Some folks think HBD can be divided between HBDers like Jensen, Rushton, Lynn, Frost, Cochran, Clark & Jayman and anti-HBDers like Gould, Richard Klein, Chomsky, Steven Jones.
But the real division is not between those who think races differ in IQ and those who don’t; it’s between those who think important cognitive evolution more or less stopped in the Paleolithic, and those who think it speeded up in the last 10,000 years. In the former group I would put not only Gould, Klein, Chomsky, Jones, but also perhaps Rushton, Lynn and Jensen.
In the latter camp, I would put Frost, Jayman, Clark and Cochran.
This is why Native Americans, like our very own “Deal with it”, are so important. They split off from other Northern Eurasians around the time some say intelligence stopped evolving, and most of them remained hunter-gatherers until discovered by Columbus. So if their IQs are similar to those of whites and Northeast Asians, it implies intelligence pretty much stopped evolving in the Upper Paleolithic (with rare exceptions like Jews). But if their IQs are much lower, it implies the neolithic transition and civilization played a major role in the evolution of IQ.
I prefer to believe the former. I love the idea of a nice clean split between biological evolution and cultural evolution. It’s much more romantic to think the modern mind emerged from the wilderness to create civilization than it is to think modernity created the modern mind. Early white settlers may have felt the same way and this partly led to the red man being sometimes valorized as a Nobel savage, reminding Europeans of their own hunter-gatherer roots and thus not dehumanized as slaves as others were.
Now most research suggests that on a scale where white Americans average IQ 100 and fully black descendants of U.S. slaves average 80, Native Americans average 86. Native Americans scoring so close to black Americans suggests very little evolution took place from the time we left African 70,000 years ago, and the time Native Americans split off about 15,000 years ago, and the REAL leap forward occurred, not because exposure to the ice age, but because of events that followed like the neolithic transition, the invention of cities, states, literacy and numeracy.
But not so fast. Native Americans live in abysmal environments. Indeed by some estimates, they are as far below African Americans in socio-economic status as black Americans are below whites. Could cultural deprivation, and not stunted evolution, help explain their low IQs?
Consider the following study:

And yet despite having limited English and living on a reservation, when you eliminate Picture Arrangement (they probably didn’t understand the instructions) their Performance IQ was 100 (U.S. norms). Only 2 points below the U.S. white mean. And notice this study was published only seven years after the WISC-R was normed, so even the most extreme estimates of the Flynn effect would have only inflated their performance IQ by 3 points.

Despite approaching white levels on Performance IQ, their verbal IQs averaged in the mildly retarded range though this can be blamed on their limited English.
At the very least, one might argue that at least Performance IQ stopped evolving in the Upper Paleolithic.
Reference: Hynd, G. W., Kramer, R., Quackenbush, R., Conner, R., & Weed, W. (1979). Clinical Utility of the WISC-R and the French Pictorial Test of Intelligence with Native American Primary Grade Children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49(2), 480–482.
It doesn’t sound likely that Ashkenazim increased their (verbal/quantitative) IQs by 10+ points in less than 1000 years, but 5000+ years of civilization didn’t have a major effect on the other races.
someone buy this guy a fricking book lol. whites had IQs of 85 back in the Middle Ages according to estimates etc. why is it unlikely?
east asians also probably increased their capacity a lot and there certainly were tremendous drops in intelligence like in the Mayan or Polynesian world or elsewhere.
hard to identify IQ over large periods of time anyways!
Jews were extremely unique in that they were doing white collar jobs at a time when 90% of Europe was working on farms so this allowed for rapid punctuated evolution.
In theory evolution can happen fast. If you killed off everyone with an IQ below 170, leaving an average IQ of 175 as the survivors, the next generation would be 0.6(75) + 100 =145
Why do you keep saying IQ always reverts to the mean? If you killed everyone below 170IQ, the new mean would be higher right?
If IQ always reverted to the mean, the group average would never have risen in the first place.
The new average would be higher than 170 at first but then the survivors would slowly die off & be replaced by their kids who would still be way smarter than the pre-massacre population, but not as smart as their parents. There’d be no further regression in the successive generations so a permanent increase would have occured.
Why would further regression just magically stop? According to you it should continue sinking further until it reached 100 again.
Well are you going to answer?
This is the problem with using a statistical artefact to explain biology. You say stupid things.
Regression is just educating guessing. If all you know about someone is their parents’ IQ and the average IQ, your best guess is they are in between since most people resemble both the average and their parents.
But after the second generation, the average IQ of the population and the average IQ of the parents are the same, hence no more regression.
having a logical conversation with Pill is impossible.
“Regression to the mean” as hereditarians use it is bunk (see Cernovsky and Littman, 2019).
rr’s autism is just RUDE.
type in his reference to google scholar and nothing. first is about using mj for pain.
“Jews were extremely unique in that they were doing white collar jobs at a time when 90% of Europe was working on farms so this allowed for rapid punctuated evolution.”
Jews already constituted a despised class of money-lenders in the Roman Empire during the time of Christ.
I suspect that high Ashkenazi I.Q. has some other explanation – possibly Jewish merchants and usurers ‘buying’ German wives.
“extremely unique”
“Unique” means “without any equivalent”. There are no degrees of “uniqueness”. It’s binary. Either something is unique or it isn’t.
i was voted most unique in 8th grade.
Pumpkin where did my comment go here? i didnt say anything obscene i said i was voted most unique in 8th grade. you post personal stuff of mine all the time what makes a difference now?
Loaded, stop freaking out everytime one of your comments get accidentally moderated or 100% of your comments will get INTENTIONALLY moderated.
if you’re half metis then you’re not 100% aryan peepee.
So if I write an article on Mexican will you say I’m half Mexican. You have such a low IQ.
https://preview.redd.it/o7smjr7qy8g51.png?auto=webp&s=aa14e0403e90112acbb891e804f2744256982230
Ganzir would you bathe in Emma Watsons sweat and tears?
sasquatches are infinitely sexier than black women. but that’s not saying much.
some tribes look more european than chinapipo. thus iron eyes cody was actually an italian.
Coagulation.
The socioeconomic environment (civilization) needs to steady before things sort out.
But that is not steady. war famine disease. too much flux.
are genes changing?
Once again, you throw all your chips on the table in response to 1 study of children. WTF. These assessments with children are problematic.
Anyways, the main point still holds. Blacks never evolved. People who left Africa developed perhaps mainly in performance IQ.
People who developed civilisation seen even further gains in performance and verbal IQ.
Also theres the stupid conclusion. If Natives had similar performance IQ to whites, then why didn’t they invent anything?
they independently invented TWO civilizations. Whites invented zero (though in the last 500 years white civilization has leap frogged to the pinnacle)
From wiki:
Scholarship generally identifies six areas where civilization emerged independently:[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]
Fertile Crescent, incl. Mesopotamia (Tigris–Euphrates Valley) and the Levant
Nile Valley
Indo-Gangetic Plain
North China Plain
Andean Coast
Mesoamerican Gulf Coast
LOL of course whites invented a civilisation and it was a lot more advanced than the meso-american ones. Ancient Rome was more advanced than anything in America pre Columbus.
Ancient Rome was not an INDEPENDENT civilization, it borrowed from other civilizations.
The only places where civilization emerged independently were places warm enough for good farming but cold enough to have a high IQ population.
Totally false. The Greeks and Romans were great stuff and totally unique from anything around them.
But they didn’t create it from scratch. An independent civilization is one that rises up spontaneously from the wilderness with no help or inspiration from other civilizations.
I thought the first two were white people …
Bruno your ignorance is showing again! lol.
How do the Olmec/Maya and Andean civilizations fit your little theory? Let me guess. Something like they were directly descended from people who went through “cold winters”, right?
Europeans also didn’t have an independently created language/writing. And I would argue that to narrow it down even more, there needs to be an independently created language/writing.
greece and rome were far more sophisticated than any other ancient civilization. FACT!
alphabetic writing was invented by people living in what is today lebanon and northern israel. FACT.
rr needs a haircut. FACT.
but other people had developed non-alphabetic writing prior.
as someone with Middle Eastern/Levantine ancestry (about 10 percent) we are not white we are Caucasoid however.
anyways i hope Pumpkin posts my rap video because it impacted the rapper who did that song (Lil Baby) did the whole Black Lives Matter scene by himself. what an influential guy for the profession he is in!
