Richard Klein has long claimed that the archeological record shows an abrupt increase in sophistication about 50,000 years. Before 50,000 years ago Sapiens behaved more or less like Neanderthals and were largely confined to the continent of Africa with few complex tools and zero representational art. After 50,000 years ago, we suddenly colonized every continent except Antarctica, killed off all the Megafauna living outside Africa, drove all other human species to extinction, and filled our camp grounds with stunning works of art. Klein believed that such a massive rapid change could only be explained by a brain mutation making us smarter.
I on the other hand have argued Klein had it backwards. Getting smarter didn’t cause us to leave Africa. Leaving Africa (and facing the cold) selected for higher IQ.
However new research may clarify this issue once and for all. Scientists have discovered a major mutation in Sapiens that may have made us smarter than Neanderthals. Of the 19,000 genes in the human genome, only 96 protein encoding mutations separate us from Neanderthals. One of these alters the TKTL1 gene which affects the brain’s cortex, especially the frontal lobe.
Proving this mutation played a causal role in brain growth, Dr. Anneline Pinson and her team injected the Sapien version in animals as different from us as mice and ferrets and watched in awe as it caused their brains to grow more neurons. Next, with consent from the mothers, they looked at human fetal brain tissue from aborted babies and after snipping out the TKTL1 gene from the cells using molecular scissors, the number of progenitor cells giving rise to neurons declined.
Lastly, they edited Sapien embryonic stem cells to either have have the Sapien specific mutation or the ancestral version carried by Neanderthals and apes, put them in a chemical bath and coaxed them into becoming a blob of brain tissue called brain organoids or mini brains, and found the Sapien version produced more neurons and scientists suspect, this may explain why our brains are spherical and Neanderthal brains are elongated.
The next questions I have are, exactly when did this mutation occur and how many IQ points is it worth. In the early 2000s there was much excitement in the HBD community about microcephalin mutations supposedly causing major differences in IQ. Now that’s all gone. Too often genetic variants are found to have trivial effects.
However neuroscientist Laurent Nguyen thinks this might be a big deal, recently telling the New York Times “This is really a tour de force. It’s remarkable that such a small change has such a dramatic effect on the production of neurons.”
Of course ethical standards prohibit scientists from editing the embryos of actual future children just to see how it affects their IQ, though perhaps some government might do this in secret.
But with nearly eight billion people on the planet, and only 6 billion nucleotides in the human genome, odds are there might be someone out there who by chance, has the Neanderthal version of the TKTL1 gene. That person needs to take a brain scan and an IQ test.
Pumpkin Person 
I wonder if they could use this research to help people with impaired executive function.
Lord knows I could’ve used that growing up.
It reminds me of new purple tomatoes that are coming to stores. Supposedly, lab mice that were eating these fruits lived 30% longer than the control group.
the melo avatar has a yarmulke. why?
mugabe: if you were a jew in german occupied poland would you prefer to be called names or be killed?
melo: killed.
thats not a yarmulke its his fucking head shape dumbass. my dad and to a lesser degree myself have the same head shape!
why didn’t you tell us before?
i thought uttar pradesh jews didn’t exist.
Hahaha, that’s his hair.
I literally put “erichthonius” in an ai art generator.
Mugabe clearly doesn’t have the TKTL1 gene.
humanity is so pathetic with evil sadists like Pill and Mug running around! just think about it….its crazy that people are so evil to each other and these two have no shame regardless.
shame and guilt are important to making society functioning for the greater purposes of our species. these two just dont have it!
mugabe: no one group of people is “genetically superior” to any other. and no one should be poor in a rich country whatever their IQ.
peepee/LOADED: shut up you sadistic evil white trash racist loser!
i believe in those two things as well. i dont know why you would assume any differently tbh.
So, are you in Iceland, Pumpkin? It says my first comment was posted at 3 am, and it’s 11 pm where I am at. Out of curiosity, I looked up what cities are at 3 am right now, and the ones that popped up were in Iceland and Africa. Didn’t you say you were Canadian? Although the site I looked upon could be inaccurate.
Not usually but I was when I started the blog so that’s the time zone
ive always been curious about that.
AMHs were living in what is today ethiopia 280,000 yeas ago peepee.
try again.
Even if that were true, what’s your point?
he is trying to say he is smarter than you lmao. most of this website is just people trying to one-up one another anyways!
I thought Klein and the other jew scientists weren’t allowed to believe in evolution.
All jews publicly state that evolution stopped for humans. Idiots like Melo and indeed, smart people like Mugabe actually believe that.
Klein and Gould and Chomsky believe important evolution more or less stopped no later than 40,000 years ago which is actually not that idiotic because that’s pretty much when brain size stopped increasing and when cultural progress began. The idea was that cultural evolution replaced biological evolution. This is supported by punctuated equilibrium theory which notes that evolution is not characterized by gradual change per se, but long periods of stasis interrupted by sudden radical change, and the last radical change in Klein’s view was a brain mutation that kicked off the Upper Paleolithic Revolution
But when they say evolution stopped I get the sense they mean qualitative evolution, not quantitative evolution. That is, if pushed, they’d probably concede Jews were selected for higher IQ in the middle ages, but they’d see that as a quantitative change. Jews still have the same KIND of intelligence as other humans, just more of it. Other races could easily be bred to the same level in a few generations which is true.
But we know also that blacks went on to have considerable evolution in terms of sexual organs, testosterone and athleticism.
Autism only started happening within the past 1000 years or so.
Plenty of evolution has happened within the last 2000 years. Think of all the genetic diseases and adaptations to malaria and so on.
Basically the jews lie. They want to pretend evolution doesn’t apply to humans because people would start realising they run everything.
I would put my house on the jews actually privately agreeing with everything Rushton said.
jews haven’t been selected idiot.
yes. evolution has stopped from the neck up for the last 50,000 years at least. and if anything people have actually gotten dumber in terms of native ability. a cromagnon brought up today would be the same or smarter than average in terms of tetst scores.
this makes no sense, but that’s what the EVIDENCE says.
What evidence says that? Brain size?
NEIN!
it’s the TOTAL FAILURE of the steve shoe project.
chris chang admitted this.
as swank and i said: the fundamental difference between humans above the neck is normal vs retarded. binet only developed his tests to identify the latter. but then a retarded american terman applied it to normal people.
black women are hideous TRUE!
but given the right environment (FOR THEM!) they’re as smart as a jew.
