In a previous article I declared the kalash to be white, even though they diverged from whites 12,000 years ago and are more genetically unrelated to whites than whites are to non-white Caucasoids. Commenter “Some Guy” wrote:
I assume you wouldn’t group together two different species as one just because they had a similar phenotype Pumpkin, isn’t it a bit strange to do the equivalent with races/subspecies?
Some scientists (not all and perhaps not most) do group different species together into the same taxon based on phenotype. A good example are reptiles. Note in the below evolutionary tree, crocodiles and snakes are both reptiles, but birds are not, even though crocodiles are much more closely related to related to birds than to snakes. Thus the grouping is based on phenotype, not lineage.
However no scientist would ever classify bats as a type of bird even if their phenotypes were 100% identical (which they’re not).
Do any of my readers grasp the subtle difference between the two trees that makes it okay to lump distantly related but phenotypically similar species together in some cases but not in others? I’ve mentioned it before but people often ignore me. 🙂
UPDATE 2021-03-18
So now that commenter Lerenzo (and perhaps Austin Slater) grasped the difference, I can now make it explicit.
It’s NEVER okay to lump genetically distant species together (no matter how similar the phenotype) if they form a polyphyletic group but some scientists feel it’s okay if they form a paraphyletic group. Of course everyone agrees it’s okay if they form a monophyletic group.
The reason polyphyletic groups are not okay no matter how phenotypically similar they might be, is probably that their similarity has independent origins. By contrast phenotypic similarity in both monophyletic and paraphyletic groups is inherited from a common ancestor.
Unfortunately many scientists today even reject paraphyletic groups and treat all monophyletic groups as taxa regardless of phenotypic diversity. This has led to absurdities like humans being called apes, birds being called dinosaurs, and Andaman Islanders being denied their blackness.
Pumpkin Person 
“However no scientist would ever classify bats as a type of bird even if their phenotypes were 100% identical (which they’re not).”
….Pumpkin, you are aware that “reptiles” is a phenotypic classification right?
If bats had all the phenotypic traits that a “regular bird” had then they would actually classify it as such.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaean_taxonomy
No serious scientists today would classify bats as birds no matter how bird-like their phenotype. Purely phenotypic classification is no longer used.
Crocodiles are considered reptiles by many modern scientists purely based on phenotype.
No not just based on phenotype. If it were discovered that crocodiles were close relatives of fish, no scientist would call them reptiles
No Pumpkin. “Reptiles” is a phenotypic classification. If genetic ancestry was ever a factor then crocodiles wouldn’t be considered reptiles in the first place as the trees you cited buttresses.
i can’t respond without giving away the answer to the question I posed in the blog post before people have chance to answer. So I’ll respond tomorrow
Okay then.
The update I just added to the bottom of the post should clarify
Melo good stuff I agree with you.
explain why the above photo is one of a series of photos so sexy that even bob guccione wouldn’t print them.
hint:
there’s “old” sense of “man”.
hint:
if you have a dog…
he knows the answer.
the answer is that everyone has extra-societal duties. right and wrong are not mere conforming to social norms or not. they’re real.
women are silly, and men have been feminized over the last 250 years. and in south asia and israel and china for 10,000 years.
ant like humans are being selected for.
but “ant like human” is a contradiction.
baizuo is the chinese word for a white person who acts chinese.
Being ant-like is largely what separates us from apes
no. because savages live in bands of no more than 70.
this is the way all humans lived prior to the drying out of the near east and the indus valley and the subsequent economic necessity of farming and pastoralism.
The West is selecting for grasshoppers, not ants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ant_and_the_Grasshopper. And not just any grasshoppers, but voracious locusts. It’s all good as long as the locusts vote for the right(left) ants of nobility, though. Their satiation totally will not be at the expense of the workers.
Interesting. I’ve heard people talk of “passing for white”. That seems to assume that being white is not a phenotype, since if it’s just a phenotype then if you pass for white you are white, right? Might be interesting do a poll on if people here think of white as a phenotype/appearance or genotype/ancestry.
The Kalash would most likely been seen – socially – as white. But you called them a “macro-race”—what does that mean?
I just meant that according to genetic programs like STRUCTURE, when k = 6, they appear as their own distinct group, along side the huge continental races, suggesting the racial split between them & others is deep enough to resemble the ancient splits between human migrating to different continents.
“The fact that structure represents a population as genetically distinct does not entail that the population is a race. Nor is the idea that populations corresponding to the five major geographic areas are minimalist races undercut by the fact that structure picks out the Kalash as a genetically distinct group. Like the K=5 graph, the K=6 graph shows that modulo our assumption, continental-level races are genetically structured.” (Hardimon, 2017: 88)
There is no “racial between them & others” because they are not a racial group.
Not saying they’re a race, just saying there’s enough genetic distance between them & others for them to resemble a race genetically
You can do K = 100 and identify clusters – what does it mean and what justifies the use of racial categories when you use STRUCTURE?
Yeah but if you did k = 100 you get lots of micro-groups like northern British, southwest Italians etc
My point is Kalash emerge as a distinct cluster at low K (along side continental groups)
I’m not arguing K clusters are races
Do any of my readers grasp the subtle difference between the two trees that makes it okay to lump distantly related but phenotypically similar species together in some cases but not in others?
Birds split from reptiles but bats and birds each split from something else?
So why are crocodiles and snakes lumped together?
they got their reptile-ness before they split off from each other. birds and bats evolved their wings separately.
Bingo! I updated the article to make it explicit.
Except of course that’s not why Crocodiles are considered reptiles.
Reptile is a classification based originally on purely phenotype. When genetic ancestry was incorporated, birds were then considered reptiles too.
“This has led to absurdities like humans being called apes, birds being called dinosaurs, and Andaman Islanders being denied their blackness.”
This right here highlights how important it is to do actual research on the subjects you make your blogs about. Especially when you’re trying to pass it off as scientific.
Birds, and humans have their own classifications that exclude Apes and Dinosaurs.
Furthermore, Each category on a tree becomes broader the farther you go, so I’m not really sure what is absurd about this other than your apparent inability to understand these simple concepts.
Except of course that’s not why Crocodiles are considered reptiles.
Reptile is a classification based originally on purely phenotype. When genetic ancestry was incorporated, birds were then considered reptiles too.
Correct, but those scientists who continue to exclude birds from the reptile taxon are legitimized by the fact that even without birds, the taxon is not polyphyletic.
Birds, and humans have their own classifications that exclude Apes and Dinosaurs.
But some want apes and dinosaurs to keep their own classification that excludes humans and birds.
Furthermore, Each category on a tree becomes broader the farther you go, so I’m not really sure what is absurd about this other than your apparent inability to understand these simple concepts.
No you can’t grasp that there are 2 commonly used classification systems: One that organizes taxa into monophyletic groups, and another than organizes them into non-polyphyletic groups. I’m merely saying I prefer the latter.
“But some want apes and dinosaurs to keep their own classification that excludes humans and birds.”
Yeah they already have that. Dinosaurs is a paraphyletic group.
Are you one of those people who think Dinosaurs look like lizards?
“I’m merely saying I prefer the latter.”
I know Pumpkin. It just doesn’t make sense to prefer it.
Yeah they already have that. Dinosaurs is a paraphyletic group.
Only traditional taxonomists accept dinosaurs as a paraphyletic group. Cladistic taxonomists have redefined dinosaurs to include birds:
“Birds are living dinosaurs, just as we are mammals,” said Julia Clarke, a paleontologist studying the evolution of flight and a professor with the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Texas at Austin.
I know Pumpkin. It just doesn’t make sense to prefer it.
I prefer it because it allows us to clearly define a species physically, geographically and temporally and say species X evolved from species Y. To say what it looked like and how long it existed (eg Homo Erectus lived 1.9 million years, Neanderthals lived for 0.21 million years). However under cladistic taxonomy, humans didn’t evolve from apes, we are apes. Humans and Neanderthals didn’t evolve from Homo Erectus, we are Erectus. Nothing ever goes extinct as long as it has descendants.
I admittedly only skimmed through it so maybe I missed something but where does it vindicate your claim? I couldn’t find anything.
“
I prefer it because it allows us to clearly define a species physically, geographically and temporally and say species X evolved from species Y.”
How does that exclusively define any of those for a species?
“However under cladistic taxonomy, humans didn’t evolve from apes, we are apes. Humans and Neanderthals didn’t evolve from Homo Erectus, we are Erectus. Nothing ever goes extinct as long as it has descendants.”
……Pumpkin, ALL taxonomic systems are arbitrary when it comes to drawing boundaries between species.
I admittedly only skimmed through it so maybe I missed something but where does it vindicate your claim? I couldn’t find anything.
Huh? I quoted the relevant part. The professor saying birds are dinosaurs (thus making dinosaurs monophyletic).
……Pumpkin, ALL taxonomic systems are arbitrary when it comes to drawing boundaries between species.
My point is that traditionally taxa refers to something concrete and recognizable in the fossil record that persisted for a precise period of time before going extinct. For example, Homo sapiens were defined by our large round crania, flat face tucked in under the brain case, chin and gracile bipedal physique. But with the advent of cladistic taxonomy, you could literally be a fish and be classified as Homo sapien, as long as a DNA test proved you shared ancestry with us within the last few hundred thousand years.
Traditionally a taxa is a group of organisms that inherited a common phenotype from a common ancestor . But under cladistics, it’s a group of organisms that share an EXCLUSIVE ancestor, regardless of whether they share a phenotype. In my opinion the first definition provided more information because having many descendants means nothing if they didn’t inherit anything from you.
“The professor saying birds are dinosaurs (thus making dinosaurs monophyletic).”
It’s not an either/or thing Pumpkin. People (including scientists) switch uses dependent on need.
Here’s one referring to them as paraphyletic: https://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/
“you could literally be a fish and be classified as Homo sapien, as long as a DNA test proved you shared ancestry with us within the last few hundred thousand years.”
Trying to force Scientific explanations to fit your preconceived assumptions is beyond fallacious.
“In my opinion the first definition provided more information because having many descendants means nothing if they didn’t inherit anything from you.”
While the phenotype is the object of selection, what are inherited are genes. And not all genes are equal so yes it means quite a bit.
Even you admitted that splits correlate with morphological change.
It’s not an either/or thing Pumpkin. People (including scientists) switch uses dependent on need.
And my needs require me to accept paraphyletic taxa (for some purposes).
While the phenotype is the object of selection, what are inherited are genes.
Phenotype is inherited too. People only care about genes because of the phenotype it predicts
1. You’re entire argument was that scientists exclusively refer to monophyletic groups.
2. That’s of course false. Phenotype is not inherited, and taxonomic classification makes absolutely no sense without taking ancestry into account.
Paraphyletic groups only retain any sort of practical utility precisely because of the lineages elucidated by genetics.
Sorry buddy humans are apes and birds are dinosaurs. And that doesn’t sound absurd to anyone with more than two brain cells.
1. You’re entire argument was that scientists exclusively refer to monophyletic groups.
No my argument was that some exclusively refer to monophyletic groups & others refer exclusively to non-polyphyletic groups.
That’s of course false. Phenotype is not inherited, and taxonomic classification makes absolutely no sense without taking ancestry into account.
Of course phenotype’s inherited and traditional taxonomy does take ancestry into account, it just excludes those descendants that lack the ancestor’s morphology. Actually even Linnaean taxonomy that ignores ancestry completely is useful because sometimes you want to describe organisms by common morphology, regardless of relatedness (i.e. humans and humanoid aliens).
Sorry buddy humans are apes
Some of us are capable of higher thought
and birds are dinosaurs.
Phylogenetically birds and humans are dinosaurs and apes respectively, but morphologically they are not. One must meet BOTH the cladistic and Linnaean criteria to categorically be a dinosaur or ape, hence paraphyletic taxa are sometimes needed.
And that doesn’t sound absurd to anyone with more than two brain cells.
So you admit it sounds absurd to you. YES!
How do genes predict phenotype?
rr should be banned until he explains why he wants to protect his precious mezzogiorno from negrification.
beautiful white american woman amanda knox was blamed for a murder committed by an african in italy because people like rr.
meraheimer says, “nationalism is the most powerful political force. religion and ideology are much less important. and this is because nationalism is democracy, popular sovereignty, self-determination.”
yes indeed people do like rr.
“No my argument was that some exclusively refer to monophyletic groups & others refer exclusively to non-polyphyletic groups.”
No it really wasn’t. In fact you made it explicitly clear that you thought scientists would never classify animals based on phenotype alone.
“Of course phenotype’s inherited”
No it’s not. People of course word it that way but in reality the only thing passed on are genes. Simply because environment mediates the development of traits and since environment is almost never constant between generations you cant really say phenotype is being inherited. That’s why you and your SO could be a genius and yet your child could be mentally retarded because of abuse. The child clearly inherited genes for an intelligent phenotype, yet his phenotype is anything but.
“because sometimes you want to describe organisms by common morphology, regardless of relatedness ”
And o nf course I don’t see a problem in using paraphyletic groups in this way. But its a whole nother thing to suggest that it’s objectively better.
“but morphologically they are not. ”
That’s false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds#Features_linking_birds_and_dinosaurs
In fact the whole theory about dinosaurs being birds was formulated precisely because dinosaurs (especially therapods) resembled birds
“So you admit it sounds absurd to you. YES!”
……Right.
You know how mugabe asks people retarded questions in an attempt to gauge peoples intelligence?
Well here’s one for you: How do we construct phylogenetic trees for Dinosaurs? How can we tell which dinosaurs are more related to each other?
“No my argument was that some exclusively refer to monophyletic groups & others refer exclusively to non-polyphyletic groups.”
No it really wasn’t. In fact you made it explicitly clear that you thought scientists would never classify animals based on phenotype alone.
Yeah, and I’m still saying that. The current debate is between those who allow paraphyletic taxa and those who don’t. Both sides of the debate exclude polyphyletic taxa because these are the kind that have no common ancestor and are based purely on phenotype.
No it’s not. People of course word it that way but in reality the only thing passed on are genes. Simply because environment mediates the development of traits and since environment is almost never constant between generations you cant really say phenotype is being inherited. That’s why you and your SO could be a genius and yet your child could be mentally retarded because of abuse. The child clearly inherited genes for an intelligent phenotype, yet his phenotype is anything but.
A genius could also have a retarded child because of a gross genetic abnormality like Downs Syndrome. Obviously in most cases both genotype & phenotype are passed down or natural selection wouldn’t work.
“because sometimes you want to describe organisms by common morphology, regardless of relatedness ”
And o nf course I don’t see a problem in using paraphyletic groups in this way. But its a whole nother thing to suggest that it’s objectively better.
You’re probably right about that. They tell us different things. Cladistic taxonomy groups you by genetic lineage. Linnaean taxonomy groups you by genetic phenotype. And evolutionary taxonomy groups you by both.
“but morphologically they are not. ”
That’s false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds#Features_linking_birds_and_dinosaurs
Historically they’ve been considered two very different morphological groups. We’ve since learned that a subset of dinosaurs were the missing link between dinosaurs and birds, kind of like Homo Erectus is like a missing link between monkey and man. Doesn’t prove man and monkey have same morphology.
In fact the whole theory about dinosaurs being birds was formulated precisely because dinosaurs (especially therapods) resembled birds
They found the missing link
How do we construct phylogenetic trees for Dinosaurs? How can we tell which dinosaurs are more related to each other?
We can make crude inferences from morphology but the whole point of this discussion is morphology and lineage don’t always match. Nonetheless it’s the best we can do in the absence of such ancient DNA.
“The current debate is between those who allow paraphyletic taxa and those who don’t. ”
There isn’t a debate Pumpkin. Most if not all scientists prefer monophyletic groups and use paraphyletic when it is useful.
“Cladistic taxonomy groups you by genetic lineage. ………Doesn’t prove man and monkey have same morphology…..We can make crude inferences from morphology…”
Stop.
Most if not all phylogenetic tree of prehistoric organisms are based purely on Phenotype. DNA doesn’t last long, so you’re right, all we can do is make crude inferences from morphology. That means your snide comment about the “absurd” grouping of birds and dinosaurs was nonsensical. Dinosaur cladograms are based on morphology, so they aren’t about genetic lineage.
Lets not downplay the bird-dinosaur connection either, Therapods were not some obscure subgroup. They’re an entire suborder (1 out of the 4) and include some of the most well known and studied dinosaurs like Tyrannosaurus and Velociraptor, you know the species everyone thinks of when they hear the word “dinosaur”, and they are all extraordinarily similar to birds.
The only reason they were considered distinct in the first place was a lack of actual research on the morphology of dinosaurs.
“but the whole point of this discussion is morphology and lineage don’t always match.”
No. I am simply pointing out your misconceptions with what you apparently believe scientists do or think. I’ll tell you one thing, they definitely understand the mismatch of phenotype and genotype and take both into account when elucidating the relationship between organisms.
“The current debate is between those who allow paraphyletic taxa and those who don’t. ”
There isn’t a debate Pumpkin.
😂😂😂😂
In a recent article published in Taxon, R. K.Brummitt stated that paraphyly is “the most important issue under debate in taxonomy today” (Brummitt,2006, p. 268). Brummitt’s view appears to be sharedby other authors
Most if not all scientists prefer monophyletic groups and use paraphyletic when it is useful.
Everyone prefers a taxa to be monophyletic, but not everyone insists on it. That’s the debate.
Most if not all phylogenetic tree of prehistoric organisms are based purely on Phenotype. DNA doesn’t last long, so you’re right, all we can do is make crude inferences from morphology. That means your snide comment about the “absurd” grouping of birds and dinosaurs was nonsensical. Dinosaur cladograms are based on morphology, so they aren’t about genetic lineage.
Morphology allowed them to infer that birds and dinosaurs are closely related, but at some point there was likely a semantic shift from saying birds evolved from dinosaurs to saying birds are dinosaurs. Exactly if, when and why that shift occurred I don’t know.
No. I am simply pointing out your misconceptions with what you apparently believe scientists do or think. I’ll tell you one thing, they definitely understand the mismatch of phenotype and genotype and take both into account when elucidating the relationship between organisms.
Of course scientists understand phenotype-genotype mismatches. I’m simply saying it’s useful to have words that describe morphological groups, even if those groups are sometimes not monophyletic.
Pingback: When phenotype does & does not trump genotype in taxonomy – Glyn Hnutu-healh: History, Alchemy, and Me
I don’t know anything about taxonomy, so this is probably nonsense. I assume that the order of the “leaves” of each species represents genetic distance. The reptile group is continuous, with no non-members dividing them. A bird and bat “group” would be discontinuous, with mice as a gap.
I would guess you classify the Kalash as white because their phenotype is similar and there are no non-Caucasoid groups genetically between them.
^^^BRILLIANT!!!!
I don’t understand what you mean by “no non-members dividing.” Are you saying you can “circle” them on the tree without any including any non-members? If so, then how do you account for this rearrangement (created in MS Paint with as little effort as possible):
YAY! I always learn something when reading your blog.
to commemorate the start of march madness, heres the greatest college basketball game of all time:
It’s so good I can watch it despite hating both teams.
If I lost 10 lbs I’d look nearly identical to bobby hurley. Same height and everything.
WRONG!
the best is when UNLV beat loyola marymount.
because it showed the true nature of college sports and the jesuits and the tarkanians.
no team has ever been as REDOKULOUSLY DOMINANT as UNLV in 1990.
no team has had as much SYMPATHY as the 1990 loyola marymount team.
the marymount coach was made an nba coach at denver iirc.