“Ancient Rome was not an INDEPENDENT civilization, it borrowed from other civilizations.”
“they independently invented TWO civilizations. Whites invented zero (though in the last 500 years white civilization has leap frogged to the pinnacle)”
Every civilization borrows from its neighbors, whether those neighbors are ‘civilized’ or not. The Greek debt to Egypt and Babylon was paltry, the cultural equivalent of receiving a ‘free’ high school education.
And the past 500 years? By 300 BC the Greeks had already established their absolute cultural and military superiority. The Hellenized Romans established an empire utterly unparalleled in global significance.
Even during the Middle Ages Europeans (Occam, Grosseteste, Buridan, Oresme, Cusanus, Bradwardine . . .) were doing better and more fruitful science and mathematics than the Chinese.
I also seriously question whether people who never invented the wheel or left the Chalcolithic could be said to have created a ‘civilization’, especially given their cannibalistic tendencies.
Ockham was a good guy. he does not take kindly to blasphemy!
HBD is a fake debate between jews who know evolution continued but lie about it and gentiles who state the facts based on empirical testing.
All jews have to do is look at their own test scores and try to explain it.
Look, Jews have excellent verbal IQs, so their explanations are always great.
“Native Americans scoring so close to black Americans suggests very little evolution took place from the time we left African 70,000 years ago, and the time Native Americans split off about 15,000 years ago, and the REAL leap forward occurred, not because exposure to the ice age, but because of events that followed like the neolithic transition, the invention of cities, states, literacy and numeracy.”
So you finally accept cold winter theory doesn’t explain much.
Thank you for finally agreeing with me.
Anyways natives contradict your theory that mongloids have higher IQs than whites.
The theory is that mongoloids have higher IQs than Caucasoids. You’re comparing the lowest IQ mongolids to one of the highest IQ Caucasoids. Apples and Oranges. And some dispute Native Americans are fully Mongoloid.
You lump Indians in with people from Sweden. Youre so ridiculous. Whereas eskimos and people that live in Alaska are pretty similar to east asians.
PP that’s not a theory that’s a claim. The theory would be that cold winters explain the higher “IQ” of Mongoloids compared to Caucasoids. But over the past 35 years we’ve seen how ridiculous the theory truly is. Nevermind the empirical fact that Asians were seen as “dumber” and smaller-brained than other races throughout history, as the table in Lieberman (2004) shows.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/09/08/mongoloid-idiots-asians-and-down-syndrome/
What do you mean by “fully Mongoloid”? Are you talking about the theory that there is “white” ancestry in East Asians and similar people from some phantom migrations? Like the whites in the middle of the country who claim to be descendants of Jews who migrated to the America’s?
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/native-americans-jews-the-lost-tribes-episode/
This paper shows that, in “Neuvomexicanos” that “the fraction [of Sephardic Jewish ancestry] is no greater than seen for other New World Spanish descendant populations.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6756731/
Nevermind the differing cultural histories of Native American groups.
“What do you mean by “fully Mongoloid”? Are you talking about the theory that there is “white” ancestry in East Asians and similar people from some phantom migrations? ”
No, He’s talking about how Native Americans, despite having clear East Asian ancestry, do not have the same skeletal morphology as other Mongoloids. It’s similar, though. That’s why some Anthropologists have argued for putting them in their own racial category.
Exactly. While they have very superficial Mongoloid traits (straight black hair, eye fold), their skulls cluster with Caucasoids according to one analysis
https://pumpkinperson.com/2020/08/15/the-3-main-divisions-in-the-human-species/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Niemann
The guy that cheats in chess tournaments.
Is he a jew?
As soon as I read about the cheating controversy in chess I immediately wondered whether the cheater was a jew.
and is of mixed Hawaiian and Danish ancestry.
LOL!
They don’t mean danish like I mean it.
Of course they don’t, that’s why it’s funny.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli
This guy is pretty notorious and demonstrated very danish behaviours.
But he is not actually a dane. He is an albanian catholic.
As soon as I saw this guy in the news I would have bet my house he was a jew but I was wrong. Sometimes my ‘radar’ is wrong.
Im reading this career history and I can’t understand how he kept raising money from investors after running his funds into insolvency.
Who was feeding this guy money to gamble like this?
Was it really just a ponzi scheme?
Its kind of depressing to think the West is controlled by high IQ gypsies.
David Rockefeller. Dupont. Dillon. Please come back. All is forgiven.
If you believe America is run by Danes then you believe America is run by NEW money and must admit Forbes was right about their being more new billionaires than old.
Well jews have lots of old money as well. Also there was more new money in the 40s-80s. But since then, its probably slowed a lot due to neoliberalism.
Those old families that tried to get rid of FDR in a coup are still somewhat powerful but they intermarried with jews and also as we suggested the other day, the money is tied up in trusts rather than individuals unlike jewish fortunes.
But the vast majority of old money in the U.S. is WASP money. If old money dominates, then WASPS are in charge, not Jews.
They may or may not have more money but, the jews have a vice-like grip on power.
Are there any gentile hedge fund managers that are actually good? (that don’t use insider info).
The only ones that seem capable of competing with jews are these really technical quant funds that basically use computers to trade.
Warren Buffet can only compete by being an autist. I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the top gentile hedgies had autism to some degree also.
“Some folks think HBD can be divided between HBDers like Jensen, Rushton, Lynn, Frost, Cochran, Clark & Jayman and anti-HBDers like Gould, Richard Klein, Chomsky, Steven Jones.”
Who’s the odd man out?
“But the real division is not between those who think races differ in IQ and those who don’t; it’s between those who think important cognitive evolution more or less stopped in the Paleolithic, and those who think it speeded up in the last 10,000 years. In the former group I would put not only Gould, Klein, Chomsky, Jones, but also perhaps Rushton, Lynn and Jensen.”
Throughout all the years I’ve been citing the book, have you read Full House yet?
“The most impressive contrast between natural evolution and cultural evolution lies embedded in the major fact of our history. We have no evidence that the modal form of human bodies or brains has changed at all in the past 100,000 years—a standard phenomenon of stasis for successful and widespread species, and not (as popularly misconceived) an odd exception to an expectation of continuous and progressive change. The Cro-Magnon people who painted the caves of the Lascaux and Altamira some fifteen thousand years ago are us—and one look at the incredible richness and beauty of this work convinces us, in the most immediate and visceral way, that Picasso held no edge in mental sophistication over these ancestors with identical brains. And yet, fifteen thousand years ago no human social grouping had produced anything that would conform with our standard definition of civilization. No society had yet invented agriculture; none had built permanent cities. Everything that we have accomplished in the unmeasurable geological moment of the last ten thousand years—from the origin of agriculture to the Sears building in Chicago, the entire panoply of human civilization for better or for worse—has been built upon the capacities of an unaltered brain. Clearly, cultural change can vastly outstrip the maximal rate of natural Darwinian evolution.” (Gould, 1996: 220
“So if their IQs are similar to those of whites and Northeast Asians, it implies intelligence pretty much stopped evolving in the Upper Paleolithic (with rare exceptions like Jews). But if their IQs are much lower, it implies the neolithic transition and civilization played a major role in the evolution of IQ.”
No good reason to (1) presume identity between “IQ” and “intelligence” and (2) presume that the tests are “culture-fair” (whatever that means). Regarding (2) that’s the reason for the differences between the groups—exposure to the item content and structure of the test.
https://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Cole/iq.html
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/10/06/knowledge-culture-logic-and-iq/
“I love the idea of a nice clean split between biological evolution and cultural evolution. It’s much more romantic to think the modern mind emerged from the wilderness to create civilization than it is to think modernity created the modern mind.”
These two thoughts right here basically encompass your while worldview. It’s laughable to claim that there is “a nice clean split between biological evolution and cultural evolution.” They constantly interact, and so there is no “nice clean split” between them. That’s perhaps one of the worst assumptions that hereditarians make.