What about Neanderthals? Were they just as smart as Jews if given the right environment FOR THEM?
but sadly rr even denies that people with microcephaly [redacted by pp, 2022-09-22] are dumb.
[redacted by pp, 2022-09-22]
neanderthals only if they had the PHYSICAL apparatus for speech.
supposedly they didn’t.
so you’re saying? — peepee
YES!
i’m saying the speech making apparatus is just like the human hand…
the body can make you smarter!
PROOF: whales and dolphins. and tree shrews. the former have much bigger brains than humans. the latter have a much bigger brain to body mass ratio.
The hand and the voice allow us to USE our intelligence but they don’t increase our intelligence, unless you’re arguing we need the practice of speaking and manipulating objects to develop our verbal and performance IQs. In other words, having the right body is part of being reared in a cognitively optimum environment.
Many think Neanderthals could speak
whales and dolphins. and tree shrews. the former have much bigger brains than humans.
Because they have a much bigger body to coordinate so more brain tissue is assigned to motor functions and sub-conscious body regulation.
the latter have a much bigger brain to body mass ratio.
But that’s only because brains vary much less in size than bodies so small creatures have bigger brain/body ratios for the same reason midgets appear to have big heads (and you’ve noted). When it comes to ratio of brain size to EXPECTED brain size for body size, humans totally dominate. No other animal comes close.
PP,
Jews have “more of it” (IQ) so IQ a quantitative trait? The Nash/Berka measurement argument shows IQ isn’t a quantitative trait.
And re language – language is what sets humans apart from other animals. It what makes us unique. If X doesn’t have propositional attitudes (PA), then X has language. Nonhuman animals lack propositional attitudes. Therefore, nonhuman animals don’t have propositional attitudes. If nonhuman animals don’t have propositional attitudes, then nonhuman animals lack minds.
This is the basic argument from Davidson’s Rational Animals:
If X is to have a belief, then X has to have the concept of belief. If X has the concept of belief, then X has language.If X doesn’t understand/speak a language, then X cannot have beliefs. Belief is necessary for thought/reasoning. So nonhuman animals don’t think/reason;they lack mind.
“The view that thought — belief, desire, intention and the like — requires language is controversial, but certainly not new. The version of the thesis I want to promote needs to be distinguished from various related versions. I don’t, for example, believe that thinking can be reduced to linguistic activity. I find no plausibility in the idea that thoughts can be nomologically identified with, or correlated with, phenomena characterized in physical or neurological terms. Nor do I see any reason to maintain that what we can’t say we can’t think. My thesis is not, then, that each thought depends for its existence on the existence of a sentence that expresses that thought. My thesis is rather that a creature cannot have a thought unless it has language. In order to be a thinking, rational creature, the creature must be able to express many thoughts, and above all, be able to interpret the speech and thought of others.” – Davidson, Rational Animals, 322-323
Davidson also argued in Thought and Talk, that if an organism is being interpretable as having thoughts and if they are able to interpret the speech of others then they can be construed as having thoughts. But his argument in Rational Animals shows that they lack the concept of belief and so they lack language.
Therefore, what sets humans a part from other animals is human language and the fact that humans have minds. Mind, language and the ability to have a coherent belief and propositional attitudes sets Man a part from other animals in the animal kingdom.
And Klein might argue that even humans didn’t have minds until 50,000 years ago. Chomsky argues language is only 100,000 years old
https://pumpkinperson.com/2018/03/09/noam-chomsky-thinks-language-is-only-about-100000-years-old/
You think intelligence is a metaphysical capacity? It can be dehumanizing to reduce to quanta such things as cognition, free will, altruism, love… the human spirit. I’ve become less of a materialist recently.
It’s always perplexed me how one can simultaneously be anti-HBD and an atheist. I don’t know if there really is much overlap there, but like, why would one believe that amoral and purposeless physical forces alone would give rise to human equality? What are the odds of that? Human equality is real only in the sense that we’re all a part of the universe, which is an explanation that most liberal atheists would find mawkish or occult. I guess I understand the insecurity and greed that incentivize the pretense that egalitarianism is righteous, but not everyone does.
You think “anti-HBDers” believe all humans are biologically equal?
Maybe not within groups, but certainly between groups. That’s the whole point.
am i mistaken or did rr just say animals don’t have minds?
he said it
its about subconscious vs. consciousness here. subconsciousness is the many heuristics your brain integrates and consciousness is you putting them into effect!
Anime would have some interesting perspectives on this. he is an expert on things we as humans simply cant comprehend at the moment lmao.
Posner posits that his moral intuition tells him “that human beings prefer their own. If a dog threatens a human…
Singer challenges this by arguing that formerly unequal rights for gays, women, and certain races were justified using the same set of intuitions. Posner replies that equality in civil rights did not occur because of ethical arguments, but because facts mounted that there were no morally significant differences between humans based on race, sex, or sexual orientation that would support inequality. If and when similar facts emerge about humans and animals, the differences in rights will erode too. But facts will drive equality, not ethical arguments…
posner is correct.
does know any actual humans? did donald davidson?
there is no “a priori” reason to believe that the tribe over the hill isn’t dangerous. but once you get to know them you find out.
has peepee ever met a white person irl?
ive met quite a few white people irl and online been acquainted with them quite well and i gotta say….theyre retards!
Yea i did say that nonhuman animals lack minds. The arguments I gave above are sound. PP, I don’t know when language began I only know that, logically, mental states can’t be genetically transmitted, only physical traits can. The “neural circuit” claim seems like a just-so story.
If one believes that nonhuman animals have minds then they must believe that nonhuman animals have propositional attitudes.
Animals have minds you idiot. There was even an ape that Chris Langan loved who could sort of speak to people using sign language. Obviously animals are dumber than humans and lack some capabilities, but some animals actually have mental capabilities we don’t have.
Apparently the ape had pets and even said she was ‘sad’ when she learned that one of the cats had died in a car accident.
Youre so dumb its like you are dumber than the ape Chris Langan talked about.
If Langan was so interested in Koko, then he would have read the book that Patterson—Koko’s handler—wrote about him. If he read the book, then he would have seen this:
Koko generally performed worse than children when a verbal rather than a pointing response was required. When tasks involved detailed drawings, such as penciling a path through a maze, or precise coordination, such as fitting puzzle pieces together. Koko’s performance was distinctly inferior to that of children.
