by genes or that the variance in trait T is due to Genetics because the environment is held constant.(which is not the same as dichotomizing). A cause is a cause no matter if it’s passive or active. This contention does not contradict a systems view of biology. I realize that both work in concert that doesn’t mean the statement is false. Vacuous maybe, but not false. So now that we’ve established that Pumpkin and I both understand what you’re talking about. It’s time for you to try and understand our point. However, judging from your responses to Pumpkin I don’t think you will.
“I showed you the point of my contention.”
You’ve done nothing of the sort. You created a strawman. Probably because this topic is highly emotional for you. For some reason.
“organisms aren’t reduced components”
Who said they were? I think you’re confused by what I mean when I say “reductionism”. Organisms cannot be reduced(well the ones we’re talking about can’t) but to know how an organism behaves requires examining the components that allow behavior.
“There is no “HBD” journal—we have fields that “HBD” comprises.”
“What does combining them into “HBD” (which is only discussed by non-specialist bloggers on a small corner of the internet) do?
Again, not getting the point. Its not supposed to do anything. It’s just a category for the disciplines required when specifically studying humans. It doesn’t necessarily entail political motivation. You and I are clear examples of this.
““I can define words to mean what I like.” — Melo, 6/30/2019”
Exactly. I can because semantics is completely subjective.
“How can we partition environmental and genetic variation in humans?”
Heritability is one way. And no heritability estimates do not attempt to separate causation in the way that you mean.
“When we say Trait T is genetic, we mean Trait T is caused by genes”
What does this mean? What definition of “gene” are you using? If there is no priviliged level of causation, how can trait T “be genetic”? Why are you being reductionist? Sure, you’ll deny all day that you are, as you claim that the “contention does not contradict a systems view of biology”, but your contention here falls afoul of Noble’s Ten Principles of Systems Biology.
Keep showing you have no semblance of understanding of genetic causation.
“Probably because this topic is highly emotional for you. For some reason.”
Nope.
“Organisms cannot be reduced(well the ones we’re talking about can’t) but to know how an organism behaves requires examining the components that allow behavior.”
“to know how an organism behaves requires” understanding the developmental trajectory of the organism along with the environment the organism is in.
“It doesn’t necessarily entail political motivation.”
What are the implications of “HBD”?
“Exactly. I can because semantics is completely subjective.”
Words have meanings. Some guy can’t just come along and define “computer” to mean “cat.”
“Heritability is one way. And no heritability estimates do not attempt to separate causation in the way that you mean.”
Moore, D.S., & Shenk, D. (2016). The heritability fallacy. WIREs Cognitive Science, 8 , e1400 . doi:10.1002/ wcs.1400
“If there is no privileged level of causation, how can trait T “be genetic”?”
Because saying Trait T is caused by genes is not the same as saying it is only caused by genes. That’s why it doesn’t contradict a systems view. It doesn’t make sense to you because you rely too much on precise semantics. Which In my opinion is good, until you start with the ad nauseam, because you can’t get over my usage of words. Once you realize what I mean you should move on, not continue with autism. Hence why I don’t think you get what I mean.
“Keep showing you have no semblance of understanding of genetic causation”
Oh is that what I’m doing RR? Hahaha.
“Nope.”
Well then what explains this idiocy?
“to know how an organism behaves requires” understanding the developmental trajectory of the organism along with the environment the organism is in.”
Is that supposed to contradict what I’m saying?
“What are the implications of “HBD”?”
What does this mean?
“Words have meanings.”
Meaning is subjective.
“Cites a study that’s irrelevant and continues to completely miss the point.”
As your study even states, we can see if a traits variation is due to mostly genetic or environmental factors but that doesn’t mean they still don’t interact with each other to produce said expressions. Since we both agree on this(since I assume you agree with the paper) your criticism is simply a result of poor reading comprehension.
“m-muh autism”
It’s not “autism”; nothing you’ve said contradicts Oyama/Noble.
“Oh is that what I’m doing RR? Hahaha.”
Yes, “Hahaha”
“Well then what explains this idiocy?”
What “idiocy”? Disagreeing with you?
“Is that supposed to contradict what I’m saying?”
How does a reductionist view (a view you’re implicitly pushing) explain organismal behavior?
“What does this mean?”
Implication: the conclusion that can be drawn from something although it is not explicitly stated.
“Meaning is subjective.”
“I can get around X because “Meaning is subjective.” If you started calling cats computers, would you get your point across?
Try reading Moore and Shenk again.
“nothing you’ve said contradicts Oyama/Noble.”
I’m not trying to contradict them. The point of my reply was that you don’t even realize that you and I agree on the subject. Your criticism is purely semantic.
“Yes, “Hahaha””
Hahaha!
” Disagreeing with you?”
You and I don’t even disagree, that’s the issue.
“(a view you’re implicitly pushing) ”
I’ve already demonstrated that you and I have different views on what “reductionism” is.
“Implication: the conclusion that can be drawn from something although it is not explicitly stated.”
Why does it have to have any implications besides the results from the data itself? Why do you have to make it political?
Keep this one pumpkin.
““nothing you’ve said contradicts Oyama/Noble.”
I’m not trying to contradict them. The point of my reply was that you don’t even realize that you and I agree on the subject. Your criticism is purely semantic.
“Yes, “Hahaha””
Hahaha!
” Disagreeing with you?”
You and I don’t even disagree, that’s the issue.
“(a view you’re implicitly pushing) ”
I’ve already demonstrated that you and I have different views on what “reductionism” is.
“Implication: the conclusion that can be drawn from something although it is not explicitly stated.”
Why does it have to have any implications besides the results from the data itself? Why do you have to make it political?”
“if you started calling cats computers, would you get your point across?”
Of course you don’t get the point. You and I are what decides how words are used. If you and I have no disagreement other than the words being used then the argument is completely pointless.
“Try reading Moore and Shenk again.”
It was pretty easy to understand the first time. I’m jut waiting on you to address my reply.
“I’m not trying to contradict them. The point of my reply was that you don’t even realize that you and I agree on the subject. Your criticism is purely semantic.”
What you’re saying falls afoul of Noble’s Ten Principles of Systems Biology. A priori, there is no privileged level of causation.
“I’ve already demonstrated that you and I have different views on what “reductionism” is.”
Explain.
“Why does it have to have any implications besides the results from the data itself? Why do you have to make it political?””
Well?
“You and I are what decides how words are used. If you and I have no disagreement other than the words being used then the argument is completely pointless.”
Words matter.
“‘It was pretty easy to understand the first time. I’m jut waiting on you to address my reply.”
Thus, focusing on variation rather than causation can contribute to a misleading sense of how important a particular factor might be in contributing to a particular outcome.
“there is no privileged level of causation.”
When did I say there was?
“Explain.”
To understand how the whole operates you must understand how the parts operate. That is what I mean by reductionism.
“Well?”
Well answer my questions.
“Words matter.”
No, concepts do. We use words to try and convey them. If you and I agree on a concept but use different terms to describe it, then it’s a semantic disagreement. Arguing about it is shallow
“Thus, focusing on variation rather than causation can contribute to a misleading sense of how important a particular factor might be in contributing to a particular outcome.”
Right, if you’re not aware of what heritability actually measures.
“When did I say there was?”
You seem to be privileging genes to me in the ontogeny of traits.
“To understand how the whole operates you must understand how the parts operate. That is what I mean by reductionism.”
Right – and DST is the antithesis to that.
“Well answer my questions.”
What are the implications?
“Arguing about it is shallow”
No its not.
“Right, if you’re not aware of what heritability actually measures.”
Get me some quotes from the paper that back your claim. What does heritability measure? How is analysis of variance better than analysis of causes?