“Now most research suggests that on a scale where white Americans average IQ 100 and fully black descendants of U.S. slaves average 80, Native Americans average 86. Native Americans scoring so close to black Americans suggests very little evolution took place from the time we left African 70,000 years ago, and the time Native Americans split off about 15,000 years ago, and the REAL leap forward occurred, not because exposure to the ice age, but because of events that followed like the neolithic transition, the invention of cities, states, literacy and numeracy.”
It doesn’t suggest that at all. Your assumption that “IQ” is an evolved trait is ridiculous and your attempts to save your claim about “”specific genes help predict which ones” ultimately have better “efficiency” and all of the other steps in between did not work. Nonidentity between mind and brain and the irreducibility/immateriality of thought refute these claims.
“At the very least, one might argue that at least Performance IQ stopped evolving in the Upper Paleolithic.”
How did this happen?
These two thoughts right here basically encompass your while worldview. It’s laughable to claim that there is “a nice clean split between biological evolution and cultural evolution.” They constantly interact, and so there is no “nice clean split” between them. That’s perhaps one of the worst assumptions that hereditarians make.
Actually it’s your hero Gould who claims that, most hereditarians like Cochran argue the opposite: culture increased biological evolution by orders of magnitude.
What do you glean from this passage PP?
But human cultural change is an entirely distinct process operating under radically different principals that do allow for the strong possibility of a driven trend for what we may legitamately call “progress” (at least in a technological sense, whether or not the changes ultimately do us any good in a practical or moral way). In this sense, I deeply regret that common usage refers to the history of our artifacts and social orginizations as “cultural evolution.” Using the same term—evolution—for both natural and cultural history obfuscates far more than it enlightens. Of course, some aspects of the two phenomena must be similar, for all processes of genealogicallt constrained historical change must share some features in common. But the differences far outweigh the similarities in this case. Unfortunately, when we speak of “cultural evolution,” we unwittingly imply that this process shares essential similarity with the phenomenon most widely described by the same name—natural, or Darwinian, change. The common designation of “evolution” then leads to one of the most frequent and portentious errors in our analysis of human life and history—the overly reductionist assumption that the Darwinian natural paradigm will fully encompass our social and technological history as well. I do wish that the term “cultural evolution” would drop from use. Why not speak of something more neutral and descriptive—“cultural change,” for example?
I glean that someone (Gould?) doesn’t think evolution is progressive, and since technology is so obviously progressive, they’re pissed that evolution is analogized to technological progress by the term cultural evolution.
mossad agent hapa carpenter melo just restates kant/transcendental idealism and expect me to believe he’s not mossad.
but what is the thing-in-itself which occasions experience? how can it exist when there is no way i can ever experience it? how does kant use “occasion” when this contradicts his own thought?
commence german idealism schelling, fichte, hegel…
Some modern authors distinguish between consonantal scripts of the Semitic type, called “abjads” since 1996, and “true alphabets” in the narrow sense,[8][9] the distinguishing criterion being that true alphabets consistently assign letters to both consonants and vowels on an equal basis, while the symbols in a pure abjad stand only for consonants. (So-called impure abjads may use diacritics or a few symbols to represent vowels.) In this sense, then the first true alphabet would be the Greek alphabet…
So you’re not going to admit whites never created an independent civilization?
“Your assumption that “IQ” is an evolved trait is ridiculous and your attempts to save your claim about “”specific genes help predict which ones” ultimately have better “efficiency” and all of the other steps in between did not work. Nonidentity between mind and brain and the irreducibility/immateriality of thought refute these claims.”
So IQ is not related to the brain… even though it evolved with the brain. Even though we waste precious calories on brain growth and activity. Even though babies need to be born vulnerable because of human brain size. Even though mothers face death every time they give birth because of human brain size. Even though Ashkenazis have neurotic diseases because of specific genes related to the brain that other whites do not have. Even though larger brains are just bigger targets and make us more vulnerable.
So the brain being related to IQ and the mind is a just-so story… and all these things that seem to link the brain with intelligence are just coincidences.
(Conscious experience/intelligence does not need to purely reduced to the brain or anything in the material world, but in contexts of applicability to the material world, it certainly seems to be tied to the brain)
The main aspect of IQ test-taking is thinking. Thinking is an activity that results in a thought. Thoughts are immaterial, so thoughts are immeasurable. Therefore the main aspect of IQ test-taking is immaterial. If you knew about necessary/sufficient conditions you wouldn’t have wasted your time typing all of that.
Would you say there is no empirical fact on whether you know how to perform open heart surgery?
Do you think there is any point in college?
You either know how to do something or you don’t. Or are you asking if I would know, not any random person?
Of course there is a point to college, to, in my opinion, gain advanced knowledge in subjects you want to.
Speaking of college and medicine, here’s an interesting paper. McManus et al distinguished between 3 arguments: the achievement argument (A levels ensure minimum level familiarity with biology and chemistry) , the ability (intelligence) argument (since measures of achievement may be biased and unreliable, and since achievement is related to intelligence and achievement test results are indirectly due to intelligence, A levels should be replace) and the motivation argument. Their results led them to rejecting the ability (intelligence) argument since in this sample it did not predict careers but they were unable to distinguish between the achievement argument and the motivation argument.
“We have shown that A level results, which are measures of achievement, can predict time taken to gain membership qualifications, choosing to become a general practitioner, and leaving the register. In contrast the AH5, which measures ability, cannot independently predict membership qualifications or dropout.
A levels therefore have validity in selection, with a validity coefficient of about 0.3 (see bmj.com), although care should be taken in generalising the results to other examinations in other countries. Intelligence does not predict careers, thus rejecting the ability argument. A levels predict because they assess achievement, and the structural model shows how past achievements predict future achievement. Our data cannot distinguish the achievement argument and the motivation argument, although the long term, direct effect of A levels on membership examinations (fig 3) suggests that motivation might be important.
Despite their predictive ability, A levels are probably not the only predictors2 and should not be the sole basis for selection.15 Some of our other outcomes were not predicted by A levels but were correlated with measures of personality (see http://www.bmj.com) and would probably also be predicted by learning styles.16 17 West answered Smith’s editorial question of “Why are doctors so unhappy?”18 by suggesting that burn out because they are overqualified for a repetitious job.7 The causes of stress and burnout in doctors are complex,12 but our data suggest that excess intellectual ability is not one of them.
https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7407/139
“The main aspect of IQ test-taking is thinking. Thinking is an activity that results in a thought. Thoughts are immaterial, so thoughts are immeasurable. Therefore the main aspect of IQ test-taking is immaterial. If you knew about necessary/sufficient conditions you wouldn’t have wasted your time typing all of that.”
Actually, given that you are wasting time replying to me in the material world using material methods, you evidentally value the causal relationship between thought and the material world. in this belief system that you constantly show you adhere to (that immaterial thoughts affect the material universe), the evidence rests with the people who believe the brain’s size and structure is heavily linked to immaterial mental activity (as far as it affects the material world or anything measurable there). Otherwise, there is no possible benefit for all those drawbacks I mentioned.
You might as well deny causal relationships in the universe at all, as they are all after-the-fact, just-so stories. There is no such thing as provable causal relatinships since everything rests in a priori beliefs about the nature of reality and the reliability of our own sensory experiences. However, anyone who bothers to try to make sense at all is basically admitting that they are putting faith in physical causality, the reliability of our senses, and the mental being (partially) connected to the physical. Why else have any beliefs and argue about them?
For there to be mental facts there need to be physical facts. There are some nonphysical facts. So physicalism is false. The immaterial and material clearly interact. Eliminativism about the mind is false. Physicalism is false. NCSD is true. The self is an immaterial substance.
It’s obvious that mental states affect the physical realm. I am choosing to type this comment to you using my fingers and the keyboard on my phone. Intentional causation in NCSD does not violate the principle of causal closure, NCSD postulates no gaps in chains of physical causation that are filled by mental events. The subject of conscious states (the self, I) can affect mental states—the mental can affect the mental. So the mental can affect the physical realm.
For this, we need to talk about what intentional action is—it’s a kind of behavior in which we can cite reasons for them occurring. Sure we can cite reasons for a behavior occurring (recall my distinction between the 2 concepts https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/04/13/the-distinction-between-action-and-behavior/ ). So the problem of action is to distinguish between what an agent does and what merely happens to the agent. What an agent does is act, while what happens to the agent—along with the subsequent reaction—is what happens to him, i.e., behavior. Agency is purposive and goal-directed.