[…]
It is hard to draw any firm conclusions about the gorilla’s intelligence as compared to that of the human child. Because infant intelligence tests have so much to do with motor control, results tend to get skewed. Gorillas and chimps seem to gain general control over their bodies earlier than humans, although ultimately children far outpace both in the fine coordination required in drawing or writing. In problems involving more abstract reasoning, Koko, when she is willing to play the game, is capable of solving relatively complex problems. If nothing else, the increase in Koko’s mental age shows that she is capable of understanding a number of the principles that are the foundation of what we call abstract thought. (Patterson and Linden, 1981: 100-101)
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/12/08/the-worlds-smartest-man-on-koko-the-gorillas-iq/
Langan is [redacted by pp, 2022-09-24]
no one said animals have human minds rr.
animals have their own types of minds.
do you want me to get vedantic on your ass?
btw, it actually is reasonable to conclude that dogs have been selected over the last 30,000 years to have minds closer to human minds in some ways even than chimps.
Careful Mugabe, RR doesn’t believe that minds can be subject to natural selection either.
Which is retarded because he already admitted that genes are a necessary precondition for the mind which means he admits genes have the same relationship to the mind as they do to ANY selected phenotype.
Post this one.
The mentality that nonhuman animals possess is phenomenal, not intentional.
PP I said they are necessary, not sufficient. As a necessary condition, they need to be there like all other developmental resources.
Necessary causes—they ALLOW an outcome
Sufficient causes—ensures and produces the outcome
The arguments I use against psychophysical reduction show that since the mental is irreducible and underdetermined by the physical, then it cannot be an object of selection as only physical things can be selected.
Nonhuman animals behave, they don’t act. Akeel Bilgrami’s Moore-Frege linger argument in Self-Knowledge and Resentment shows that intentional states don’t reduce to dispositions. Behavior is dispositional. If behavior is dispositional and animals merely behave, and if intentions don’t reduce to dispositions, then behavior isn’t intentional (the distinction I argued for previously holds). Intentions are irreducible, and so cannot be selected-for.
PP you seem to be mistaken about the argument.
If the mental isn’t physical, then it cannot be explained by science. If it cannot be explained by science, the mental is non-natural.
If evolutionary biology is a physical theory, then it cannot explain the rise of mind as it cannot explain what IS NOT physically reducible. If X isn’t physically reducible, then X cannot be a product/target of natural selection.
So Nagel argues that if mind is a product of biological evolution, then evolutionary biology cannot be a purely physical science. But physical science is the only science that’s possible!
The arguments I use against psychophysical reduction show that since the mental is irreducible and underdetermined by the physical, then it cannot be an object of selection as only physical things can be selected.
Even if the mind is not physical, if it (a) provides a survival advantage, and (b) has necessary physical causes, which you admit it does, then mindless creatures will tend to die out, leaving those with minds as the survivors, and since those with minds all have necessary genes (by definition) then those genes will be passed on. That doesn’t mean everyone in future generations will have a mind, it simply means that everyone in future generations will have the genetic requirement to acquire one (assuming other developmental resources are also there)
It’s not necessary that the genetic cause be sufficient for natural selection to occur. In fact genetic causes are NEVER sufficient as you’ve spent the last several years reminding us. Even for unambiguously physical traits like height, genes are not sufficient (you also need nutrition etc), but height can still be selected for.
When I say “the brain (something physical) is necessary for mentality but not sufficient, I mean that, as I said above, genes (along with other developmental resources) ALLOW mentality since they are needed for us (the organism) to exist at all. You still seem, to me, like you are trying to put a physicalist spin on the mind—but there are non-physical facts and so physicalism is false and the mind cannot be an object of selection. Nevermind the intelligibility of “natural selection” “selecting” something without laws of selection that can distinguish between causes and correlates of causes. And you’re using a “natural selection” argument, too. So if the genes that are “necessary” (which are all of them, but I’ll play along) are selected but are correlated with other genes that don’t contribute to fitness, how can we use selection theory to infer what you stated? Are you assuming mind-brain identity in that if the brain is selected then the mind is too? That doesn’t work, either.
“Natural science will never figure [humans] out, not just because the brain is too complex (which might be a sufficient ground to be skeptical about the big claims of neurocentrism), but also because the human mind is an open-ended process of creation of self-conceptions about itself.” – Markus Gabriel, I am not a Brain
When I say “the brain (something physical) is necessary for mentality but not sufficient, I mean that, as I said above, genes (along with other developmental resources) ALLOW mentality since they are needed for us (the organism) to exist at all.
And among organisms that exist, specific genes help predict which ones have brains, and among those with brains, genes help predict the size, speed, organization, structure, and efficiency of said brains. Regardless of whether we understand how or why, genes correlates with brain properties which correlate with mental properties which correlate with intelligent action which correlates with survival which correlates with reproduction. Thus, those who reproduce will tend to have genes correlated with intelligent action, and thus those genes will become more and more common until an highly intelligent species evolves.
You still seem, to me, like you are trying to put a physicalist spin on the mind—but there are non-physical facts and so physicalism is false and the mind cannot be an object of selection. Nevermind the intelligibility of “natural selection” “selecting” something without laws of selection that can distinguish between causes and correlates of causes.
Forget the word “selection”. Any trait (physical or mental) that helps us reproduce will increase in the population if genetic variation even slightly predicts who will have more of said trait. It doesn’t matter whether the prediction occurs because physical laws or metaphysical laws or even spiritual laws. All that matters is that it occurs.
Yea you’re using a natural selection argument with genes at the bottom and survival which correlates with reproduction on the top. You’re correct that the correlation needs to be explained, but you seem to be using “predict” here to mean “correlates with”—I don’t see any reason to accept that. Ultimately, in your tree of causation let’s call it, it reduces to natural selection; it doesn’t matter that you’re not using the word as that’s what you’re perfectly describing. In any case PP, your claims here fail due to irreducibility.
You use the phrase “more of” which implies that T can be quantified—good look doing that for psychological traits/mental abilities, see eg Joel Mitchell.
You’re correct that the correlation needs to be explained, but you seem to be using “predict” here to mean “correlates with”—I don’t see any reason to accept that.