“You seem to be privileging genes to me”
I’m not. Saying Trait T is caused by genes does not discount the causal influence of X,Y and Z. Vacuous =/= contradictory. If someone asks how my day went, I don’t explain every sequence with detail down to the atoms interacting.
“and DST is the antithesis to that.”
It’s not. Let me rephrase: It is impossible to know how the whole operates without understanding the functions of it’s parts. Do you agree that you being a successful body builder and personal trainer is not due to your knowledge of the parts that make up our physiological systems and how they interact with one another?
“What are the implications?”
Why does Science have to accompany political implications? Can I not just be interested in the knowledge itself? You’re confused. Your question is subsidiary to mine. I haven’t answered the question not because there is no possible political implications, but because my question is meta to yours. Depending on how you answer it, dictates how I answer yours.
“No its not.”
How so? If our argument is purely conceptual, and we both conceptualize something the same, then what’s the point of arguing the terms we use to express them?
Notice this isn’t the same as saying we shouldn’t have any sort care for our vocabulary. It’d be pretty ignorant to just start calling computers cats, but that’s only for the sake of not being confused when we speak to one another. What’s happening here is that you’re continuously creating a strawman over something incredibly shallow, and instead of trying to understand what I mean by some of these terms you’re choosing to be fallacious.
“How is analysis of variance better than analysis of causes?”
Because if you cannot actually separate causes due to the holistic nature of biology then it’s redundant to make an analysis of causes. The environment, cells, and our DNA are always in affect when it comes to the expression of traits.
An analysis of causes is contradictory to a systems view of biology. Unless you and I have a different idea of what “analysis of causes” is.
is due***** second response
“I’m not. Saying Trait T is caused by genes does not discount the causal influence of X,Y and Z. Vacuous =/= contradictory. If someone asks how my day went, I don’t explain every sequence with detail down to the atoms interacting.”
It is privileging genes over other variables.
“It’s not. Let me rephrase: It is impossible to know how the whole operates without understanding the functions of it’s parts. Do you agree that you being a successful body builder and personal trainer is not due to your knowledge of the parts that make up our physiological systems and how they interact with one another?”
Right, I agree. I know a good amount about the inner-workings of organs and whatnot. The point is, there are emergent properties that one cannot see while doing a reductive analysis (which I know you agree with). Attending to physiological factors such as a patient’s perceptions, emotional response to life, and confidence in the nurse, physician, and therapist could often be of greater importance than the physical treatments involved in the patient.
If it’d be “pretty ignorant to start calling cats computers”, then what we mean when we use words matters.
“Because if you cannot actually separate causes due to the holistic nature of biology then it’s redundant to make an analysis of causes. The environment, cells, and our DNA are always in affect when it comes to the expression of traits.”
So why do you push heritability estimates?
“An analysis of causes is contradictory to a systems view of biology. Unless you and I have a different idea of what “analysis of causes” is.”
Biological systems are complex, non-linear, and non-additive. Heritability estimates are attempts to impose a simplistic and reified dichotomy (nature/nurture) on non-dichotomous processes. Real progress in genetics, developmental and behavioural biology will come from paying attention to Lewontin’s insistence that we attempt to analyse causes, not variances.
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/35/3/525/735798
Quote Moore and Shenk (2016) on what you think backs your point.
“It is privileging genes over other variables.”
How? How can you actually say that when I acknowledge the other variables? You could be right, but only in a very pedantic manner.
“Right, I agree.”
Right, so we don’t actually disagree here. Problem solved.
“when we use words matters.”
So we agree here too. Words matter to dissolve confusion. If you and I both have the same conceptualization and know what concept we refer to when using different words then arguing about the semantics is shallow, as there is no real confusion
Thank you for being patient.
“So why do you push heritability estimates?”
….I don’t. Why do you think I do? I just feel like your misinterpreting what heritability estimates actually measure.
“estimates are attempts to impose a simplistic and reified dichotomy ”
If heritability is an analysis of variance then it is not trying to dichotomize causes. That’s my point. What do you specifically mean by an “analysis of causes”?
“How? How can you actually say that when I acknowledge the other variables? You could be right, but only in a very pedantic manner.”
I guess i’m right in the “very pedantic manner.”
“Right, so we don’t actually disagree here. Problem solved.”
The rest of my response clarifies my position.
“So we agree here too. Words matter to dissolve confusion. If you and I both have the same conceptualization and know what concept we refer to when using different words then arguing about the semantics is shallow, as there is no real confusion”
Right. I don’t think arguing semantics is shallow as defining and setting terms for discussion is imperative.
Thank you for being patient as well.
“….I don’t. Why do you think I do? I just feel like your misinterpreting what heritability estimates actually measure.”
What do they “actually measure”?
“If heritability is an analysis of variance then it is not trying to dichotomize causes. That’s my point. What do you specifically mean by an “analysis of causes”?”
h2 estimates “analyze” variance, whereas an analysis of causes would analyze the causal elements of what is being looked at. Read Lewontin’s THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE AND THE ANALYSIS OF CAUSES.
RR causation = preceding in time & correlated everywhere, so if a given genotypes precedes & correlate with a given phenotype everywhere, it causes it.
Capiche?
Read some DST, capiche? Your simplistic and sophomoric replies don’t cut it.
Hahahahaha. A community college guido telling a Nobel prize worthy genius what to read!
I’ve provided a clear empirical standard by which causation can be measured, you’ve provided blather
Also can you please quote Moore and Shenk? What in their paper backs your claim?
“Hahahahaha” is right, I’m at University. PP is delusional with his claim that he’s a “Nobel prize worthy genius.” By your own admission, you “haven’t read a lot of books” and you’ve “read one book a lot.” So I presume that you would not even read what I referred you to and would remain ignorant to protect your “HBD” views.
PP shows no semblance of multi-level causation.
I’m at University.
well it depends how you define “university”. Tell professor snooki I said “hi”.
PP shows no semblance of multi-level causation.
The reason heritability’s interesting is because it tells us whether we’d be the same people if we were reared in different environments, so obsessing over levels of causation seems to miss the point in my view. What’s the relevance?
A University is an institution which grants both undergraduate and graduate degrees.
Heritability estimates are too flawed to save. You need to read Moore and Shenk (2016). But since you “haven’t read a lot of books” and you’ve “read one book a lot”, I don’t forsee this happening. “HBD” hinges on heritability estimates and the false dichotomy between nature and nurture.
You need to learn how to articulate arguments instead of just citing them..
“You need to learn how to articulate arguments instead of just citing them..”
If h2 estimates rely on a false dichotomy between nature and nurture, h2 estimates are false
h2 estimates rely on a false dichotomy between nature and nurture
Therefore h2 estimates are false.
PP, again, doesn’t understand multi-level causation. Sad that his ideology hinges on his misunderstanding and citing of charlatans.
“^ this so god damn much”
Hahaha
If h2 estimates rely on a false dichotomy between nature and nurture,
But the dichotomy’s not false. The causes of all phenotypic differences can be divided into many different arbitrary yet valid dichotomies, one of which is DNA vs non-DNA. If polygenic scores predict at least 20% of the variation in a given phenotype in every environment, it’s reasonable to say DNA causes at least 20% of that phenotype’s variation because universal predictive power is the acid test for causation.
PP, again, doesn’t understand multi-level causation.
You don’t understand multi-level causation because if you did you’d explain its relevance to this discussion. I agree that causation can be indirect. Often DNA and non-DNA form complex feedback loops, so small genomic difference get multiplied by environments that encourage them, so in that sense the line between nature and nurture is blurred. But to the extent that DNA can predict said feedback loops in all known environments, it can be said to cause it, and thus at least indirectly cause the resulting phenotype.