So if one is to maintain physical closure and reject ephiphenominalism then they need a physicalist account of consciousness. Mental causation is intentional while physical causation is not. We cannot intend to bring about what we cannot voluntarily control. If we cannot intend to bring about what we cannot voluntarily control, then it follows that there are non-natural causes of voluntary action, and that is the mind.
rr does not realize the closer between environment and brain. They are not separate mind-body enviro. They fold into each other. Intelligence is just an efficient folding. So if thinking is a kind of intelligence IQ is not 100% false/inaccurate way of measurement. IQ is connected to the environment but also thought. Why not? just because it is not part of the mind? bullshit. IQ does measure intelligence well enough to tell a difference. If differences are made something is being measured. Does anyone think Pumpkin is dumber than me? you retard gosh no. But do you accept his IQ score?
Intelligence can be introverted or extroverted.
IQ is extraverted intelligence.
Introverted intelligence is the real miracle of being a human.
It is what is inside the head that matters with culture.
It is folding inward not outward.
Creating synergy in the creative process.
IQ – the extraverted intelligence is powerful but not divorced from the introverted kind. Both are possible. one in the head one in the environment. Often they need to be balanced or offset because of the wobble it created making it hard to steady and complete tasks.
“We cannot intend to bring about what we cannot voluntarily control. If we cannot intend to bring about what we cannot voluntarily control, then it follows that there are non-natural causes of voluntary action, and that is the mind.”
I agree, there needs to be a explanation of why we feel as if we have a will, why qualia exist, and many other metaphysical/epistemological questions that physicalism cannot answer.
But denying that the brain is not related to the mental (again, insofar as it can be measured by us) is self-contradictory. You’d have to explain why the mind is completely separable from the body, yet we waste so much on our brains.
If minds are separable from physical brains, why would we need a brain? If they are not separable… well then, we would all accept HBD. (Just because a hard problem of consciousness exists does not mean we can ignore the hard problem of the brain)
“rr does not realize the closer between environment and brain. They are not separate mind-body enviro.”
Yes, I think reality cannot be dualistic ultimately, as that implies two things existing that shall never meet, in the same universe. Given the very obvious fact that a brain without intelligence contradicts any metaphysical view of the universe that regards matter as real, it seems there needs to be another answer.
RR I think all kind of dualism imply a belief in some kind ofGod. The exact opposite, non reductionist monism seems more legit prima facie .
The stuff of the world is mind-stuff…
The first derives directly from current physical theory. Briefly, mechanical theories of the ether and of the behaviour of fundamental particles have been discarded in both relativity and quantum physics. From this, Eddington inferred that a materialistic metaphysics was outmoded and that, in consequence, since the disjunction of materialism or idealism are assumed to be exhaustive, an idealistic metaphysics is required. The second, and more interesting argument, was based on Eddington’s epistemology, and may be regarded as consisting of two parts. First, all we know of the objective world is its structure, and the structure of the objective world is precisely mirrored in our own consciousness. We therefore have no reason to doubt that the objective world too is “mind-stuff”. Dualistic metaphysics, then, cannot be evidentially supported.
But, second, not only can we not know that the objective world is nonmentalistic, we also cannot intelligibly suppose that it could be material. To conceive of a dualism entails attributing material properties to the objective world. However, this presupposes that we could observe that the objective world has material properties. But this is absurd, for whatever is observed must ultimately be the content of our own consciousness, and consequently, nonmaterial.
If the mind did not experience IQ tests it could not do well on them. No measurable differences would occur. That being extraversion intelligence.
He believed that twentieth century science, and quantum mechanics in particular, had shown the spiritual or “ideal” world of Plato and Pythagoras to be the real world…
Instead, Heisenberg believed that the fundamental units of reality had been shown to be mathematical or even mental entities, rather than material building blocks. Hence modern science supported Plato’s idealism…
RR,
“Of course there is a point to college, to, in my opinion, gain advanced knowledge in subjects you want to.”
And how would you know if someone has gained advanced knowledge in a particular subject?
Mugabe,
I guess in the sense of epistemology, I would be an Idealist, but I believe there is something physical outside of that, whether it’s something that can ever be known or not. So I still consider myself a Physicalist, but maybe it’s untenable considering I’m not much of a scientific realist. But I don’t know as much about Idealism as I do the other two, which is why I was curious as to how you base your beliefs.
Maybe you’re right to be an Idealist; it doesn’t suffer the same “pitfalls” that Dualists like to pretend Physicalism has, and it’s a monistic ontology, which is parsimonious.
Anime kitty,
“If differences are made something is being measured. Does anyone think Pumpkin is dumber than me? you retard gosh no. But do you accept his IQ score?”
First sentence doesn’t follow. Regarding the rest of the quote, why would you say your dumber than PP on the basis of a score on a test? I don’t care about his IQ score, it’s meaningless to me.
Lurker,
“But denying that the brain is not related to the mental”
The brain is related to the mental insofar that a healthy brain is necessary for it.
“You’d have to explain why the mind is completely separable from the body, yet we waste so much on our brains.
If minds are separable from physical brains, why would we need a brain? If they are not separable… well then, we would all accept HBD.”
I didn’t claim they are separable. Regarding our mental lives, the brain is necessary for our minds to exist. I’m hard-pressed to think of arguments that would make survival without a body coherent, maybe I’ll get back to you by the end of the week about this.
Bruno,
“RR I think all kind of dualism imply a belief in some kind ofGod. The exact opposite, non reductionist monism seems more legit prima facie .”
No, it doesn’t. Not necessarily. While there are dualists like Swinburn, Feser, Craig, Moreland and Koons, there are just as many like Hasker, Chalmers, Barnett, Burge, and Horgan. (Though I am unsure about Hasker.) I’m unsure about E. J. Lowe but he has a modal ontological argument for the existence of God using Plantinga’s argument. I am an atheist. The nonidentity argument (Drange) and the problem of evil take down any arguments for the existence of God or an afterlife, I think.
Melo,
“And how would you know if someone has gained advanced knowledge in a particular subject?”
Let’s use talk doctors as I cited a paper above about the matter. An achievement test that shows basic proficiency in the material learned throughout the course. I would go a step further and also state that if they can explain the concepts simply to someone who’s not in or new to the field. And I’m talking in this context about people who merely want to learn more and not do anything further with their knowledge.
Like a nurse surely needs to know certain things to pass their test.
My RN girlfriend “Nursing school just prepares you to take a test. You learn most everything by working.” Taking tests and actually being in the field doing hands-on, practical things are totally different things. Sure, you need the knowledge to be able to do the practical things and a (good) test will prepear you for that, but I would say that for many fields practical knowledge trumps test knowledge—and even then the practical knowledge that one gains in the field will eventually become “test knowledge.” (I say this with working in my field and also what I’m going to school for along with my girlfriend’s experience.)
Melo you should check out Kastrup’s stuff on idealism.
https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9287/2/2/10/htm
While there are dualists like Swinburn, Feser, Craig, Moreland and Koons, there are just as many like Hasker, Chalmers, Barnett, Burge, and Horgan.
every one of those people is NOT a dualist, because NOT one of them is a philosopher. every one of them is FRAUD and a MORON.
rr needs to be banned for racism. kastrup and rr’s NCSD are just inferior rip-offs of the upanishads.
“Taking tests and actually being in the field doing hands-on, practical things are totally different things.”
I agree here to an extent, and I’d concur that a test won’t really teach you anything. Still, I don’t believe this discussion is much about how effective tests are at teaching, more so than how accurately they measure someone’s knowledge in a subject. Judging from your comments, I think you do actually believe that thoughts, in the form of knowledge, are measurable to some degree.
And thank you for the link! I’ll check that out when I get the chance.
RaceRealist, you said before:
“Your assumption that “IQ” is an evolved trait is ridiculous and your attempts to save your claim about “”specific genes help predict which ones” ultimately have better “efficiency” and all of the other steps in between did not work. Nonidentity between mind and brain and the irreducibility/immateriality of thought refute these claims.”