The reason to accept that is that when we make predictions about mental traits based on correlated genes, those predictions come true. For example, if an embryo has the translocation of the 7q31.2 region of the FOXP2 gene, we can bet a lot of money the kid will have linguistic impairments
FOXP2 is necessary to make sounds in the neuromuscular pathway, sure. However there is no indication of positive selection of FOXP2 in humans.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/08/05/just-so-stories-and-foxp2/
In any case, brain states are correlated with mental states. That doesn’t license any of the claims you’re making. They are correlated in virtue of the brain states being necessary for mindedness. Without the brain there can be no mind. So, by inference, without genes there can be no brain so there can be no mind without genes. Meaning NECESSARY cause. You and other hereditarians GO BEYOND THIS and claim certain genes or suites of genes are SUFFICIENT causes for certain aspects of our constitution. If it was a claim about a physical trait then that would be captured by the arguments I’m forwarding.
The philosophy of mind I push is that the self is not identical to the brain, CNS, body etc. The self is sui generis. What you’re arguing would be possible IFF the self is identical to anything physical. But like William Hasker’s Unity of Consciousness argument and Lund’s modal argument for the immateriality of the referent I or the self (successfully) argues, the self is not identical to anything physical and so is immaterial. And if it is immaterial, then it cannot be an object of selection. Not even the genes you seem to be (wrongly) claiming that since they are correlated with X then they are causing/influencing X. See Lund’s argument in The Conscious Self:
“(1) Whatever is secunda facie conceivable for me is something I am secunda facie warranted in believing to be metaphysically possible.
(2) I can clearly and distinctly conceive of myself with exactly my thought properties existing in isolation from all material things (i.e., this state of affairs is secunda facie conceivable for me). (3) Therefore, I am secunda facie warranted in believing that my existing in isolation from all material things (i.e., as disembodied or even in the absence of all material things) is metaphysically possible.
(4) It is not metaphysically possible for a material thing to become immaterial and exist in isolation from all material things;
which, along with (1)–(3), yields:
(5) Therefore, I am secunda facie warranted in believing that I am not a material thing.”
The correct inference to draw from this argument and Hasker’s UoC argument is that the brain sciences can merely study the brain and its physiology and that it’s not studying “ourselves.” Both of the arguments establish the conclusion that the self, “I”, the bearer of mental states and experiences, is immaterial and so they cannot be studied by science. This doesn’t even touch on the arguments for the immateriality of thought. Thus, ultimately, what makes us “us” cannot be studied by science. Your claims that we can use correlated genes to infer that “specific genes help us predict which ones have X” is laughable and doesn’t undercut my ultimate conclusion—that the self is immaterial and cannot be studied by science and so the fact that the immateriality of the mind means it cannot be studied by science.
See also premise 7 of William Hasker’s Unity of Consciousness argument which establishes the conclusion that the brain/nervous system/body is not the subject of visual experience, a non-physical mind/soul is:
“If the subject is not the brain or the nervous system then it is (or contains as a proper part) a non-physical mind or soul; that is, a mind that is not ontologically reducible to the sorts of entities studied in the physical sciences.”
I’d like to believe that RR is consistent in his views. However, he has done a poor job of defining his positions with clarity.
I’ve asked him before what kind of Dualist he is. He’s never given me a straight answer, leading me to believe that he doesn’t even know. I don’t think he realizes how important it is. I think he may just be picking and choosing arguments that he believes support his views and then doesn’t give any thought to how they ‘jive’ with the rest of his opinions.
For example, in the comment above, he claims that the irreducibility of the mental to the physical (meaning you can’t explain mental phenomena with physical concepts) means physical states != mental states. Therefore, you can not provide a scientific framework for mental phenomena.
The problem with this thought process is that he has argued in the past that Biology is irreducible to Chemistry which is irreducible to Physics (I believe to argue some other point). If this is the case, then by the same logic, Biology is not a science. This is obviously false. So, Physical science isn’t the only kind of science. Moreover, the Mental’s irreducibility doesn’t entail that it cannot be a science. Because if Biology cannot explain what isn’t physically reducible, then Biology can’t even explain Biology. Which is absurd.
But maybe he meant to say something else. Either way, he needs to do a better job in elucidating his ideas to people like us who don’t have time to bury our noses in every book on the Philosophy of Mind. I haven’t read anything relevant to the subject in a while, mostly because Neuroscience made me move on rather quickly. I’m still curious, though, and I wish he cared more about the discussion rather than trying to make a point.
Melo,
I am a substance dualist of the Lowe variety (Non-Cartesian Substance Dualism), but I do recognize that other arguments for dualism, like Hasker’s, Foster’s, Lund’s show that physicalism is false. The referent of “I” (the subject/bearer of mental states) is immaterial.
As regards the irreducibility of the mental to the physical and the irreducibility of certain scientific fields, the claim is that biology doesn’t reduce to chemistry because there are aspects of biology that are due to the whole and the interactions, not merely reduced chemistry. I’ve taken a few chemistry courses and while I realize, of course, the importance of the chemical processes that go on in our bodies daily and when we ingest food, the whole has certain aspects that cannot be reduced to constituent parts; they are emergent from them.
rr is getting super annoying.
physicalism = gay
dualism = bi
idealism = straight
read the upanishads and STFU!
See also premise 7 of William Hasker’s Unity of Consciousness argument…
^^^LOW IQ AUTISM^^^
you’re begging me to bring the vedanta down on you.
anglo-american-analytic philosophy isn’t philosophy. it’s for really really really dumb people who also have autism. and that’s the way capital likes it. no dangerous thoughts.
thus rr keeps making the same retarded mistake over and over and over again.
philosophy is NOT arguments. this is just 12 year girl shit.
it’s a route to a summit from which one can see what he could not see before.
no amount of arguing can produce FACTS. the analytic a posteriori doesn’t exist.
there is one very simple solution to all of the soidisant problems in the (pseudo-)philosophy of mind. inter alia:
1. solipsism
2. consciousness
3. qualia
and it was found more than 2,500 years ago by some russian steppe polo players living in what is today uttar pradesh.
the very idea that these pseudophilosophers use arguments is so utterly disgusting.
1. it’s an example of how they don’t even know what logic is.
2. it’s an example of how they have a cargo cult regarding natural science…they know they’re morons deep down so they try to sound sciency and EPIC FAIL! they just sound even dumber.
Pumpkin, did my post not go through? I made a comment earlier that was long as hell, and now it’s not here.