Sad that his ideology hinges on his misunderstanding and citing of charlatans.
You have yet to explain which ideology is threatened by your views and how.
“But the dichotomy’s not false.”
Yes it is.
https://www.philosophersmag.com/opinion/56-the-false-dichotomy-of-nature-nurture-with-notes-on-feminism-transgenderism-and-the-construction-of-races
PGS are rubbish, see Janssens and Joyner.
“you’d explain its relevance to this discussion.”
The relevance to the discussion is simple: if causation is multi-level and if there are feedforward and feedback loops in the ontogeny of traits, then causation cannot be nearly partitioned into genetic and environmental causes, as behavioral geneticists claim. That’s what “HBD” rests on and, as I’ve shown, heritability estimates are too flawed to save. Again, see Moore and Shenk. Try refuting their arguments since “HBD” rests on heritability estimates being a valid measure.
No no, the ideology of “HBD” is threatened by the non-validity of heritability estimates.
The relevance to the discussion is simple: if causation is multi-level and if there are feedforward and feedback loops in the ontogeny of traits, then causation cannot be nearly partitioned into genetic and environmental causes, as behavioral geneticists claim.
Obviously partioning causation is trickier when there’s genome-environment feedback loops. For example, if you’re naturally muscular, you might be encouraged to work out, and thus spend your life in a gym environment which makes your muscles huge. So is your physique genomic or environmental? Well the gym environment directly caused the big muscles, but had it not been for the genetic predisposition, no one would have urged you to go there in the first place.
Untangling the causation may sound like a fool’s errand, but by comparing people with identical DNA born in different environments and people born in identical environments with different DNA, it’s possible to tell whether phenotypes vary more when DNA vs environment is held constant, & thus compare the independent effect of one over the other. When the independent effects are indirect, heritability can be misleading, but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater
PP needs to learn to read things and not just “read one book a lot.”
^ this so god damn much
”
Hahaha”
Heh. Why is that funny RR? Do you think it’s not true?
Or are you having a mental breakdown?
“then causation cannot be nearly partitioned into genetic and environmental causes”
But heritability is an analysis of variance not causation. Now you’re just contradicting yourself.
Pumpkin, about the correlation between IQ and institutional education, I read a post from The inductivist blog, it was more about anti-white discrimination, but I re-treated the data because I saw an intereting pattern.
General social survey uses a vocabulary test that allows to test IQ from 85 to 125 with only 10 questions, and it’s pretty accurate.
If you consider the 4 quartiles of IQ in 100 persons, the number of people with a bachelor degree are like those among the newest generations :
Q1 : +110 : 23 or >90%
Q2 : 100-110 : 18 or 70%
Q3 : 90-100: 5 or 20%
Q4 : -90 : 2 or 165 should have 90%. 130 IQ people should just have 2% all else being equal. Thats why it looks so hard.
Its a bit counter-doxa because most intelligent people on internet think that the more you go above 125, the more unfit and discriminated against you get (like the Outsiders from Grady Tower). But it makes more sense.
Pumpkin, about the correlation between IQ and institutional education, I read a post from The inductivist blog, it was more about anti-white discrimination, but I re-treated the data because I saw an intereting pattern.
General social survey uses a vocabulary test that allows to test IQ from 85 to 125 with only 10 questions, and it’s pretty accurate.
If you consider the 4 quartiles of IQ in 100 persons, the number of people with a bachelor degree are like those among the newest generations :
Q1 : +110 : 23 or >90%
Q2 : 100-110 : 18 or 70%
Q3 : 90-100: 5 or 20%
Q4 : -90 : 2 or <10%.
So it means that for the two extreme quartiles, only intelligence matters. For the middle, its a correlation of 0.55 with intelligence. So it counts for aournd 30%. 20% is parents education. And the rest is stochastic.
I thought it could be extrapolated for HYP whose average IQ student is around 130 despited having the possibility to get an average 148 IQ if they selected on intelligence only.
Extrapolating the data, I guess 17/18 yo peole with 165% IQ would have a 90% chances of being admitted, 148 people 70% and 130 just 2% all else being equal. Thats why it looks so hard.
Its a bit counter-doxa because most intelligent people on internet think that the more you go above 125, the more unfit and discriminated against you get (like the Outsiders from Grady Tower). But it makes more sense.
Good point. Even though the average IQ at Harvard might be “only” around 130,the odds of getting in are slim, even for IQs above 160
the very idea of reparations is a symptom of america’s decline.
unless blacks’ problems are more than just poverty. are they?
do rich blacks get the same reparations?
that is, poor white trash in eastern kentucky and south eastern ohio and west virginia should get as much help…
even though their ancestors weren’t slaves and they never experienced jim crowe.
the problems isn’t discrimination or the echoes of discrimination…
the problem is political corruption.
the alt-right is marginal precisely because it actually represents the demos better than other party.
the very idea of reparations is a symptom of america’s decline.
unless blacks’ problems are more than just poverty. are they?
do rich blacks get the same reparations?
that is, poor white trash in eastern kentucky and southeastern ohio and west virginia should get as much help…
even though their ancestors weren’t slaves and they never experienced jim crowe.
the problem isn’t discrimination or the echoes of discrimination…
the problem is political corruption.
the alt-right is marginal precisely because it actually represents the demos better than any other party.
eric striker has said, “i am to the left of jimmy dore on economic issues.”
eric striker has said, “i am to the left of jimmy dore on economic issues.”
I’ve been saying this for years but pill didn’t get it. The alt-right is not right, and thus not stupid.
if you listen to them long enough you discover that they aren’t actually racists, but they are framed as racists because…
1. their nearest historical predecessor (within the fake world of the msm) is the kkk and skinheads and other retards.
2. “muh racism” is an effective means of marginalizing anti-establishment POVs/PsOV.
before you judge someone always ax yourself “who could this person have been? who could this person still be?”
don’t just “who is this person? who has this person become?”
Reparations are for wealth blacks feel was stolen from them.
Black activists hate Bernie sanders because he wants to give the wealth that’s specifically owed to descendants of u.s. slaves & split it among all poor and working class Americans
no he doesn’t fucktard.
there’s no “owed” [redacted by pp, July 1, 2019]
everyone has ancestors who were exploited in some way at some time.
mongolians extorting germans for repuhachuns is just an example of mongolians being EVIL.
was the holocaust NOT repuhachuns for germans?
and even if there were 99% of white americans owe NOTHING.
you could research the history of appalachia and find that its pwt denizens have been exploited and left britain because exploited and so on and so on.
what about the blacks who SOLD blacks? does west africa have to pay repuhachuns too?
the slave trade was NOT white people raiding coastal villages. it was blacks selling blacks.
the slave trade was NOT white people raiding coastal villages. it was blacks selling blacks.
So they say but I don’t buy it. Whites were so much more advanced technologically that they didn’t need to negotiate. At best Africans were pressured to sell.
Reperations dont even make sense on their own terms. Who exactly will pay and who exactly will receive tge reperations? How are they going to do it.
Teh nesi coates mentioned it because jews put the idea in his very limited mind. It was trolling basically.
It doesnt make any sense.
The U.S. government would pay.
If Jews can got reparations for the holocaust, why can’t blacks have reparations for slavery?
Here, they discuss that very comparison:
Because tracing the ancestors of people who were slaves is impossible. Many of these people have moxed ancestry with people who have nothing to do with it now. Likewsie the ‘us taxpeyer’ represents a lot of people who are not descendants of slaveholders or even if they were they are now also substantially mixed in some cases with slave ancestors.
Unlile the holocaust slavery was not government sanctioned or iniaited. Most of the gains from slavery were private individuals not the government. The holocaust also happened within living memory.
with DNA tests it’s pretty easy to calculate how much u.s, slave ancestry someone has.