Now you said:
“I didn’t claim they are separable. Regarding our mental lives, the brain is necessary for our minds to exist. I’m hard-pressed to think of arguments that would make survival without a body coherent, maybe I’ll get back to you by the end of the week about this.
So if the brain is necessary for our minds to exist, why would we not think IQ (which is meant to measure intelligence) is an evolved trait? I don’t follow your logic at all. It’s like you agree with the premises every other person does about the connection between mind and brain/matter, and yet stop short at believing that the brain is related to any differences in intelligence… despite the brain being necessary for intelligence (as you agreed to, word-for-word).
Brain is necessary for intelligence. Brain differences exist. Intelligence differences exist. IQ differences are statistically linked to brain differences. Genetics partially determine brain structure. Evolution selects for certain genes. Therefore, evolution has a role in intelligence. Intelligence is (partially) heritable.
Like in that movie Slumdog Millionaire, it’s possible you can go through life somehow knowing the answers to things based on specific experiences despite not necessarily being knowledgeable in general, just like you can study for very specific tests at the expense of other knowledge/skills. Does that mean there is no difference between those with more knowledge and those with less knowledge?
Knowledge may not be completely quantifiable, but there certainly is a heavily quantifiable element to the information you know. Notice how 6-year olds never do better consistently on intelligence tests than adults.
Scientology is a genuine philosophy. Its not all about aliens. Its about self improvement.
Analytic philosophy basically just says we need to argue about how great the dictionary is.
a genuine philosopher is very very very rare. heidegger was the last.
a genuine philosopher says something totally OBVIOUS yet totally ORIGINAL…in that no one has ever said it…at least not in writing…but upon reading it one thinks, “why didn’t anyone say that before. OF COURSE!”
it’s NOT about arguments.
it’s about OBSERVATION.
there is ABSOLUTELY no point to college.
IT’S SATANISM.
Melo,
Depends what you mean by “measired.”
“A psychological test score is no more than an indication of how well someone has performed at a number of questions that have been chosen for largely practical reasons. Nothing is genuinely being measured” – Michael Howe, IQ in Question
I take measurement to be of physical quantities. Sure there are say 20 questions on a test and if you get 10 right that’s 50 percent. Very very loosely is that “measurement”—but there is no specified measured object, object of measurement or measurement unit so its not measurement proper. In any case, when I say “thoughts are immaterial and therefore immeasurable”, I mean the actual thoughts that a mind produces which would then be a target of Ross’ (1992) and Feser’s (2013) Immaterial Aspects of Thought.
Lurker,
I don’t think you understand my position. I reject the identity between mind and brain the argument you provided would have meaning if the mind reduced to or was identical to the brain. But that claim is false. Yea IQ—as well as all tests—are experience-dependent.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/10/06/knowledge-culture-logic-and-iq/
RR, what’s your opinion of clocks? Can time be measured?
Time wasn’t a measurable magnitude before Galileo and Newton—time as a measurable magnitude depends on the inertia principle, AKA the dynamic relativity principle. Check out Olivier Costa De Beauregard’s “Time, the Physical Magnitude.”
“Depends what you mean by “measired.””
The same as what everyone else means by “measured.” That it is empirically quantifiable and observable, and we both know that criterion-based tests are usually pretty accurate in assessing someone’s knowledge of a particular subject.
Nevertheless, you can still redefine what ‘measurement’ is and claim that Psychological tests do not match the description but notice how none of our Professors are scrambling to throw out all of their exams because Garrison, Berka, and Nash logically proved that Psychological tests couldn’t measure anything. I got a 96 on my Python Exam and am confident in my abilities. Moreover, I still have to pass an exam to get A+ certified because an employer won’t hire you beyond a Help desk role if you have nothing that proves you know what you’re talking about.
It reminds me of Garrison’s critique of construct validity. It seems absurd to obfuscate our definition of measurement to exclude X from Y when, functionally, X still produces the same results that Y does, regardless of its categorization.
more lies from rr. time has been measured more or less accurately LONG before galileo (a NORTHERN italian).
the gregorian calendar is still used today. the pope for whom it is named died when galileo was only 21. and ancient calendars were good enough for government work.
water clocks (vs sundials) appeared in ancient greece and rome. monasteries perfected them i don’t know how many centuries before galileo was born. the reason was the monastic rule required collective prayer at certain times…at night. so you get quotes from medieval manuscripts like “there was a fire and we put it out with the clock.”
rr is literally too dumb to be an actual human.
RR,
“I don’t think you understand my position. I reject the identity between mind and brain the argument you provided would have meaning if the mind reduced to or was identical to the brain. But that claim is false. Yea IQ—as well as all tests—are experience-dependent.”
I think I understand your position. I’m not making a metaphysical claim that mind is identical or reducable to the brain. But in all ways we can measure, it clearly is heavily correlated to the brain. You can’t say hereditarians are wrong when your account of intelligence doesn’t even explain why a tiny brain only one cubic centimeter big wouldn’t be as smart as a much larger one.
Quoting the end of your article: “Thus, we should take the logical conclusion: what explains racial IQ differences are not biological factors, but environmental ones—specifically in the exposure of knowledge—along with how new tests are created (see Suzuki and . All human cognizing takes place in specific cultural contexts—therefore “culture-free tests” (i.e., tests devoid of cultural knowledge and context) are an impossibility. IQ tests are experience-dependent so if one is not exposed to the relevant experiences to do well in a testing situation, then they will score lower than they would have if they were to have the requisite culturally-specific knowledge to perform well on the test.”
No, this is simply incorrect. This again does not explain all the pain and suffering humans go through to have our large, efficient brains. Other animals have brains as well, and we seem to be more intelligent than them in every way except things like spatial memory. There’s no reason to think human races are any different – If you want to claim different kind of intelligence, well that’s more reasonable but incorrect as well as the whole point of intelligence in terms of G is that it is not specific.
You claim you’re making a logical conclusion that IQ differences all depend on environment, and yet deny the most obvious environmental difference between races and people with different IQs – their brains.
If you can’t explain why different racial groups have different brain sizes and pelvic sizes, which correlate both with their IQs and their associated athletic prowesses, or can’t explain why larger brains require larger caloric usage, or why more active brains also require more caloric usage and the activity is associated with more intelligent decisions, etc. you cannot claim to have any sort of conclusion since you haven’t explained the real problem.
I agree that the brain works hand-in-hand with the environment, and I also think intelligence is very complicated and consciousness is not explained by physicalism, so I have sympathy there. But your conclusion is absurd. Way too contradictory.
To quote Norm MacDonald, “give your head a shake.”
…would then be a target of Ross’ (1992)…
how do you KNOW the person why typed this is DUMB and should be IGNORED?
the mugabe test hasn’t failed yet.
bishop berkeley was anglo-irish and hume was scottish and j s mill and francis bacon were english. english speaking peoples can be great philosophers, just not as great as the germans. it’s the nature of the language. germans suck, but their language is especially suited to philosophy. so it can be said without hyperbole that western thought is in ancient greek and german. the italians are not a reflective people. the french are just ridiculous.
j s mill was reckoned to have the highest IQ of any famous person by some lady psychologist. her list was published in The Book of Lists.
my dad explained bentham and mill to me, and i said, “but dad…that’s totally obvious.” he said, “they were clearer thinkers than had come before them.”
so conditions 1 and 2 of genuine philosophy are met by both.
rr type person: tom brady is a qb. i play qb on my hs team. i’m a qb too. i love qb-ophy.
mugabe: philosophy isn’t a GAME you fucking retarded CUNT!
Melo,
“That it is empirically quantifiable and observable”
What do you mean by this? What is observable and empirically quantifiable? X is measurable iff X is physical (which means it’s observable). I come at this debate from the side that the issues of psychometrics are so insurmountable that it is impossible to measure psychological traits. I don’t even need to use the arguments from dualism to establish the claim.
I’ve been causally looking for a new job on Indeed and they have some “skills tests” at the end of applications. Some of the questions, I feel, have multiple right answers and, even though (I feel) specific events would require context-dependent solutions, I try to give the answer that I feel the employer would want to see, rather than what I feel the correct answer is (of course sometimes they may intersect).