It even said “Your comment is awaiting moderation”
wordpress misclassified it as spam but found it & approved it.
Should I approve your second try also?
Could you unapprove it and just leave the second one up? I think I like the second one more.
done
Lol, thank you.
It sucks because I had a long ass comment, but I guess I’ll try again. Forgive me if this one seems lazy.
Pumpkin,
It’s best not to get too caught up in the semantics behind the concepts being used. To put it simply:
X is a sufficient cause of Y if Y always comes after X
X is a necessary cause of Y if Y can only come after X
Regarding the intensionality of select-for statements, RR is essentially saying that because Natural Selection cannot differentiate between fitness-causing traits and traits correlated to fitness-causing traits, then Natural selection fails as an explanation for trait variation.
Another way to put this would be that whole organisms, not traits, are selected by Natural Selection because all that is required for “selection” is that an organism reproduces. Subsequently, to say that trait X is selected for function Y in environment A would hold for all traits that are coextensive to X. Meaning Natural selection doesn’t actually explain anything because the same story holds true for both traits, despite one not being fitness-causing.
However, Fodor acknowledges it’s possible to clarify which traits are fitness-causing and which ones aren’t without Natural Selection. In fact, we do it all the time! Fodor’s argument wouldn’t make sense if we couldn’t distinguish between fitness-causing traits and their ‘free riders’ because his whole argument is about the Theory of Natural Selection’s ability (or lack of) to differentiate without ‘outside help.’
As a result, I don’t believe RR’s argument is efficacious, and as such, I think you can make your ‘just-so stories’ with abandon because Natural Selection may not be able to predict anything, but you can.
RR,
“I am a substance dualist of the Lowe variety”
Would you mind explaining to me how this differs from Cartesian Dualism?
“the claim is that biology doesn’t reduce to chemistry because there are aspects of biology that are due to the whole and the interactions, not merely reduced chemistry”
Of course, but you stated that Biology could not explain what is not physically reducible. Biology is not physically reducible; therefore, Biology cannot explain biology. Do you believe Biology isn’t science?
Yea Melo, F&PP did say that—that humans can distinguish the fit trait from the free rider, but we CANNOT use the ToNS to do so. By the way I agree with your exposition of the argument.
I know there is a better quote in the book but I can’t find it right now. This is from their Reply to Critics:
“Our claim is that, given coextensive phenotypic traits, TNS can’t distinguish ones that are causally active from one’s that aren’t. Many of the objections that have been raised against us seem unable to discriminate this claim from such quite different ones that we didn’t and don’t endorse, such as: when traits are coextensive, there is no fact of the matter about which is a cause of fitness; or, when traits are coextensive, there is no way to tell which of them is a cause of fitness; or when traits are coextensive Science cannot determine which is a cause of fitness…etc. Such views are, we think, preposterous on the face of them; we wouldn’t be caught dead holding them. To the contrary, it is precisely because there is a fact of the matter about which phenotypic traits cause fitness, and because there is no principled reason why such facts should be inaccessible to empirical inquiry, that the failure of TNS to explain what distinguishes causally active traits from mere correlates of causally of active traits, shows that something is seriously wrong with TNS.”
And (8) in this outline says something similar.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228344783_An_Outline_of_the_Fodor_Piattelli-Palmarini_Argument_against_Natural_Selection
Re NCSD:
The main distinction is that NCSD holds that humans are bearers of physical and mental substances; Descartes held that subjects of experience ONLY held mental properties and that bodies/brains ONLY held physical properties. NCSD holds that humans are bearers of physical AND mental properties, thus 2 distinct substances exist but they are not identical with each other and so the self is a simple substance (eg Barnett’s “I am simple” argument).
Re biology:
Do you mean science cannot explain what is physically irreducible?
Of course biology is scientific. But it’s not reducible to chemistry/physics; it is it’s own thing. There are emergent properties of the whole that we cannot glean from the parts which is why it’s ridiculous to claim that biology reduces to other sciences. It’s a different anti-reductionist argument, in my opinion, than that of the irreducibility of the mental to the physical.
Regarding the intensionality of select-for statements, RR is essentially saying that because Natural Selection cannot differentiate between fitness-causing traits and traits correlated to fitness-causing traits, then Natural selection fails as an explanation for trait variation.
But we can infer which trait was likely more causal by the degree of selection. We see this even if in the selection that occurs in professional sports. NBA players are more extreme in height than they are in weight and NFL players are more extreme in weight than they are in height. This tells us that height is likely more causal than weight in basketball success and vice versa in football success.
Similarly, we might ask whether giraffes have long necks because height causes fitness and long necks are correlated with height, or if the necks themselves are fitness enhancing? Most biologists would say it’s more the latter and their necks have increased much more than their height has.
In other words, the causal variable is likely to much more correlated with fitness than the free rider.
I don’t believe RR’s argument is efficacious,…
^^^AUTISM^^^
Speaking of autism, I’m curious as to where you base your philosophy from Mugabe. Why are you an idealist?
why? hahahahaha.
that question itself is pure autism.
As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.
When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.
to speak of matter as real or existing makes no sense. it’s nonsense. it’s meaningless.
bishop berkeley, marvin minsky, max planck, hediegger, chomsky, advaita vedanta, etc.
RR,
That’s interesting. So, what would be the significance of these differences? How would this form of Dualism circumvent common criticisms thrown at Cartesian Dualism?
“It’s a different anti-reductionist argument, in my opinion, than that of the irreducibility of the mental to the physical.”
What is the difference between the irreducibility of the mental and the irreducibility of Biology? To me, it seems like you argue that because the mental is irreducible to physics, there cannot be a science of the mind. Likewise, you suggest that Biology cannot explain what is not physically irreducible, and since the mental is not physically reducible, Biology cannot explain the mind. So, that signals to me that you believe Biology cannot explain biology.
You know Puppy youre probably right about cold winter theory causing some IQ gains in some humans so I concede on that. But I would say most of the IQ gains in modern humans have been from civilisation and economic specialisation. This mutation is probably the cold winter stuff but its too early to say.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/21/donald-trump-lawsuit-new-york-investigation
Trumps social genius shows again. He called James the black AG going after him a racist LOL.
I predict conservatives will start calling anti-white behaviours ‘racist’. Trump is a genius at using the jews own words and turning it against them e.g. ‘fake news’.
how is this genius anyone can have the creativity levels to call someone a racist in an ironic fashion!
you do it all the time so i dont expect a former president to be as retarded as you are. although Trump wouldnt surprise a lot of people if he was.
Its genius. No politician in their right mind would call a black woman a racist. And definitely not the AG prosecuting them for fraud.
its not genius you fucking idiot its bold! ive seen whites call other people racist for the sake of irony all the time. its called humor Pill you dont get it!
LOL Trump called her racist to invert the term. Just like he did with the term ‘fake news’ and other jew swear words. He loves doing it.
People who call black people racist usually did it for anger but Trump chooses that word strategically.
You fucking moron thats exactly what irony is goddammit!
My god Pill you are so goddamned fucking stupid! Wow!
This ‘punctuated equilibrium’ theory….Gould is a genius and if he says people randomly mutate in extreme ways and these adaptations are quickly copied and pasted, then hes the expert.
But its also a cover because incremental evolution is always happening, generation to generation. Gould must believe in the second type of evolution also happens otherwise he was a total charlatan.
I’ve watched numerous videos of Gould talking and hes simply too smart not to know about racial differences.
^^^JEW^^^
“punctuated equilibrium” = evolution is a falsified theory.
professor shoe is so autistic he describes gould as high V low M because only 99th percentile M instead of 99.99th percentile or whatever.
reality is shoe is high M low V. sad.
gould was named after gentile jay gould because sheckel worship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Gould
Can anyone tell the difference between a cheap suit and a high end suit?
I lost all my clothes on the train a few years ago and bought a cheapish suit from Zara.
I look at pictures of these private equity people and politicians and basically can’t tell the difference.
the difference is one is bespoke and fits much better and thus feels much better. but sometimes the expensive pret-a-porter looks trashy.
at least they have a sense of humor. americans are so sensitive! lmao!
No youre talking about tailoring. Obviously tailoring a suit can happen to cheap suits.
In terms of aesthetics I can’t see any difference.
do you believe in measuring intelligence through fmris RR? because that would be interesting route to take one ive long pondered on and of course measuring total cognition personality etc. as well.
there are a lot of ways to subvert the “cognition is not intelligence” nonsense being thrown around here
I wonder what Chomsky truly thinks about blacks.
Pingback: Was Richard Klein right? Major mutation may have made Sapiens smarter than Neanderthals – Glyn Hnutu-healh: History, Alchemy, and Me
What a reductionist – and clearly bullshit – take. Reducing brain function to genes is hilarious – yet again I’m proven right that hereditarianism is a form of mind-brain identity.
The gene mutation literally causes more neurons to grow. Been proven in mice, ferrets, fetal tissue, and brain organoids.
Brains are necessary conditions for minds and genes (plural) play a causal role in building the brain (along with other developmental resources) but this means nothing interesting for mentality nor does it mean that mental states can be/are genetically transmitted. Brains are necessary pre-conditions for our minds, but Tha doesn’t mean that a form of mind-brain identity or genetic reductionism that you’re pushing is true.
You’re falling for the fallacy that since genes are needed for brain-building and that there are genetic differences between X and Y, that the genetic differences cause the differences between them. But psychophysical reductionism is false. So genes don’t explain differences in mental traits.
Brains are necessary conditions for minds and genes (plural) play a causal role in building the brain (along with other developmental resources) but this means nothing interesting for mentality nor does it mean that mental states can be/are genetically transmitted
But it does mean the necessary condition for a mental state are genetically transmitted. Obviously no gene will make a person smart if he’s deprived of all sensory input from birth, but assuming normal environments, variations in necessary conditions will predict variation in mental phenotypes.
“variations in necessary conditions will predict variations in mental phenotypes”
What do you mean? Are you claiming that the variation in the necessary condition (genes) would predict—due to causing—the mental phenotype?
Depends how you define “cause”. A lot of people would say “necessary condition” = cause. But regardless of what words you want to use, the empirical reality is necessary condition for a given phenotype will correlate with said phenotype, because those who don’t have the required genes will NEVER have the mental phenotype and those who do will sometimes have it.
So genes cause/influence mental abilities even thought the mind isn’t reducible to the brain?
You already admitted they do. They are necessary conditions.
Necessary condition—“A condition A is said to be necessary for a condition B, if (and only if) the falsity (/nonexistence /non-occurrence) [as the case may be] of A guarantees (or brings about) the falsity (/nonexistence /non-occurrence) of B.”
Sufficient condition—“A condition A is said to be sufficient for a condition B, if (and only if) the truth (/existence /occurrence) [as the case may be] of A guarantees (or brings about) the truth (/existence /occurrence) of B.”
https://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/conditions1.htm
That I admit genes as necessary causes doesn’t mean I believe that genes cause/influence psychological traits/mental abilities since without genes there are no organisms.
rr is a mossad account.
RR when will you have time to publish my comments on your blog?
There are genes that cause the brain in humans to form dumbass. Why do you even talk to RR.
Because he wants to! DEAL WIT IT NIGGA!
yet again I’m proven right that hereditarianism is a form of mind-brain identity.
does rr want to equate the very little genetic variation AMHs with hominins in general?
with a potato?
IT’S CALLED AN AUFHEBUNG!
WHEN BOTH SIDES ARE WRONG = A FAILED PARADIGM!
i actually do have Jewish ancestry in India its either Cochin or Bene Israel or whatever.
Poompkin what happened to my comment about me being Cochin and Bene Israel Jew?
its legit!
Sorry. I forgot to approve it because a flood of comments were coming in at that time. It’s approved now.
so you’re saying. — peepee
brain size matters WITHIN the human species.
it just doesn’t matter that much.
oprah’s dog did not have the same experience sadly.
Oprah is leaving her dogs $30 million. She believes her dogs have little souls which means she believes they have minds
I mean, it’s been empirically established that dogs have thoughts. I think RR is redefining what people mean by thoughts and then claiming that animals don’t think because of this new definition.
Thought is purely the action of visualizing things. You don’t need language for that. I believe RR is conflating an inner dialogue, which is something exclusive to Humans, with thought.