Unlile the holocaust slavery was not government sanctioned or iniaited.
But the government allowed it
Most of the gains from slavery were private individuals not the government.
But the government gets its wealth by taxing private individuals so slavery created more income for the government to tax.
The holocaust also happened within living memory.
Native Americans have been compensated for events that occurred long before living memory
If the % is less than 100% then there will be subjectivity or legal issues involved.
Let’s say there are 40 million black Americans with on average 83% slave DNA. That’s a sum of 3.32 billion % slave DNA. Let’s say descendants of slaves are owed $17 trillion. Then each person gets 17 trillion/3.32 billion = $5,120 for each percentage of slave DNA. So the average U.S. black with 83% would get $5,120 * 83 = $425 K
the very idea of a level playing field and meritocracy is something only autistic people can believe. the system can be made fair-er but it can never be made fair. whatever the system some will not realize their potential and others will because norms of reaction.
repuhachuns is just another way of distracting from economic issues with idpol bullshit.
what about the descendants of slaves who are also the descendants of slave masters? do they get half repuhachuns?
what fraction of white americans are even partly descended from slave owners?
very unlike haiti, there were always 2x as many whites in the south as blacks so…At the peak of black slavery in the South, only 6 percent of Southern whites owned slaves.
at most soak the families who are still rich because slavery and break up still existing large land holdings of antebellum southern families then stop bitching and advocate for helping poor people in general not just your own group, coates is a low IQ racist. the american south is very rigidly stratified FOR WHITES too.
repuhachuns is just another way of distracting from economic issues with idpol bullshit
Black activists in the above video would argue economic issues distract from reparations
so basically the alt-right boils down…and boils down…and boils down to…
genuine democracy +
a desire to preserve europeans as a large and distinct un-mixed group.
so the boiled down bone broth is…
are economic efficiency and democracy necessarily opposed?
and if so…
how much are they opposed?
that is, if some hierachy is necessary to economic efficiency…
how much does “some” need to be?
are neoliberalism + high taxes on investment income incompatible?
that paper peepee cited never describes its data.
i ctrl+f-ed “skull” and “data” and no explanation.
only that “most of the data was via mustard seed” but not all.
GAY!
Selected
mapping
program
features
and
problems.
Outline
map
is
computer-drawn
with
boundary
enclosure
and
location
of
122
cranial
capacity
reports.
Ethnic-group
names
from
the
cranial
file
are
manually
overprinted.
Points
are
ordinarily
labeled
by
name,
numerical
coordinate,
or
associated information.
Labels
were
suppressed
for
the
map
above
since
they
require
excessive
space
when
a large
number
of
points
are
plotted.
Overprinting
and
spacing
problems
are
resolvable
by
using
numbers
rather
than
names
and
printing
on
a drum
plotter
rather
than
the
table-top
plotter
used
here.
the definition of academic fraud.
ALL OF THE “ASIAN” DATA IS FOR SIBERIANS EXCEPT ONE IN S CHINA.
Mug of Pee, please scroll down to table 16.1 in Lynn’s book. where he catalogs data from Smith and Beals (1990) into 10 different races. Arctic people and East Asians are on top:
Click to access lynn-race-differences-in-intelligence.pdf
And here’s the 1990 Smith & Beals paper Lynn cites. See the appendix on the last 2 pages for all the brain size data:
Click to access 10.1525%40aa.1990.92.1.02a00150.pdf
Hahaha. He’s too much of a pussy to face the music. He had access to the paper, and still didn’t read it. He’s a lost cause. Seriously dude why did you ban Afro and Jimmy before banning this dickweed?
And what race concept is Lynn working off? See, even Lynn states NAs are a distinct race, though he is confused as there are not “ten races”. Theoretically, there are hundreds of races, though Hardimon’s and Spencer’s concepts capture all of this in their five-race model, as I have shown to you a few weeks back (and you’ve not responded to Spencer’s latest—stronger—iteration of his OMB race theory):
Race is not real. Your name is an oxymoron
the office of management and budget has a “race theory”?
i was wrong.
yao ming has an IQ of 700.5.
I always thought basketball players are among the smartest athletes because both height & coordination independently correlate with IQ.
Add to that Yao has a much smarter race than the average NBA player
“Race is not real. Your name is an oxymoron”
Yes it is. Spencer’s argument is most forceful in arguing for the reality of race.
What is unreal about race? Where is the error in Spencer’s argument? Follow the link in my previous comment in this thread and read his conclusions from his 2019 book chapter.
“the office of management and budget has a “race theory”?”
It’s what Quayshawn Spencer calls his race theory in What is Race?: Four Philosophical Views by Glasgow, Haslanger, Jeffers, and Spencer (2019).
If “Race is not real”, Melo, then “HBD” crumbles, does it not? If race is unreal, then what is the object of “study” for “HBD” (even though “HBD” is not a scientific discipline).
If “Race is not real”, Melo, then “the cause of Black–White differences in IQ is a pseudo question because “race” and “IQ” are arbitrary social constructions (Tate & Audette, 2001)” (Rushton and Jensen, 2005: 237).
However, your claim was that “Race is not real”, not that “Race is an arbitrary social construction.” For if you said “Race is an arbitrary social construction”, you would be stating that race is real, as social constructivists about race are realists about race:
http://www.physanth.org/about/position-statements/aapa-statement-race-and-racism-2019/
https://scinapse.io/papers/2105812172
so that study peepee said was the best was in fact totally useless. one un-referenced study on chinese, two on japanese. that’s it. and the chinese did NOT have big heads. and the japs had small heads.
so again even if the CWT were true…
1. it has absolutely nothing to do with cc.
2. its effect would have to be recent.
the people with the biggest heads of all didn’t even live in a cold place…hahahaha…
The climate of the islands is oceanic, with moderate and fairly uniform temperatures and heavy rainfall. Fogs are almost constant. Summer weather is much cooler than Southeast Alaska (around Sitka), but the winter temperature of the islands and of the Alaska Panhandle is very nearly the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands#Climate
“What is unreal about race?”
The number of populations will always be subjective because variation is clinal.
“If “Race is not real”, Melo, then “HBD” crumbles, does it not?”
No, it doesn’t.
“If “Race is not real”, Melo, then “the cause of Black–White differences in IQ is a pseudo question because “race” and “IQ” are arbitrary social constructions”
A large part of science is prescriptive. Genetic and physical variation(including the brain) are “real” in the biological sense. The categories we partition this variation in are not always so. It’s definitely not a pseudo question. Many theoretical physicists would disagree with you. We create these categories to simplify.
“your claim was that “Race is not real”, not that “Race is an arbitrary social construction.””
I’m using those two claims identically. I don’t really care for semantics to that degree. It’s autistic.
Another thing to point out is that if me being an “anti-realist” means i cannot endorse HBD implies that you being a “race realist” means you in fact endorse HBD.
“The number of populations will always be subjective because variation is clinal.”
Nope—in any case, what are your responses to Spencer’s and Hardimon’s arguments? Follow the link above—where is the error in Spencer’s argument?
“No, it doesn’t.”
Why?
That “Genetic and physical variation … are “real” in the biological sense” doesn’t matter—if race is “not real”, then HBD and its “aims” fail.
In any case, using a social constructivist approach precludes anything about biological variation in these ‘socially constructed’ ‘populations’—see Hardimon (2017), Rethinking Race: The Case for Deflationary Realism.
“I’m using those two claims identically. I don’t really care for semantics to that degree. It’s autistic.”
Social constructivists about race are realists about race. See table 1 in Spencer (2011), What ‘Biological Racial Realism’ Should Mean. Also see Kaplan and Winther (2014), Realism, Antirealism, and Conventionalism about Race.