I don’t think it’s absurd to exclude things that cannot be measured, when there have been numerous articles over the past 2 years attacking psychometric “science” and their ASSUMPTIONS of measurement.
Mugabe,
I said MEASURABLE MAGNITUDE.
Lurker,
“this is simply incorrect”
What does having large brains have to do with being exposed to the item content/structure of the test? I have explained why racial groups have different IQs. And the fact that black IQ has increased (see the Flynn and Dickens papers from the beginning of the millennium) is a + for my argument.
I believe you may be missing the forest for the trees. Whether you want to call psychological tests measurements or not, they successfully serve the same function and practical utility that bonafide measurements have.
Yes, some students may have motivational issues or something similar, but a math test will successfully gauge who has an understanding of the material and who doesn’t ceteris paribus.
“I’ve been causally looking for a new job on Indeed”
Have you given up the personal trainer thing?
RR,
“What does having large brains have to do with being exposed to the item content/structure of the test?”
What? It has to do with the fact that brain growth was correlated with homo sapiens’ ancestral intelligence growth, as evidenced by all historical evidence, and is something that can also be seen in the animal kingdom. It can be seen in children growing into adults with larger brains.
It has to do with the fact that a larger brain has basically no benefit except leading to more intelligence, while having nearly endless drawbacks (such as those I’ve mentioned).
“I have explained why racial groups have different IQs. And the fact that black IQ has increased (see the Flynn and Dickens papers from the beginning of the millennium) is a + for my argument.”
No, you’ve offered a typical race-denialist argument we’ve heard a million times before, with more academic language and citations than the average person who believes in it. Meanwhile you’ve explained literally nothing about why we even have a brain in the first place, or why there is so many correlations between the matter in the brain and thoughts.
Your view of IQ is made of very incomplete just-so stories. There are many minorities who do better in other countries, such as East Asians in white countries. Or whites in South Africa or South America. Despite lack of cultural exposure.
Plus, there are plenty of studies, like twin studies, that show environment has very little impact on intelligence. There are studies that show mixed race people have IQs between their racial averages.
You believe IQ tests are measuring cultural exposure.
Have you considered that people’s ability to adapt their mental activity to cultural tests could be determined partially by their brain?
And that people with faster, larger, more well-connected brains, are able to process and store more cultural information, and utilize it better on tests? And perhaps, this is what IQ is measuring? And perhaps, this explains a lot more about the world than the idea that “what explains racial IQ differences are not biological factors, but environmental ones”.
And you didn’t mention my point about the brain being the most clear environmental difference for intelligence. Why are you ignoring the brain as an environmental variable, even if you are only factoring in the environment in IQ?
Basically, at this point I really don’t think you even understand what you are talking about in any sort of fundamental sense. You are repeating talking points. high-level talking points, but still. Ever have an original thought?
It bugs me when people are clearly capable of intricate thought but ignore all the glaring inconsistencies.
cant believe this song has 500 million views now. it was and probably still is the most iconic song to come out of the black community in years. its impacted a whole generation of rap and is the pinnacle of rap to a lot of people.
i really hope Pumpkin posts this because this a testament to how some people with nothing can achieve so much with time and resilience. wow.
how do i know my dog has a mind?
how do i know rr has a mind?
how do i know anything?
what if brahman has nothing to illumine?
is the light of brahman extinguished when it illumines nothing?
anyway…
rr is an extreme racist…
even more ridiculous than david duke…
it’s called: “non wypipo and dead wypipo have things to say” rr.
check it out.
I think 86 IQ for Native Americans sounds as ridiculous as that one IQ estimate from decades ago about the Irish, which was in the 80s IIRC. It makes little sense.
The Rushton tri-race hierarchy of blacks-whites-asians is based on neotony of overall body form and skull from what I understand. Hispanics and Natives have basically the same level of robustness as whites, and would seemingly be placed with whites on that Rushton hiearchy. If black americans are 85 IQ, it would mean that for some reason, despite being only 25% as close to whites on this hierarchy due to mixture they are only 1 IQ point dumber. Why would that be? The IQ boosts due to white civilizational genetics would also only be 25%. So 86 doesn’t make sense.
I suspect Native American IQ is closest to modern hispanic IQ, because of their morphological similarities, minus the white bonus to hispanics. So maybe around 90-95.
Pumpkin you approve these trash comments but dont approve mine? when there was nothing wrong with them etc.? what type of man (or woman i have my doubts youre a man) are you?
why do you keep playing these games bud just be upfront and cool like everyone else youre not special in anyway.
Don’t recall moderating any of your comments recently. Mug of Pee floods the blog with so many mostly useless comments that comments from other people sometimes get missed.
Found it & approved it
Okay thanks I dont mean to be relentless with the situation but I also posted a rap video.
If you choose not to approve it thats fine as I have wanted to post other rap videos instead later in the year at appropriate times!
My apologies for being neurotic my sentimentalism gets the better of me at times. Thank you!
I found the rap post & authorized it
On-topic comments are trash but you complain about your little rap video not being posted? Haha…
RR youve been debating the same thing now for almost a decade and have not gotten anywhere.
give up. you are not intelligent in any way. you lack the common sense and wisdom to see when you are wrong. therefore you are a legit retard.
also this is a culture blog. I ask Pumpkin to post my rap videos because they enrich the cultural aspect of this blog.
anyways RR go fuck yourself you retarded goon.
How triggered are you my guy?
RR how stupid are you my dude!
i forgot!
i would classify rawls as a philosopher…along with mill.
but because capital political philosophy don’t get no respect.
soros wants recognition for his “reflextivity”.
i’ll grant him that.
i’ll also say popper was a genuine philosopher.
but in terms of ultimate reality (aka philosophy) it’s just heidegger and marx for the last 150+ years.
Hispanics are probably lower in IQ than American blacks its just that there is actually a small selection for smarter immigrants and i just mean this in the sense that it takes a lot of luck and skill to cross a border that is supposed to be impenetrable.
“Hispanics”, in some American contexts, are a socialrace but there are other times, in some American contexts, where they are not treated as racial groups. “Hispanics” can be of any racial group or mix of them. Alberto Fujimori (former Peruvian president with Japanese ancestry) is a prime example.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2020/08/30/the-social-construction-of-the-hispanic-latino-spanish-race/
dude shut up. no one wants to hear your garbage about the simplest things that are just categorical or nomenclature differences. not really big issue go tackle cancer or Alzheimer’s (you probably have it!) if you think youre that smart!
^^^BEST EVER COMMENT BY LOADED^^^
I usually think RR’s comments are garbage. But in this case, he has persuaded me that hispanic is a problematic term for a race. They’re kind of a hybrid race.
Obviously the descendants of the conquistadors that still rule Latin America are basically white. E.g. Fidel Castro.
you needed his comment to realize Hispanics are not a conventional race? Wow.
but that’s literally how the unmixed european elite maintains absolute power in latin america…it claims “we’re all mixed.”
amy chua had a student from bolivia who claimed this with a straight face…he was white.
one thing i’d bet on is that without the spanish conquest meso america’s indigenes would be better off today.
Ive lived in metropolitan/cosmopolitan cities in the US my entire life and let me tell you even if it were just white people then it wouldnt change anything regardless.
Shitholes are the way they are because of whites and this can take many interpretations but the key one is wherever whites go they will destroy society because of their nihilistic dispositions!
No more racist comments please
Okay fine as long as the treatment applies to all parties.
Mug is such a troll! I advocate for his ban because he has had no positive impact on this blog and has had many negatives including detracting viewers from commenting due to his continuous perverted comments and pictures!
Do developing fetuses in the womb dream after a certain time? I know that REM sleep is related to dreaming. But if the baby only has experience in the womb, what else would they have to dream about other than what they directly experience? Would they dream about, say, their mother’s and father’s voices or the shapes they see after a certain point in fetal development?
Hey Pumpkin, I wrote a blog post a little bit after I left about Animal Consciousness. Would you mind if I posted it? I think it’s relevant to the discussion we all had a few posts ago about whether animals have minds, but I don’t know if it’s relevant to this blog’s purpose. It specifically discusses cetacean and intelligence and references Marino and Manger’s feud on the topic.
Yes I’ll publish it.