Laettner was a shitty professional?
right?
why is jock itch and don’t itch?
why do they exist?
but not some white american name?
seriously!
why???
https://tv5.espn.com/video/clip/_/id/31084325
well…iirc…the tallest team in the last world cup was…serbia.
Sabonis was another huge euro. Apparently he has a son who plays for oklahoma city now.
The only team that holds its own against that UNLV team (either 90 or 91) is indiana’s ’76 team. I think they went the whole season + tournament without losing.
PP, based on your explanation of mono/para/poly-phyletic trees, don’t you have to extend the green circle around reptiles to the last common ancestor of crocodiles and snakes for the phenotype grouping to be valid?
The point is you could extend it back without including any non-reptiles. By contrast the common ancestor of bats and birds would not be a flying creature, proving that phenotype evolved independently.
Wonder what Meghan Markle is thinking right now.
She’s thinking “don’t fuck with me, beautiful women always get our way”
Her poll numbers in the UK tanked. British people hate her now.
Who cares what you guys think. To quote George W. Bush “only people that matter are Americans”. They will be HUGE stars in the U.S. especially among blacks who will be euphoric that such a white looking red-haired coveted man like Harry dumped the Royal family for a sista. Pill lacks the social IQ to pick up such dynamics.
My best guess is that Harry and Meghan will end up divorcing due to her having an affair. If the red pill is right, she will see harry as a tampon and a gutless wonder and she will be in awe of the first man that treats her badly.
pill is such a typical gay man. Obsessed with princess gossip.
I’m not trying to be mean. I’m a huge liberal who appreciates my gay following, just not 24/7.
Its sad that they cancelled chateau heartiste. If he was still allowed to post on the internet I would have asked him whether women find racists attractive seeing as they are the “bad boys” of modern society. Very interesting discussion would have been had.
Having sex with a dog is less shameful than with a man. At least dogs don’t understand what morality is and therefore can’t be immoral. But gays do their thing even when the laws and moral codes are clear.
Having sex with a dog is less shameful than with a man.
You should know. You’ve done both.
peepee will do a post: The IQ of Oprah’s Father.
but she won’t do: The IQ of Oswald’s Mother./
this is interesting because…
oprah’s father doesn’t have a wikipedia page of his own.
but oswald’s mother DOES!
it could just be “penis (anti-)privilege”, but…
“where-the-fuck is my wiki?” asked Vernon Winfrey.
That’s because Oprah is the most self-made billionaire in the World (Steve Sailer & Afro agree). She literally came from nothing.
I’ve always wanted to do a post on the IQ of Lion’s father. Lion claims to have a genius IQ but also claims his parents are dumb & Staten Island prole. LOL
Pepe I want to see you write a post about the IQ of Proud Boys
so melanesians have kniky hair and dark skin…
they still don’t look african (to me).
if you thought nba-er was black or white, you’d think he was half arab…or something…
Andaman Islanders look African to me
im not just a sex symbol of this blog for myself PP. I am also a benevolent member who brings the sex appeal through the roof for all commenters here!
she still worships oprah’s money???
my dog is a FREAK!
for reals mofo genovese fingers signals yo!
if you ever had any doubts about the TOTAL OBJECTIVITY of beauty…
walk my dog!
BEAUTIFUL! GORGEOUS! STUNNING!
i know…it’s UN-believable! it’s CRAZY!
IT’S MY LIVED EXPERIENCE!
negresses and BWD chasing chinawomen will deny it…
BUT…
the TOTAL OBJECTIVITY of beauty…
is a FACT…
i know from LIVED EXPERIENCE!
the problem with fags isn’t that they can appreciate the david statue. it’s that they can’t appreciate ingrid.
and they have some kind of addiction/compulsion to engage in sex acts which have no chance of bringing forth childers/chirrens.
Gays would not be such successful makeup, hair and fashion artists if they couldn’t appreciate female beauty.
No contradiction with Marxism because unlike other billionaires, Oprah made her billions off her own labour. When Forbes estimated the wealth of other billionaires they would add up the value of their assets (and subtract debt) but in Oprah’s case, they would estimate her wealth by adding up how much she EARNED (then subtracting taxes and living expenses). Because Oprah earned about seven figures per episode and hosted hundreds of shows a year, her wealth increased at a predictable rate. And when her syndicated talk show ended in 2011, her wealth stagnated. Despite being culturally upper class in private, Oprah is arguably the richest member of the proletariat. Yes she owned her own show, but since the show was largely her, she wasn’t much profiting off the labour of others (at least not to the huge degree other billionaires do). She worked for her money; their money works for them.
the “it’s man” says it’s…
i’m crushing on this guy or gal hard…
but why would she or he RECIPROCATE?
why can arnold appreciate his own AWESOMENESS in Pumping Iron?
what is ‘e a fag?
NO!
that vid peepee didn’t post from Pumping Iron is so stupid because arnold is so fucking tall for a bodybuilder…
franco was just as good as arnold at the sport of bodybuilding….
but franco was a SARDINIAN!
Nickname The Sardinian Strongman[1]
Are you familiar with the “pedigrees” cognitive test? I recall an accomplished psychometrician once telling me that one of the better tests of intelligence had to do with deciphering family trees.
the FACILE explanation is that “vocab” the subtest is NOT the same as vocab the number of words an asian studying for the SAT can memorize.
What is word beginnings/endings?
women see men as rocket ship payloads.
men do the HARD WORK of advancing HUMANS!
women take care of the babies.
this is an UN-fortunate division of labor based on gender.
check out steve shoe’s latest post. [redacted by pp, march 21, 2021]
if you look at his charts the correlation with pgs is pretty shitty. look at the charts!
for those chirren who attained 3 SDs more edumacation than their parents, their pgs was only 0.3 SD higher than their parents. the last charts seem to show a much stonger correlation of about 0.17 with SES and the pgs score for educational attainment. why?
maybe because more and more people are going to college and grad school. especially dumb people.
they might go 3SDs past their parents education-wise, but the best job they can get is in the admissions department at their alma mater.
attaining higher SES requires more competence.
this is why non-ants are actually in favor of socialism.
because socialism is:
okay. we all hate each other and wanna kill each other, but when we get together we can make everyone richer.
that is, socialism is just an ideology free recognition of the human condition…that to be human is not to be an ant, but humans acting like ants can be good for every human.
So why are you racist?
only a retard would think i was “racist”.
Of course you’re racist and morally bankrupt
But I’m smarter than you. And I think you’re racist
maybe christianity served the same purpose as socialism for europe, and this is another reason for the dominance of europeans for so long, especially starting with the reformation and the discovery of the western hemisphere 500 years ago.
scandinavian social democracy is explained by scandis themselves as just “christianity”.
Europeans dominated because they treated war like a sport.
Just like every race, their history can be summed up as “some guy gets power, guy takes over other territories furthering conquest for more power, guy dies, new guy takes power ad infinium”.
But Europeans were the best at war. If China hadn’t of unified early on….well we’d all be speaking it right now.
The’re intelligence and “ant-likedness” was ultimately their downfall. At least in the beginning.
Europeans were the best at exploring not war.
Wow such deliberate stupidity from Pill. Why does he humiliate himself by feigning innocence and ignorance?
You dont even know what you just said. You asked whether I pretend to be innocent or ignorant…..basically you need to go back to school loaded and learn english.
No. I asked why you humiliate yourself by acting ignorant and innocent of blame. It really wasnt too difficult to comprehend but even then you disappoint.
See kids this is why you should stay in school. Otherwise you’ll be ignorant about simple history like Philo.
cucker carlson just did a piece on how AETNA (a health insurance co and therefore satan worshipping co) just had its empolyees attend a “white people suck” indoctrination ceremony.
maybe HBDers are right…
Key people
Karen S. Lynch
(President)
Mark Bertolini
(CEO)
Thomas Sabatino
(General Counsel)
Richard di Benedetto
(Vice President, Aetna International)
FUCKING SAD!
I bet ‘Dear White People’ was screened.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/mar/24/scientists-discover-why-the-human-brain-is-so-big