“Another thing to point out is that if me being an “anti-realist” means i cannot endorse HBD implies that you being a “race realist” means you in fact endorse HBD.”
I see you’ve never read Hardimon or Spencer. Blumenbachian/OMB race theory does not entail “HBD”; there is a difference between the brand of racial realism I push and what Jensen and friends push (again, see Kaplan and Winther, 2014).
“Nope”
I’m afraid “nope” is not a valid response. What are the criteria that you follow for identifying a race? Go ahead and answer this and I’ll explain why it’s bullshit.
“Why?”
Because race doesn’t have to be real in a biological sense for it be useful. We use it to simplify the cascading complexity of physical variation. Unlike sex or gender there is no clearly demarcated lines that separate a negroid from a caucasoid. We have to rely on the averaging of morphological variation to arbitrarily define them. This is actually not that uncommon in science. Which is why I brought up theoretical physicists(as math and language are socially constructed.) but im sure that point sailed over your head as well.
“Social constructivists about race are realists about race.”
Like I said: Autistic. Words don’t matter.
“Go ahead and answer this and I’ll explain why it’s bullshit.”
Claims from biological racial realists are simple: Racial categories pick out real kinds in nature. If racial categories pick out real kinds in nature, then race surely exists.
Racial groups—or groups taken to be racial groups—characterize three conditions from Hardimon (2017): C1: they are distinguished from other groups by patterns of visible physical features; C2: the members are linked by common ancestry which is peculiar to that group; and C3: they derive from a distinct geographic location.
Justifying C1 is simple: groups taken to be ‘racial’ are distinguished from other groups on the basis of physical characters. Someone from Europe looks different than someone from Africa; someone from Africa looks different than someone from Asia; someone from Asia looks different than someone from the Pacific Islands; someone from the Pacific Islands looks different than the Natives of America. Groups taken to be ‘racial’ have different facial features; they have different morphology. Thus, since there are heritable differences between groups taken to be ‘racial’, then this is evidence that race does indeed exist.
It’s important to also discuss what C1 does not demand: it does not demand that racial groups be distinguished by each of their visible physical features; it does not demand that each visible physical features of members of a race be identical; it allows skin color to vary just as much within race as it does between race; finally, it also allows great variation in hair color, skull morphology and skin color. Thus, since Hardimon’s concept is ‘vague’, then one might be able to say that it is “clinal” (that is, these differences vary by geography). But “Physical anthropologist Frank Livingstone’s well-known adage “There are no races, only clines” overlooks the possibility that, logically speaking, races might be clines” (Hardimon, 2017: 38). The claim “There are no races, only clines” is one that is oft-repeated against the reality of biological races.
C2, very simply, shows that differences in visible physical features are not the only things that delineate race: race is also defined in terms of ancestry and is therefore essential to the concept of race (I’d argue that ancestry is essential to any argument that attempts to establish races as biologically real). Races are, clearly, morphologically demarcated ancestry groups. The justification for C2 is thus: it is intuitive. Examples of race articulated in the past also bore this very basic concept: Linneus’ europeaus, asiaticus, afer, and americanus; Blumenbach’s Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Ethiopian, Malay and American; UNESCO’s Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid (deployed most famously by JP Rushton); and the Office of Management and Budget’s American Indian (or Alaskan native), black, Asian, whites, native Hawaiians (Pacific Islanders) (see Spencer, 2014 for a treatment of the OMB’s views on race and his ‘radical solution to the race problem’).
Now, finally, C3: the condition that groups taken to be ‘racial’ must derive from a distinct geographic location. Race, and the names used to refer to race, and so “The use of typonyms in the naming of racial groups suggests that the thinkers who chose these names were thinking of race as a geographical grouping” (Hardimon, 2017: 50). So, C1 and C2 have been established. This leaves us with C3. Races differ in patterns of visible physical features; these differences are explained by differences in geographic location. If race R1 derives from geographic location G1, and G1 is distinct from G2 which race R2 inhabits, then races R1 and R2 will look physically different.
Thus the groups that we think of when we think about race are groups that genetically transmit heritable characters to their offspring which then correspond to differences in geographic ancestry. So groups that satisfy C1-C3 are ‘races’, in the normal sense of the word. Groups that satisfy C1-C3 are articulated in Hardimon’s (2017) populationist race concept using Rosenberg et al’s (2002) data, and these are, largely, the same groups that Blumenbach pointed out centuries ago (Spencer, 2014).
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)
Part I is the conditions and justification; Part II is Hardimon’s defense; Part III is Spencer’s argument. Where are the flaws?
If “Race is not real” (antirealism), then “HBD” crumbles; whatever you say to justify it fails. Again, see Kaplan and Winiter (2014), see also Kaplan (2010) and Gravlee (2009). You’re conflating different concepts.
“Like I said: Autistic. Words don’t matter.”
“M-muh autism.”
They do matter; social constructivists are realists, contra your ignorant pontifications.
“Racial groups—or groups taken to be racial groups—characterize three conditions from Hardimon (2017): C1: they are distinguished from other groups by patterns of visible physical features; C2: the members are linked by common ancestry which is peculiar to that group; and C3: they derive from a distinct geographic location.”
C1: All races no matter the K overlap in physical characteristics
C2: All humans derivefrom a common ancestor
C3: All humans derive from Africa
Humans are highly homogeneous. Genetics is not a good demarcation of race no matter how well defined the clusters are. I thought you weren’t a reductionist?
“whatever you say to justify it fails.”
Well until you can provide sound reasoning and evidence instead of baseless and repetitive assertions, I am completely justified.
“They do matter; social constructivists are realists, contra your ignorant pontifications.”
More autism. By “not real” I mean “Socially constructed.” Nobody means “not real” in the way you use it.
C1-C3 in Hardimon’s case are conditions for race; yours are just aassertions. Nothing you’ve said refutes what I wrote nor Hardimon nor Spencer.
“Well until you can provide sound reasoning and evidence instead of baseless and repetitive assertions, I am completely justified.”
It’s not “baseless and repetitive assertions.” If antirealism is true, then race DOES NOT refer; then races don’t exist therefore what I quoted from Rushton and Jensen (2005) comes into play here, except in the antirealist way.
“M-muh autism.”
Social constructivists are realists. Again, read Kaplan and Winther (2014).
P. quayshawn spencer’s first name is “quayshawn”
C. quayshawn spencer is refuted.
This is like being in a nursing home and listening to 2 patients with dementia talking to each other.
even eric striker has said that black people with ridiculous names are discriminated against…
but not because black name…
because RIDICULOUS name.
i wouldn’t be surprised if american hr depts discriminate in favor of african blacks…
the name “tukufu” is cool.
the name “LEtukufu” is RIDICULOUS.
the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons
“yours are just aassertions. ”
They’re true assertions.
“Nothing you’ve said refutes what I wrote nor Hardimon nor Spencer.”
I’m not trying to refute them It’s clear you don’t know what you’re talking about. Hardimon’s conditions can apply to the entire species.
“then race DOES NOT refer”
So? Many scientific concepts are abstract prescriptions.
“Social constructivists are realists.”
Realism is synonymous with objective. You know, like moral realism. Since race is subjectively demarcated then it is not real. If this isn’t what you mean by realism then it’s clear that even the philosophers you love to parrot don’t even care about the precision of words like you do.
Hardimon’s Cs follow from each other; Hardimon’s Cs don’t refer to the entire species. If race does not refer then race isn’t real. But race refers. So race is real. Social constructivists aren’t antirealists. You’re mixing up concepts and you didn’t read Kaplan and Winther (2014).
“Hardimon’s Cs don’t refer to the entire species. ”
The point is that conditions can apply to the entire species. If this is the case then how are races not arbitrarily defined?