Either leave it in the comment section with the title GUEST POST so I know not to authorize it as a comment or email it to me.
Mug and Pill dont understand. you can switch your views whenever. its called change. its called growth its important and must not be neglected. it shows intelligence and open-mindedness. it is necessary to becoming something and someone to be valued!
keep changing!
there are no anglo-american-analytic-linguistic “philosophers” who espouse idealism.
why?
because they are very very very stupid and think, “idealism can’t be right because science. and i’m jealous of scientists. my whole shtick is a cargo cult of science. and scientists are physicalists aren’t they?”
NO!
cut to anglo-american-analytic-linguistic “philosopher” shooting himself in the butthole.
https://www.nature.com/articles/436029a
The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter… we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter…
What remains is in any case very different from the full-blooded matter and the forbidding materialism of the Victorian scientist. His objective and material universe is proved to consist of little more than constructs of our own minds. To this extent, then, modern physics has moved in the direction of philosophic idealism. Mind and matter, if not proved to be of similar nature, are at least found to be ingredients of one single system. There is no longer room for the kind of dualism which has haunted philosophy since the days of Descartes…
Mugabe whats it like going to mass every day?
I went to mass a few years ago because my mother insisted on it. I can’t remember anything the priest said but I was shocked so many people in my town still went to mass.
Pope Francis is great though. The previous guy helped cover up the paedophiles.
Like I said, my local GP is a very high IQ guy but he is a hardcore Catholic like Mugabe. I’m really surprised how people can be smart and be catholic.
Neoclassical econ, libertarianism and analytic philosophy are also all promoted by the elites to suppress the workers.
AFAIK everyone on this blog comment section is a worker. Although I think RR said he was self-employed.
I don’t need to work personally. In my home country welfare is extremely generous and for many years I drew disability for my mental health issues and lived a very comfortable life. So going back to work is purely a choice for me. Obviously my career has been butchered due to my mental health issues.
you just keep repeating me.
at least you have a memory.
the marxist analysis of analytic philosophy is it is designed NOT to be philosophy because CAPITAL is afraid of actual philosophy.
In autism logic paying the workers the lowest wages or even no wages at all would be the best outcome for the economy.
This is why only autistic people are allowed become professors of economics in the Uk and US.
If you have autism, there shouldn’t be any reason against arguing for the reintroduction of the slave trade. It would lower costs for all businesses and therefore productivity would increase and through the process of osmosis magically make the slaves richer in the long run.
^^^
THIS IS NOT A JOKE. THE ECON PROFESSORS ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN THIS TYPE OF LOGIC.
thanks for repeating me.
the ultimate logic of trickle down is that the poor should pay the rich for the privilege of employing them. that is, tax cuts on the rich are reduced to below zero.
it’s called satan pill. there’s no explaining some evil except with him
OH SHUT UP MUG OF PEE!
Why do I get stuck with all the retards?
What did I do wrong?
lmao
“it’s called satan pill. there’s no explaining some evil except with him.”
You have to explain why Satan would be necessary for God though. Just like people explain God with various logical arguments, they need to explain Satan. Satan is not an explanation in-and-of itself.
Evil might be necessary because of free will, sadness might be necessary for happiness. Why is “Satan”, as the anti-God anthropomorphic entity, necessary?
^^^autism on steroids.^^^
there was a book a few years back by some jews which showed that when one finally breaks through the autism shield of analytic “philosophy” the analytic “philosopher” just threatens you with violence.
it was wittgenstein (absurd non-philosopher) threatening popper (actual philosopher). no antisemitism because both jews.
lurker needs to be banned for encouraging rr’s autism rather than getting rr off the streets and into a mental asylum.
I didn’t realize what his position was so clearly until this post. But regarding autism, I don’t think you can encourage or discourage it so easily. Or else there would already be a “cure”. The whole point of autism is the autistic basically doesn’t take social or environmental cues the same way AFAIK. Their brains are stubborn. It’s like an addictive personality, where even if you help in one way, the addiction goes somewhere else.
If you could actually become less autistic, it would probably require something like a major life change, or a religious-esque experience. That’s actually why I like philosophy, because it seems like the most logical and safe way someone could get out of some obsessive train-of-thought. Otherwise you have to take drugs or experience something that might seriously disturb you.
Then again this is just armchair psychology.
Also, thinking about it in the back of my mind I was probably of being called an autist so my last post to RR was worded more aggressive than a factual debate should be… I do think the position that there are no racial differences in IQ is a really illogical woke viewpoint, so it causes some revulsion. But it’s so common that I can be more objective about it. Still, I hate to see such an obviously (to me) self-contradictory worldview be espoused in such academic language.
Lurker it seems as though youre saying open-mindedness is the cure but isnt that what got him into this mess in the first place? trying to oppose conventional thought.
anyways Lurker go back to lurking because you sound like a proud white supremacist and we do not need more people like that on here.
LOADED,
No, it seems like the problem with his beliefs are attached to needing appease academics in some sense.
I’m not really a white supremacist, but unfortunately, the Democratic party has went into full white hatred in the past decades. I would never want to be called a Republican or particularly conservative. But being white and not being somewhat racially conscious in this age is pretty hard unless you really put the blinders on (like RaceRealist).
I also don’t need your BS because all you do is react angrily to other people’s posts and very rarely post anything useful, despite praising yourself.
If you don’t like America or white people, feel free to go to whatever shithole country your family came from. I’m white, but I at least have some Native American blood… so I can tell anyone to fuck off either way. And I will if you keep testing me!
White people are at fault for their own sufferings and miseries no one else is. They committed suicide by virtue signaling stop telling lies Lurker.
Go back to lurking!
Yes but the sufferings and miseries of whites right now is largely because of tolerating those in their countries who are a great detriment to their civilization.
Whether it’s innate individualism or egalitarianism or whatever, a great amount of whites seem to not understand that others are not so friendly to non-kin as they are.
I don’t believe that Jews were the cause of this with subversive propaganda, which is why I’m not a white supremacist. (amongst other reasons, like not being purely white or being very religious, I could never be accepted by such a group nor would I want to)
So yeah, virtue signalling is a problem with whites, but that is largely because there are parasitic individuals of other groups willing to take advantage of that. Without them, whites might fight amongst each other about various greivances, but so does literally every nation/race. We can’t really say what would happen without other races in the mix because whites happen to be so openminded that they managed to make mixed-race economically stratified hellholes of most major cities.
To have a frank intellectual discussion on the matter yes whites serve the interests of other races more than they do themselves thats a good way to develop ideological clustering rather than a racial one but at the same time I think they lack the genuine ability to see themselves as being part of an ideology greater than themselves because of low effort to accept purpose in life like religion etc.
Whites are becoming more r selected as the years go by and they are not becoming able to spend their beliefs in these ideologies wisely.
Also there is the circumstance that these cities that are becoming increasingly metro and cos I in nature are becoming really perverted by people looking to exploit others.
“To have a frank intellectual discussion on the matter yes whites serve the interests of other races more than they do themselves thats a good way to develop ideological clustering rather than a racial one but at the same time I think they lack the genuine ability to see themselves as being part of an ideology greater than themselves because of low effort to accept purpose in life like religion etc.”
I’m not even sure necessarily if whites serve other’s interests more, unless by accident. But it seems to be that they can be manipulated to serve those interests, at least temporarily.
Well the not accepting “ideology greater than themselves” just sounds like youre saying they are individualistic in other words. Unless you mean something very specific by ideology… I don’t see how they would not accept purpose in life like religion. Whites seem to be very outspoken about their beliefs and hold them pretty strongly. Kind of like blacks are outspoken, but blacks seem to be more pragmatic or maybe less capable of the same level of abstraction. (just saying, this is an HBD blog after all)
The surge of atheism or agnosticism in the West might not be because whites are less religous, but because they are more willing to challenge these fundamental beliefs for the sake of progress, unless they feel there is ample evidence.
“Whites are becoming more r selected as the years go by and they are not becoming able to spend their beliefs in these ideologies wisely.”
I think with a declining population they don’t seem to be becoming more r-selected. Maybe a loss of hope for the future of conservative values and addiction to entertainment, but if people enjoy that entertainment, and are excited for a more progressive future, it doesn’t seem like r-selection at work.