It’s also intuitively apparent that animals have minds. When I walk into my father’s house, I don’t think about whether my siblings have minds. I just talk to them as if they do. Likewise, it seems weird that humans have difficulty admitting that other organisms also have thoughts. In my opinion, it’s just anthropocentrism.
i dont think souls have anything to do with consciousness if they even exist. just my take on it would be interesting to hear others speak on the subject here.
the most “vulnerable” group is the one group which has no voice and poses very little threat to any humans.
something is wrong with davidson’s argument.
if a lion could speak we couldn’t understand him.
it’s just anthropocentrism.
which somehow isn’t as bad as ethnocentrism?
What? No, I think it’s pretty bad. Partly responsible for climate change and animal cruelty.
anthropocentricism is way worse because of its impact on a wider range of living beings.
without humans existing maybe some other animal wouldve come along and been smarter/more intelligent than us in so many ways!
Just a précision about Thoughts which have a varied phenomenology :
– inner speech (« uttered » but in ones mind like speaking to a recording machine)
– inner voice (« heard » like listening to a recording machine with one’s voice or several voices)
– imagery
– abstract thinking (thinking without wording or visualizing, only 30% have access to this modality)
Some people use inner speech for more analytical and detailed thinking and imagery for just default thinking mode but it’s not always the case in particular for people – like me – who don’t have imagery.
There is also all sort of combination « imagery + abstract thinking) and (imagery + inner voice) are the most usual combinations. Inner speech usually comes alone.
Each modality can represent from 0% to 100% of one person « thoughts » instanciation.
Peeps, which do you think is the most attractive ethnicity ( not race) and which human past or present had/has the greatest mind?
Nordics are the most attractive. Greatest mind: Ching Yon Ling Dang Suna Nuna Chow.
The explanation is RR is totally dumb. I mean, I used to think Marsha was being very harsh to call him the dumbest person in the comment section but over the years I realised he doesn’t get anything.
“Oprah is leaving her dogs $30 million.”
Hahahaha she thinks her dogs are worth so much that she won’t leave that money to impoverished blacks. What a generous spirit
To tell Pill the truth….CWT might have some credibility just based on the fact the largest IQ gains over the last thousand or so years would have been concurrent with the Little Ice Age or just shortly before that.
just my analysis though.
supposedly neanderthals never evolved behaviorally. their culture was the same for 400,000 years. if they could speak i find this hard to believe.
Our culture was the same for 400,000 years too. Virtually all cultural innovation started 50,000 years ago
yeah culture brought all types of good things but it left us vulnerable in a lot of ways too!
also primitive humans had spatial and maybe even innate numerical abilities that far surpass any gains we could make in verbosity over the last hundreds of thousands of years! so there is that to be recognized!
then those old AMHs in ethiopia and morocco couldn’t speak either or the record is simply incomplete.
Peeps, you said in this article that neanderthals had elongated heads. Oprah also has an elongated head ( look at her head/skull shape)
Blacks in general have elongated heads but Oprah’s head is also very high
JESUS CHRIST. Is that the legendary Santo? You let him back????
he left by choice
Is that really him?
I’m not an expert on pre-modern humans but this claim of yours that cro-magnon and neanderthals had the same IQs as humans might only apply to blacks who basically had no evolution in the mind.
humans differ from all other animals not just in language but in that they evolve by two means, one of which is not biological, namely technology and culture.
the assumption that ancient peoples and paleolithic peoples were innately dumber is sadistic evil racism against a group even more vulnerable and voiceless than animals, aka dead people.
pill: we moderns are so smart. we have computers and penicillin and writing and …
mugabe: how does a computer work?
pill: i dunno.
mugabe: go into the woods and survive by yourself.
pill: muh dick.
Sounds like you’re saying cultural evolution would largely replace genomic evolution. The Cochran HBDers would say it would speed it up
^^^AUTISM^^^
human beings have it all about them thats why anthropocentricism is a fucking disease for sakes! they dont know how to relate to anything that is non human.
aliens will see this as a threat if they engage with us and destroy us for a justifiable reason rather than using their own reasoning to prevent destruction!
we wouldve done the same to any creature that is not us. hell we dont even value figurative entities like angels or even spirits (which were technically once human) so we cant value other LIVING creatures well either!
Evolution continued after modern humans developed. In fact it accelerated .
You people are so dumb its untrue. The 30 or 40 point difference between ashkenazi jews and blacks from Ghana is so large it is basically a qualitative difference.
Mugabe alongside believing in jesus as god’s son and the resurrection, you also believe black women can be as smart as jews when raised in the perfect environment…..
Did you get hit on the head when you were younger? Did a piano fall on you?
afaik the full range of humanity can be found in every race of man. so you have black africans scoring at the very top in their school leaving exams in the uk and japan.
but what constitutes the perfect environment varies across individuals and groups. what is best for you is not always best for me. what is best for us is not always best for them.
it’s easy to make a black genius. just make him a slave to jews and neuter him so he can think about things other bittches and hos and basketball.
We also have women over seven feet tall. Doesn’t prove sex differences in height are not genetic
Steve Schu basically works for the Chinese government so anything he says is probably mirrored by the Chinese scientific elites.
I am 100% certain the Chinese are editing embryo DNA as we speak to make smarter humans and the effort will have mixed results but not because its practically impossible to increase IQ as Mugabe says, but because its very hard to increase IQ without trade-offs. Most of these high IQ embryos will probably have autism.
If you wanted super high IQ autists, a more cheaper and technically feasible substitute is just to invest in supercomputers that do the exact same thinking as autists.
PGS is a bust for intelligence. the missing heritability isn’t missing because it was never there. PGS does work pretty well for height. but that’s about it.
OR
the function relating genome to phenotype for quantitative/polygenic traits is so complex it can’t be estimated even with 8 billion genotypes. but if this is the case it would take a really really long time and an enormous breeding program to find a maximum in the landscape much above its current value.
[redacted by pp, 2022-09-23]
PGS is a bust for intelligence. the missing heritability isn’t missing because it was never there. PGS does work pretty well for height. but that’s about it.
PGS correlates about 0.3 with education but since education only correlates about 0.55 with IQ (in mixed-age samples) we can guess it will correlate 0.3/0.55 = 0.55 with IQ which is similar to the 0.65 prediction for height. Both correlations may also be limited by range restriction since the people in the UK biobank might not be as variable as the British or Americans as a whole.
Height will always do better because it’s a bit more genetic as we already knew from twin studies.
Once it becomes cheap enough to search the entire genome and not just common variants and once machine learning allows us to look at gene*gene interactions and other non-additive effects, these correlation will increase by at least 0.15
Mugabe is an idiot if he doesn’t think IQ is at least somewhat genetic. I agree with Mugabe that environment can be important as well though.
PGS correlates LESS with IQ.
STOP LYING AND GET A MEMORY!
correlates less with their 2 minute IQ test which is probably less g loaded than education
What’s the distinction between “IQ” and achievement tests? I agree with Mugabe—the heritability isn’t missing because it was never there. That’s why there is such a huge gulf in “variance explained” between twin studies and GWAS/PGS.
Who said anything about achievement tests?
[redacted by pp, 2022-09-24]
answer: there is no difference. except for marketing (aka lying). soidisant achievement tests correlate with soidisant IQ tests as well as such correlate with one another. they are psychometrically INDISTINGUISHABLE.
cue peepee saying retarded shit when i told her never to respond to any of my comments.
Correlates as well among who? Knowing how to make a cup of tea my mom would like is very g loaded among my family members but would be a weak measure of g for everyone else.
^^^retarded shit^^^
PP the question is an apt one as it concerns “educational phenotypes” and the “tests” they use for their “measures.”
If they had used a well-validated achievement test like the SAT they would have likely found more heritability. Instead they used a 2 minute test and self-reports about highest diploma/ degree obtained and self-reported math talent. How far you went in school is only a mediocre predictor of how well you’ll do on an IQ test/achievement test & self-reported math skill is a very imperfect measure of actual math skill.
But if they all have similar item content and structure then they necessarily correlate with each other. Nevermind that “finding more heritability” is a nonsense claim as it has nothing to do with genetic “strength.”
https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcs.1400
The SAT, more so than other tests, is class-based due to the item content on it as Kidder and Rosner show.
ive come to expect nothing from other people or at least the worst sides of them.
look im very low in sadism and still feel very sadistic to other people (told i was about 20th percentile for sadism by an autistic online friend of mine who is well versed in these things.)
im im that low for sadism that must mean the average person is evil as fuck. that is so sad. wow.
the despair of this world and of humans in specific is so large and grand that is amazing to think that we can even continue to survive another few centuries let alone enough to make a run at reaching another Solar System at any time!
One of my favourite commenters down the years was a black guy called Jason who used to rip into RR for being a racist. I loved it. Those were the good ol days.
I would even call Jason a friend.
I would vote for Jason if he ran for public office.
The neoliberals are trying their best to crash the economy now in the UK. They might actually do it.
[redacted by pp, 2022-09-23]
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-018-0147-3
A joint (multi-phenotype) analysis of educational attainment and three related cognitive phenotypes generates polygenic scores that explain 11–13% of the variance in educational attainment and 7–10% of the variance in cognitive performance.
A joint (multi-phenotype) analysis of educational attainment and three related cognitive phenotypes generates polygenic scores that explain 11–13% of the variance in educational attainment and 7–10% of the variance in cognitive performance.
The three cognitive phenotypes were self-reported math skill, highest math class taken and a 2 minute IQ test. Of course polygenic scores derived from such attenuated proxies for IQ will have limited predictive potence.
On the other hand, education was well phenotyped so results for that variable were stronger.
my UK biobank results that come from geneplaza told me im a huge risk taker! like 80th to 90th percentile! would make sense!
there are other ones im high for too. me being fed up is really low and me having a heart attack is very very low too.
in every case…women over 7′ tall have some identifiable pathology. and if and when it is genetic it is only one gene.
i’m tired of making excuses for [n word redacted by pp, 2022-09-24]
Well there are non-pathological East Asians over 7 feet tall and some even play for the NBA. Does this disprove your claim that Whites are genetically taller than East Asians?
IQ = SOCIAL TRAIT
MICROCEPHALY = NON-SOCIAL TRAIT
RACE = NON-SOCIAL TRAIT (cue rr being autistic)
PSYCHOLOGY = EFFEMINATE MEN AND DYKES
ECONOMICS = EFFEMINATE MEN AND DYKES
SOCIAL “SCIENCE” IN GENERAL = EFFEMINATE MEN AND DYKES
CAPICHE?
“I’M TIRED OF PRETENDING I’M NOT SPECIAL.” — carlos esteves
cue girl fantasy:
cue reality:
and jealousy and shame become hatred.
what if the master of master-blaster had a master riding on him too…
and he was a brahmin.
PP do racist whites in Canada say the N-word? Is racism against blacks as prevalent there as it is down here in the southern US?
Ontario is very anti-racist. Alberta is more like the U.S.. Whenever I go do down there I put on my cowboy hat and cowboy boots and kick racist ass.
Do racist whites in Alberta say the N-word?
South Asians especially Hindus suck major cock. why do you think theyve made such little progress over the last thousands of years?
that’s what pipo said about germans 2,000 years ago.
wait…that’s what i said yesterday.
churchill wanted to castrate all german men. i agree. plus force them to speak english.
i dunno what the fuck youre talking about.
In the last thousand years, hindus civilized muslims and islam in south Asia. Sufism is a product of this. And muslims have reduced having sex with their sisters, animals , doing gang rapes, child rapes etc They have also become less violent and less sex and food obsessed. There is still work to do nonetheless. Hinduism should’ve spread to saudi arabia…islam would not have arisen.
Peeps, dont delete this comment. If you do, also delete the comment i am responding to.
Pumpkin why do you let this trash through dammit? Name is a Hindu nationalist retard! He should be sent back to Bengal!
If racist men are more masculine the non-racist men, then generally they’re more attractive to women. I’d say its hard for women to square that circle of being attracted to ‘monsters’ but still paying their dues to diversity.
ani-racism = racism
https://www.newsweek.com/antiracism-racist-its-own-terms-opinion-1589353
equity = racism
Mug i didnt know it was possible but you and maybe my parents included would be people i classify as both dangerously autistic and schizophrenic at the same time. like you have traits on both ends of the spectrum.
absolutely dementing it must be for you to even get through one day existing on this Earth! wow!
Loaded you are 100% correct. He is both autistic AND schizophrenic. This is a very rare and DANGEROUS combination.
yes i agree. i think it leads to a sort of psychopathy too that is pretty identifiable as well.
what about racist lesbians like peepee? do other lesbians like that?
have you asked your mother yet Mug? that would be the primary candidate and/or suspect in this situation!