“You’re mixing up concepts”
Which ones am I “mixing up”?
“didn’t read Kaplan and Winther (2014).”
I skimmed through it, it really has nothing to do with what I’m talking about.
“The point is that conditions can apply to the entire species. If this is the case then how are races not arbitrarily defined?”
Hardimon’s conditions don[‘t “refer to the entire species”, it species, it is a referent to particular population groups WITHIN the species.
“Which ones am I “mixing up”?”
Antirealism and social constructivism.
“I skimmed through it, it really has nothing to do with what I’m talking about.”
They discuss 3 race concepts that are realist: biogenomic/cluster race realism (myself, Hardimon, Spencer, Neil Risch); biological racial realism (“HBD”; Jensen, Rushton, Lynn); and social constructivism (Dorothy Roberts, Sally Haslanger, Hardimon’s socialrace concept).
Race realism: the belief that our racial categories pick out real kinds in nature (Smith, 2015).
Social constructivism: race exists in human discourse and social interaction.
Race antirealism: the term “race” does not refer to anything and that races aren’t real.
They state that conventionalism about biogenomic/cluster race, antirealism about biological race, and realism about social races are the best course of action. Antirealism about biological race (in the aformentioned scholars’ [which I use loosely] views) entails that “HBD” is false).
In any case, where is the error in Hardimon’s reasoning? Where is the error in Spencer’s?
“Hardimon’s conditions don[‘t “refer to the entire species”,”
I am completely aware of that. The point is that his conditions can apply to the entire species.
C1: All races no matter the K overlap in physical characteristics
C2: All humans derive from a common ancestor
C3: All humans derive from Africa
What this means is that not only are Caucasoids a race, but so are Germans. Where you specifically draw the line and the number of populations you make are completely subjective. You can have only 3 races(like Pumpkin) or you can have possibly hundreds. By these conditions individual family units can be considered their own race.
C1: My sister and I both share similar physical characteristics
C2: My sister and I have the same mother and the same grandparents
C3: My sister and I were both born in Massachusetts
My sister and I are our own race.
You see these conditions are too vague to be objective, that doesn’t necessarily mean I disagree with the conditions. So I don’t think there is an error other than your misinterpretation of what I mean.
“Antirealism and social constructivism.”
So this is semantic not conceptual. Therefore I don’t give a shit. If you want I’ll say race is subjective instead. I read the paper RR.
“What this means is that not only are Caucasoids a race, but so are Germans.”
Nope. We can take two groups—G1 and G2—and if G1 does not have any pattern of visible physical features which distinguish it from another group, G2, then G1 is not a race. These visible physical differences that distinguish races from one another are biological in nature—hair color/type, skin color, eye type, morphology, etc. This guarantees that different villages, countries, economic classes and ethnies within a race are not counted as “races”, so defined.
“So this is semantic not conceptual. Therefore I don’t give a shit. If you want I’ll say race is subjective instead. I read the paper RR.”
You’re conflating concepts. Social constructivists don’t say “race don’t real”. Read the AAPA’s statement on race and racism.
“Nope. We can take two groups—G1 and G2—and if G1 does not have any pattern of visible physical features which distinguish it from another group, G2, then G1 is not a race. ”
The “patterns of visible physical features” you’re referring to are formed by averaging physical variation of predefined samples.
We’ve done this with nationalities within the typical macro races. An example:
https://fstoppers.com/portraits/average-faces-women-around-world-2944
So as you can see there are patterns of phenotypic traits that can distinguish germans from say the french.
“You’re conflating concepts.”
Words aren’t concepts. I understand what you mean when you say these terms.
“So as you can see there are patterns of phenotypic traits that can distinguish germans from say the French”
Haha what a reach. That doesn’t refute what I said.
“Words aren’t concepts. I understand what you mean when you say these terms”
There’s a distinction between concepts and conceptions of race, eg articulations of the concept of race. Antirealists say racialized groups are constructed but races don’t exist. Social constructivists say that race is real Ina social manner, that races are social kinds and are therefore real. Conception does not equal concept.
And haha Melo is conflating the concept of race and ethnicity.
“Haha what a reach.”
It’s not a reach, you’re just profoundly ignorant on the variation that exists within races.
I very much did refute your contention. I showcased that group 1 (germans) and group 2 (french) can be distinguished by patterns of physical traits. This means the conditions Hardimon and you laid out cannot “guarantee” any of what you claimed in your previous reply.
Didn’t you say that South and North Americans were separate races or something similar to that? When did you change your views?
“And haha Melo is conflating the concept of race and ethnicity”
I’m not. I’m specifically referring to biological features.
if the “i” in aipac stood for “italian” you better believe it would be banned.
i can’t find a lot of data but what i have found says british men in 1940 and the late 19th century had the same brain weight as korean men did not as long ago, about 1420 g.
…on average.
i can’t find where in that article the chinese data is from. a map of the data has “korean” and “japanese” on it but no corresponding circles. it appears all the ne asian data is for siberians, ainu, and mongolians + one set for chinese.
and the authors claim flushton is wrong. the explanation for larger cranial capacity is allen’s rule not increased cognitive ability required by cold winters.
the CWT then has nothing to do with cranial capacity, and if the CWT were true its effect would have to be recent, during the holocene and only on north chinese and koreans where it has been colder in the winter than western europe has been since the lgm, but not as cold as eastern europe. this explains why china people are smaller contradicting bergmann’s rule. that is, they’ve had long enough to evolve greater cognitive ability but not long enough to evolve larger bodies while western europeans have lost IQ points but not their larger bodies. this is all just special pleading. the CWT is bullshit.
If they evolved larger brains they wouldn’t need big bodies to deal with cold because they’d adapt behaviourally not physically
Also keep in mind Europeans were largely not in Europe until the Holocene
a study from 1995 found korean men had a cc of 1470 cc’s. the brain weight study was from 2009 and the age at death was old, so not much loss of brain weight. 1470 cc’s vs 1420 g even though the brain is slightly denser than water (1 g = mass of 1 cc if you didn’t know). interesting
The high and provocative associations between climate and
cranial capacities should also be examined for non-neural as-
sociations. Cranial capacities include the brain plus the me-
ninges and cerebrospinal fluid. Changes in cranial capacities
may be associated with increases in the latter two features,
particularly the meninges.
…and the age at death was not old…
maybe koreans with smaller heads die younger? 1420 g again for london men in 1940 and the same for english and scottish men in the late 19th c.
1420 g is huge. US white & black men age 60, averaged 1392 & 1286 g respectively circa 1980 according to the single best racial brain weight study ever done (ho et al, 1980)
Melo if i grew a moustache and went on cnn and said aliens rigged the us election would you believe me? Just trying to figure out what would sound preposterous to you?
What if i said they were lgbt aliens?
Of course. Everyone knows men with moustaches do not lie.
On a more serious note. I don’t watch CNN. My contention on “russiagate” is backed by evidence and sound logic. Your “jewsdidit” is not.
So as always I’m still waiting, but you and I both know you can’t back your views.
Good luck.
im making a lot of money now in a glorified ops role haha. I might apply for the front office again but it will be hard explaining why i only lasted 8 months last time. Private banking and wealth management sounds easy. Its very hard to plan a career when you have to take multiple years off for mental illness every so often.
I have a pet theory that many east asians may be homosexual. More so than other races. But they have a very conservative culture there so its hard to see. In china homosexuality was deemed a mental illness until 2002 I think.
I could almost believe that considering all the trap porn that’s infesting their culture. Then again it doesn’t make any sense. Why would China have such a large population? I think it’s more likely that if many Homosexuals were asian they’d just do it behind closed doors, while their wives wonder why they aren’t getting dicked down.
so for dishonest reasons that paper shows switzerland and northern italy as chinese sized heads while it shows the rest of europe smaller. but was the italian sample from alpine italy?
so only one sample from china gives all of china big heads but two samples from europe with the same sized heads gives only the alpines big heads.
DISHONEST!
you can see the morton data online, but it had only 12 chinese crania.
but morton did find that the very smallest brains belonged to southern italians and filipinos.
You need to average all the East Asian groups & average all the Euro
but supposing northern chinese and koreans have bigger brains than russians or reinhold messner…
only explanation is…
1. western europe (what about russia?) warmed more than northern china and korea so that now warmer when used to be colder.
2. europeans had larger brains 12,000 years ago but brains have shrunk due to warming and warming more than in northern china and korea + beautiful italian women made europeans dumber.
3. body size responds to warming not as quickly. true of arctic peoples too. they’re short and squat…more time and they’d be tall and robust…they haven’t been in the arctic that long.
bergmann’s rule follows from allen’s rule (except for tutsi) as the surface area to volume ratio scales as 1/r for a sphere. so ceteris paribus larger animals are better adapted to cold.
in the old days of hbd there WAS something called the “alpine race”. but this was NOT alpine people. it was lots of central europeans and tajiks and others based on cephalic index not cc.
russians do have round heads like china people. again in accord with allen’s rule not the CWT.
china people heads can appear bigger because hair and because shape…
long heads look smaller face to face…which is most pictures.
largest brain on record of any famous person is the brain of turgenev…a round headed russian.
you can see he had a very large head or he was very short.
that is, a long head, like that of meds and most western europeans and blacks has a larger surface area to volume ratio than a round head and therefore is maladapted to cold.
my theory about the ethno-state being the best place for everyone to realize his potential is proved by japan and korea but disproved by iceland.
icelanders are not known for their brilliance. are they?
BUT it’s more complicated than that…
why?
because when one’s ethny occupies a privileged niche it will score higher on IQ tests, AND an ethno-state has NO privileged niches.
this + arabs + “arab jews” + ashenazi advantage in VIQ not PIQ explains israel’s low IQ?
“““`
Israels low IQ is probably from measuring the sizeable arab and arab-jewish sephardic/mizrahi jews. There is also a sizeable ethiopian jew segment which could drag the average down. Ethiopias average IQ is sth like 60.
LOL! You’re such an Uncle Gentile.
it’s interesting how the mega test is 100% meaningless but vos savant and langan do have scary big heads.
vos savant’s head is almost yao ming sized.
It’s evidence that it’s NOT meaningless & indeed some argue it’s the ONLY test that’s meaningful at the extreme high end
Ian Smith, Bigger heads are I think more correlated to working memory and multitasking ability rather than IQ. 200 iq people don’t have the largest heads in the world IMO.
Head size is more correlated with g than any specific ability
Puppy is obsessed with head sizes because of oprah.
No I’m obsessed with Oprah because the world’s biggest female hat is worn by the World’s most successful woman. That’s a genuinely fascinating phenomenon:
obsessed because of the false belief that oprah has a large head.
the denisovans had yuge heads too but the only modern humans with some denisovan in them are melanesians and abos.
Her HC is 25.25”. About the same as Chris Langan. In theory only one in several billion women have an HC that large and only one in several billion are so successful.
Coincidence?
PP, Chris langan could be having a smaller head than oprah if adjusted for body size/ fat free body weight/muscular strength. But he has fifty IQ points more than oprah. This indicates factors other than brain size alone play a huge role in IQ or g. Assuming langan has a higher g than oprah. Brain connectome, number of neurons in the cerebral cortex, grey to white matter ratio, brain composition etc.
PP would you do an article sometime about the correlation between these and iq/g.
Brain size only explains at most 16% of the variation in g. At least 84% is explained by other factors.
in other words…
in israel the garbage men and janitors are mostly jews…
AND the highest IQ group in israel is actually…
arab christians.
once again HBDers are proven to be ‘tarded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Christians#Israel
Like nassim taleb?
he’s not even an arab. he’s lebanese and a christian but ethnically greek. there used to be ethnic greeks all over the eastern med.
PP, if you studied your ass off for the SAT, increased your score from 1100-1500, and then if you took it a year later, what score would you get?
Rahul,
Are you joking with your questions or do you have an obsession with psychometric or docimology ?
As for your question, it would be more interesting if you Knew various persons in that case and check the answer.
I would say that if someone gets from 1 in 2,5 (1100/1600) to 1 in 20 (1400) by working 1000 hours during 50 weeks. If he stops training for a full year, he probably lose half of its advantage and score at 1 in 10 or 1350. After two more years, he would go down to 1 in 10 or 1250, and stay there except
If he trains again or the test format changes.
But I don’t think the gain is transférable to anything else than other scholastic test.
It’s a mix of curiosity and insecurity. That’s mostly my pattern with these.
Ive found focusing on work and getting off the internet has helped me stop obsessinh over frivolous inanities😆 but to help answer your question, i scored 2200-something on the SAT in 2007 after significant prep. Then took the GRE 4 years later with no prep and got a similar score (you cant directly convert, but the conversion tables show the scores were roughly equivalent).
morton’s sample of 38 “teutonic” skulls averaged 93.5 cubic inches or 1532 cc’s.
his 10 china people skulls averaged 1393 cc’c.
his sample of southern italians and filipino skulls averaged 500 cc’s.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=65eBAAAAMAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=morton+cranial+capacity+-gould&ots=O4SiBlvxp4&sig=d5sXHmBOqj0AY0D8lmf7cII2abU#v=onepage&q=morton%20cranial%20capacity%20-gould&f=false
Vast majority of nerds ive known in my life had small heads. Chris langan has a big head but he also has a big body. He was a bouncer for many years.
Terry tao and bill gates have small heads.
gates has a big head.
no he doesnt
Hahahahahahaha ocasio cortez visited a border detention facility and saw the officers forcing the women to drink from toilets. Hahaha. Trump gets my full backing for a 2nd term.
I have to say i find cortez a very enticing latina lovely. I wouldnt mind getting illegally invaded by her.
The odds of the House and Senate allocating more funds for border enforcement and cutting legal immigration are zero, so treating illegals and FOBs like animals is probably the best way of keeping them out. I hope what Ocasio Cortez says is true.
^behold the psychopathy of the alt right.
Our economy is fucked.
So im not talking about individuals but let me just say aspergers reminds me of making a 15 year old a genius at math but leaving him loke a 15 or sometimes even 13 year old in terms of all other types of cognition.
For example certain world famous mathematicians cant even make a basic argument in words.
cant even make a basic argument in words.
Neither can you
So i just want to make clear that technology doesnt make people richer in aggregate. It makes some people a lot richer. But the other have to use politics to redistribute. I remember reading about te paradox that about 100 years after the ind rev started workers were on the same real wages.
It wasnt until trade union and eapecially marx that real wages for the median person rose.
You see that again and again.
In the same way you can teach someone to recognise basic facial expressions i believe you can teach people most math at a basic level.
I think where the wheels fall off the wagon is applying math to real life issues. Thats where aspies have an intuition that they lack around recognising facial expressions. They dont need to be thought application.
I similarily struggled with applied math compared to pure math actually. Prob cos im opposite to aspy.
I similarily struggled with applied math compared to pure math actually. Prob cos im opposite to aspy
No it’s probably cause you’re a moron
I was about to start cambridge economics professor ha joon changs book and thought it was going tbe really dry and badly written but ha joon chang is actually very gofted as a writer. Hes quite witty like myself.
Ive read lots of economics books over the years and ha joon chang might be the most talented writer.
But without doubt keynes is the best economics writer ive read. Keynes could easily have gone into literature review or the stuff hitchens did. He and nietsche are very colourful writers which remind people of why writing is primarily an art. Somethig autists like wittgenstein or kripke are to retarded to figure out.
I was about to start cambridge economics professor ha joon changs book and thought it was going tbe really dry and badly written but ha joon chang is actually very gofted as a writer.
More evidence Mongoloids are genetically superior.
They even excel in the stuff they’re supposed to suck at.
“racism” is just a variety of “lookism”.
white “racists” hate ugly white people more than they hate good looking black people.
so if the anti-racism morons controlled by mongolia were consistent they would repuhachuns for ugly people.
being ugly is NOT totally within one’s control like obesity.
stop wearing lycra old fat white women!
but SADLY most black men would prefer an old fat white woman to a 99th percentile black woman because…
black women are annoying bitches.
turgenev died age 64. brain weight > 2000 g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AIvan_Turgenev#Brain
peepee knows that that paper on euro-americans includes southern italians right?
Even if whites have bigger heads, East Asians have bigger heads after body size adjustments. Body size adjustments are rushton’s trump card
Your obsession with east asians is very cute puppy.
The rate of students studying in the field of medicine was also higher among the Christian Arab students, compared with all the students from other sectors.[51] despite the fact that Arab Christians only represent 2.1% of the total Israeli population,[54] in 2014 they accounted for 17.0% of the country’s university students…
an then you have the parsi and jains in india.
there’s something about ethnic + religious minority which is like amphetamine for oprah fans…
Pumpkin should do a post on Marianne Williamson.
I should. Maybe when I get off work tonight if I’m not too tired.
and fuhgetabout brown people…
the highest IQ ethno-religious group in the US is…
quakers.
even dershowitz remarked on this in his book The Vanishing American Jew…
and nixon was raised very poor yet friedman said he was the smartest person he’d ever met…or something like that…(nixon was a quaker…in case you’re dumb)
so again…”anti-semites” are NOT actually “anti-semites”…
they’re anti-absurdly-powerful-ethno-religious-small-minority…
the new longest word in the english language…
surpassing anti-dis-establish-ment-arian-ism and some disease only AIDS patients get.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhUkGIsKvn0
sometimes it’s hard to tell that pill is peepee.
pill is pure genius…
as a sockpuppet.
i’ve posted this before…
scary big head man…
but ONLY scary because short.
i have stipulated that koreans have big heads…for their height….
rock hudson told armistead maupid, “i’m just a guy.”
then he reached for his poppers.
indisputable FACT: the largest brains of anatomically modern humans in all places and all times are those of…
cro-magnons…
so peepee’s theory is that beautiful italian women made europeans dumber.
while rr’s theory is…
beautiful italian women made jews smart.
TRAIN RECK!
i’m actually a 99th percentile in singing…from second grade…and my parents were 100% tone deaf!…
interesting that the most beautiful italian woman of recent memory was half ingrid.
and magnani wasn’t beautiful…
but she was sexy…big time.
she was a “manly woman”…like most italian women.
LET’S AGREE ON LOOK-ISM!
sorry…they’re both ugly.
if only i could spell…
Great meme:
(By the way, “The virgin evo psych guy” is just-so storyteller Geoffrey Miller.)
Stpehen jay gould is a good example of how sometimes it requites a higher iq to make up nplausible sounding nonsense than to actually describe or discover things.
Stepheb jay goulds description of evolution is more or less right but he draws the wrong conclusions from it. Nobody is saying somebody is superior because of a genetically higher average iq but they are saying that some races have adapted to their envirnments by developing cognitively. Gould tries to confuse this with eugenics or nazism and harm simple people like race who are too slow to see the sleoght of hand by joining the two together. In fact gould would probably even say the same explanations fpr why jews are over respresebted in the nobels as blacks in the ‘achieved nothing hostorically rankings’ – i.e. evolution os totally random but stopped working about the same time people started writing down things therefore established history since then is the same as it was pre written history. No pattern. Blah Blah. Blacks arenr winning nobels because the prize committee is kkk.
If gould can confuse very simple minded people like rr and melo on iq, just think how their heads would explode if we also started saying some races are more prone to violence and psychopathy than others.
“just think how their heads would explode if we also started saying some races are more prone to violence and psychopathy than others.”
He isn’t even aware of what our views are. He’s fucking stupid.
Im sorry RR you’re just not good at that stuff.
Take a note from Me, Afro, Swank, and Mugabe.
Notice how we meme. I think you could be a master too if you’d stop being so serious all the time.
“You posted it so you made it.”
???
God dude, it’s like your genetically cringey or something.
You are wrong. The meme was funny. Especially when it said “radicalised in a zoo”.
Humors relative. It was cringe to me.
Thinking mouse:
not only was gould wrong about morton, he was wrong about dimaggio.
his mistake regarding joltin’ joe’s 56 game hitting streak showed his innumeracy.
i posted the article showing this on your blog paisano.
the only thing unexpected about the streak was that it was by dimaggio. he was only the 25th most likely to have achieved it…or something like that.
Its hard tto put a finger on it. Just intuition. But the way lord of the blog writes makes me think he has a touch of autism. Its nothing he says or what he believes. Its just the style of hos writing and the things he chooses to highlight.
I think everyone in the HBD-o-sphere has a little autism, but you and Mug of Pee have it so such an extreme degree it’s caused chronic unemployment in your case and chronic underemployment in his case. Are you still seeing the therapist who diagnosed you with autism? He sounds very good.
Hey Pumpkin, what do you think Laci Green’s IQ is?
The reason I ask is because she appeared in a Discovery News YouTube video about 6 years ago discussing about whether IQ is a good measure of intelligence or not. In it, she said that she took Mensa’s IQ test and scored a 143. While I don’t think she’s dumb, her score caught me a bit off guard, as that score is near the 99.9th percentile. Do you think she cited a score that was given in SD 24, or do you think that she is lying?
Google should buyout magic leap atleast after the next elections. A lot of companies maybe able to make nreal or north focal kind of glasses but hololens, magic leap are not easily replicable.
And these glasses will be huge in the next decade. People will be upgrading to these glasses after the northfocal, nreal kind of glasses.
Assuming a billion people buy these glasses even if once over their lifetime and half of them buy magic leap glasses. That will be raking in 1000 billion for them.
PP my comment hasn’t shown up yet
ok it did
it may be that surface area/size of the cortex is more strongly correlated with IQ than brain volume/weight. the human and dolphin brain are “gyrified” compared to other animal brains.
so i hypothesize that the reason for the “gyrification” is to increase the size of the cortex without increasing the size of the brain because expensive to have a big brain.
my theory which is mine is that the brontasaurus was skinny at one end, thick in the middle, and skinny at the other end and “true brain size” is the size of the cerebral cortex/the surface area of the brain which is correlated with overall brain size but not the same.
allen’s rule, bergmann’s rule, and hesse’s rule all predict that europeans evolved in a colder climate than china people.
[redacted by pp, July 3, 2019]
Europeans are shorter & stockier than East Asians?
You’re stupid.
sad for small brained people like asians…according to this a large brain has a disproportionately larger contex.
We show that the same disproportionate increase of cortical surface relative to brain volume observed across species can be also observed across human brains: the largest brains can have up to 20% more surface than a scaled-up small brain.
That would explain why way more Megans have huge heads than you’d expect from the 0.23 correlation between IQ & HC
Pumpkin, how similar are standardized tests such as the Parcc and SBAC, to the SAT.
Please answer this question pumpkin.
Also, how long does SAT practice effects last for?
4 years.
The Philosopher,
Whats the scriabin song with the orange and blue pshychadelic background (that you invoked when things were absurd or nuaseating) called? awnsr pl0x