To continue this intellectual conversation further I have to say whites have an inferiority complex and dont necessarily see the good aspects of diversity only begetting the negative scenarios!
I know that people value diversity for its ability to bring different talents together and make a positive impact on peoples lives. But at the same time I feel like this can be a detriment to peoples levels of understanding and ability! Especially when there are some people have competencies in different directions!
It seems like a lot of this word salad but its important to respect and believe the important parts!
There is also a level of belief that people need to buy the right perspectives on diversity and then apply the most intelligent applications for how people interpret things!
Thanks for responding LOADED,
“To continue this intellectual conversation further I have to say whites have an inferiority complex and dont necessarily see the good aspects of diversity only begetting the negative scenarios!”
But there are basically as many white liberals as white conservatives, so how would they not see the good aspects of diversity? And you realize white countries are literally the most diverse? Have you seen China or Japan lately? Have you seen Africa lately?
“Inferiority complex”
I’ve read somewhere that whites are more sensitive to negativity and could perhaps be considered more neurotic, though I’ve also read they are considered more open, which are slightly contradictory. (Maybe bro science and amateur HBD) But basically, negative emotion is just emotion, it can’t necessarily lead in any direction unless it is connected to something else. Fear can make you afraid to do things, but also afraid NOT to do them.
If one feels inferior, they are more apt to act in the real world to cure the inferiority. So that can be a good thing. If they feel content with their status or feel superior, they might think their actions are correct the way they are, which can be bad thing. Given that change is an inevitable part of nature, the idea that we should always somehow feel inferior and need to adapt might be more realistic and cohere better to reality despite the negative connotations.
“I know that people value diversity for its ability to bring different talents together and make a positive impact on peoples lives. But at the same time I feel like this can be a detriment to peoples levels of understanding and ability! Especially when there are some people have competencies in different directions!”
It seems like a lot of this word salad but its important to respect and believe the important parts!
There is also a level of belief that people need to buy the right perspectives on diversity and then apply the most intelligent applications for how people interpret things!”
Diversity is of course guaranteed to some extent as the world as variety simply exists in nature, and everything changes. But IMO we need to accept diversity at comfortable rate. It is not an unhindered strength, obviously. If it was, we could just infinitely add diversity and that society would soon eclipse everything else. Since it hasn’t happened it’s pretty clear there are also problems with diversity.
The more variety of reality we can handle, the more likely we understand a correct answer (problem-solving) and the more types of great experiences we can have (pleasure), so obviously we need some diversity. But yeah, we have to learn what kind and in what measure it works, which we are continually figuring out.
And for your last point I think I understand, that people’s beliefs about diversity also affect the success of diversity as well. Which is true… a positive attitude helps, which is where mantras like “Diversity is Strength” can actually be helpful. Unfortunately, there is a point where best intentions seem to conflict with reality of either biology or the uncontrolability of people’s psychology, and nature itself.
One important problem about diversity is that, if races are the same on the inside, why should we aim for diversity? If they aren’t the same on the inside, doesn’t that mean people are actually different and that these differences may actually be mutually contradictory or negative for the other group?
These kinds of questions are never answered by bleeding heart libs, because of course the devil’s in the details.
no problem Lurker! well firstly its the liberals who emphasize the negative aspects of diversity just by promoting it! they feel like theyre entitled to the good parts of diversity and disregard the bad parts entirely. they dont compromise basically.
on the topic of whites being constrained by an inferiority complex i agree with your points but oftentimes that inferiority turns into a superiority complex when some biases they have become vindicated. like if some of their beliefs or ideas are supported by factual analysis then they assume everything they believe is true like self-sanctimony etc.
it is a dangerous path to struggling more than one should.
as for your last points diversity allow for a range of talents etc. there are better abilities one has than another person and vice versa so diversity increases fitness overall tremendously.
its analogous to heterogeneity like when genes are diverse it has a protective ability for the entirety of a population then it would similar to that for us humans as well!
NCSD = samkhya
^^^
THIS IS NOT A JOKE.
wtf does this even mean? your comments are more like an AI chat bot than what Pill would use Brunos as an examples for.
its crazy that you have so much knowledge but all of it is retracting and protracting all over the place!
The British elites send their children to Oxbridge to learn analytic philosophy and neoclassical economics in the infamous PPE degree programmes.
Something like 9/10 prime ministers are from the PPE Oxbridge pipeline.
In that course, they learn that philosophy is the dictionary and economics is making the tory aristocracy richer.
So no surprise the UK is now poorer than my home country after it spent 300 years looting it.
so your home country is ireland. but that’s not the racist part of europe. so you’re lying. and you wouldn’t say gibraltar had been looted for 300 years. and malta and cyprus are poorer than the UK. you also wouldn’t say the UK spent 300 years looting bermuda, the bahamas, or the cayman islands, etc. and no part of south asia or africa is richer than the uk or has generous welfare. and none is paprt of europe either obviously. and the british never controlled parts of the GCC for 300 years.
yeah the PPE stuff is what clinton did too as rhodes scholar iirc.
they need a troll storm.
PPE should be renamed AAA for “autism autism autism”.
actually on a ppp basis malta may be a little richer than the uk in some studies.
btw, scott adams says meloni is the greatest living politician. she’s a-whole-nother level over trump, the second greatest. i agree from what i’ve heard of her speeches.
ITALEXIT!
Yeah youre right. Her speeches are well written and punchy.
the catholic thing makes sense now too.
in ireland being catholic is more than religion.
“looted for 300 years” is another motivation.
it’s the same for italians. the roman church is also a symbol of nationalism.
so you have all these professors in “philosophy” departments in anglo-america describing themselves as “philosophers”. not only are they not philosophers. they’re not even professors of philosophy.
“philosopher” is a word like “prophet”. there aren’t a lot of them. the last philosopher was heidegger.
The study you mentioned is of Navajo children, which is interesting and changes the interpretation. You say that Native Americans split off around 15,000 years ago, but this is not accurate in the case of the Navajo. Genetic and linguistic evidence points to a second wave of migration from Siberia to the New World: the Na-Dene people. It seems like the timing is still unclear but may have been around 6,000 years ago. Most Na-Dene peoples live in Alaska and western Canada. However, the Navajo and Apache peoples are descended from a group that left Canada and migrated to the US southwest around 600 years ago. HBD folks may tend to treat Native Americans like a homogenous group, but they are not, and I wonder if more IQ variation would be found when looking at different populations separately.
They split off from themselves 6000 years ago which is not splitting off
I don’t understand what you mean by “split off from themselves.” Could you please explain?
You say “[Native Americans] split off from other Northern Eurasians around the time some say intelligence stopped evolving, and most of them remained hunter-gatherers until discovered by Columbus” and “Native Americans scoring so close to black Americans suggests very little evolution took place from the time we left African 70,000 years ago, and the time Native Americans split off about 15,000 years ago.” This is not fully true, which I will get back to.
From this premise, you present two hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Intelligence in East Asians evolved little after 15,000 years ago, in which case Native American IQ should be comparible to East Asian IQ (after correcting for environmental disparities).
Hypothesis 2: Intelligence in East Asians continued increasing in East Asians after 15,000 years ago, in which case East Asian IQ > Native American genetic IQ.
What I am pointing out is that your premise is not fully correct. There were three waves of migration from East Asia to the Americas: the Amerind (15,000 years ago), the Na-Dene (6,000 years ago), and the Inuit/Eskimo (1,000 years ago). Because the Na-Dene split off from East Asians more recently than other Native Americans did, hypothesis 2 can be split into two.
Hypothesis 2a: Intelligence in East Asians increased between 15,000 and 6,000 years ago, in which case Na-Dene (including Navajo) IQ > Amerind IQ.
Hypothesis 2b: Intelligence in East Asians was static from 15,000 to 6,000 years ago but then increased within the last 6,000 years, in which case Na-Dene IQ and Amerind IQ should be about the same.
Has research on IQ in Native Americans explicitly looked at differences between Na-Dene, Inuit, and other Native Americans?
Lynn separates Arctic people from Native Americans in his analysis, and finds the former have higher IQs and MUCH bigger brains: