How many races are there? Depending on who you ask there are anywhere from only two to over 100. Since many humans are too dumb and too biased to give an objective answer, let’s turn to math.
Perhaps a more objective approach was deployed by Cavalli-Sforza who transformed a genetic distance matrix of 42 ethnic groups into a scatter plot.
Once he had them in a scatter plot, he could do principal component analysis
The first principal component can be thought of as the g factor of race. It is the line that best fits all the races and the primary dimension upon which they can all be ranked. It reflects the great Out of Africa migration and how far from Africa the races were able to travel. Those who stayed in or close to Africa score at one extreme (Europeans and Africans themselves). Those who were able to travel all the way to Australia, Siberia and the Americas score at the opposite extreme (East Asians, Native Americans, Oceanians).
To find the second principal component, you need a variable that is 100% independent of the first variable. Thus you need to draw a line through the scatter plot that in 90 degrees from the first, but not just any 90 degree line, but one that minimizes the distance between the new line and ethnic groups.
The second dimension seems to correlate with skin color. Those who score high on the second Principal Component are white skinned peoples like Northeast Asians & Northwest Europeans. Those who score low have dark skins, like sub-Saharan Africans and Oceanians.
With two components you can crudely organize humanity into 4 major races: sub-Saharan Africans (lower right), Caucasoids (upper right), Northeast Asians & Amerindians (upper left) and Oceanians (bottom left).
However white supremacists might not be happy to be lumped in with commenter “Loaded” in a single Caucasoid race. Perhaps if Cavalli-Sforza had added a third principal component, that separation may have occurred. A third principal component would have to be at 90 degrees of both the first two and thus requires three dimensional space where it would stand like an erect pole.
Cavalli-Sforza never bothered, but using a smaller data-set of 26 populsations, Jensen extracted SIX principal components. He then spun the six components like a spin on Wheel of Fortune. “Varimax rotation maximizes the variance of the
squared loadings of each component, thereby revealing the variables that cluster together most distinctly,” said the brilliant Jensen.
Jensen wrote:
“The population clusters are defined by their largest loadings (shown in boldface type) on one of the components. A population’s
proximity to the central tendency of a cluster is related to the size of its loading in that cluster. Note that some groups have major and minor loadings on different components, which represent not discrete categories, but central tendencies. “
The six rotated components are: (1) Northeast Asians (2) Caucasoids, (3) Southeast Asians & Pacific Islanders, (4) sub-Saharan Africans, (5) North and South Amerindians and Eskimos, (6) aboriginal Australians and Papuan New Guineans.
However Jensen neglected to do a principal component analysis on the rotated principal components themselves or maybe he did but didn’t publish it because the results were unpalatable. You might think that’s not possible because principal components by definition are uncorrelated, however one purpose of rotating them is they become no longer 90 degrees apart and thus are no longer orthogonal.
Had he done such a second order principal component analysis, he may have found second-order factors. Perhaps (1),(3) and (5) would form a second order factor. Perhaps (2) would form another. Perhaps (4) and (6) would form a third. Then we’d have the three main races of the Bible: Mongoloids, Caucasoids and Negroids (not that I believe in the Bible or the Koran or any other holy book).
Pumpkin Person 
“bigot” is almost always misused and it isn’t necessarily pejorative when used correctly.
religious bigotry is the best example.
so when some american general said to muslims, “my God is real and your God is an idol.” this is bigotry.
abstractly it means refusing to discuss with, engage with people who have a difference of opinion on some issue…assuming that they’re stupid or evil.
mugabe is a proud bigot when it comes to freedom of speech and chimo-ing. there’s nothing to talk about. if you disagree you’re my enemy.
Theres nothing wrong with being a bigot. Its instinctive, therefore correct.
sort of. the solution to bigotry is just that people learn more about other people and walk a mile in their moccasins, it’s definitely not just screaming “bigot!” and that’s a misuse of the word besides. in fact the people who scream “bigot!” are bigots.
“Its instinctive, therefore correct.”
LMAO
“the solution to bigotry is just that people learn more about other people and walk a mile in their moccasins”
People don’t want to empathize with Bigots. It’s like being a chimo; it’s considered irredeemable in the eyes of most normies.
People should learn to empathize with the garbage of mankind, but the behaviors should not be tolerated. For most, it’s difficult to maintain such a balance.
Go ahead and punch a nazi in the face, but you should feel sorry for him and work to prevent more idiots like him from reproducing.
bigotry: I am big you are small. I am dominant you are not.
“Its instinctive, therefore correct.”
ISTJ self-rationalization.
Tribalism is a rational standpoint.
Most successful people in the world = jews = most tribal people in the world.
melo is a bigot.
People don’t want to empathize with Bigots. It’s like being a chimo; it’s considered irredeemable in the eyes of most normies.
only a chimo bigot would say such a thing.
“Tribalism is a rational standpoint.”
Yeah, 200kya tribalism was a rational standpoint. Now it’s just retarded.
“ISTJ self-rationalization.”
I’m ENTP, but I took that test a long time ago. I’m pretty sure Philo would be more N than S.
“melo is a bigot.”
Yeah, I’m intolerant of intolerance.
“I’m pretty sure Philo would be more N than S.”
MBTI is a dichotomy system and is useless statistically.
It does not represent real Jungian psychology.
Philo is Si – instinct (introverted sensing)
MBTI is BS, but I’m an INTJ.
rr is an introverted thinker (Ti)
– deduction opposed to induction (Te)
INTP or ISTP
MBTI is BS, but Jungian psychology is not.
Pumpkin is a bigot. he does not want to admit it but he supports a bigoted worldview. he does not have clarity yet. let it sink in for him.
yes. people think they’re well informed but they silo themselves and always have. mass media is always special pleading. not being a bigot isn’t something one can just claim. it requires EFFORT, a lot of INTELLECTUAL EFFORT. dumb people can’t do it. and most smart people have better things to do with their time than not being bigots.
if rr’s so-called “babe” actually has a black mother then the odds are 0% it’s his.
sad.
messi: italian
maradona: mestizo
pele: black
you decide:
in world cup play what about ronaldo (the brazilian one) and klose? #2 and #1 respectively.
of course pele was so good he was a midfielder.
klose is the GOAT…of headers!
animals have no mind + IQ tests should be banned + ridiculous hair = rr worships satan and must be banned immediately and forever.
animals do have beliefs about the world if you consider that a belief is a model of the causal nature of reality.
crows have a theory of mind and solve puzzles.
elephants understand death and paint pictures.
if animals just react as only in a behavior model then crows and elephants should be dumber than they actually are.
Suda Creations Genuine Elephant Painting By Elephant
rr: language is not an innate structure in the brain it is in the immaterial mind.
dumb.
if perfect forms exist then everything about the immaterial mind becomes material. im not challenging your assertion but i think being open-minded enough to realize this is very important.
everything has a perspective. without perspective we cannot apply considerable qualities to something. if something has a quality then it must be differentiated from what other perspectives might be there.
nothing is objective.
Had to moderate some comments because it’s not in your interest to disclose too much personal info.
everything is immaterial because of the quantum physics waveform (ψ)
but because the universe is non-deterministic no form is certain but only probable.
perfect has to be defined. because infinite forms exist.
no-thing is imperfect, that value judgment just does not exist.
becoming/causality is the result of finding the lowest energy state.
objective is just whatever the case may be.
Humans have five fingers per hand 99.9+ percent of the time.
only by injury or mutation is this not the case.
Pumpkin do you consider yourself intelligent/smart? if so what achievements or evidence supplies us with this knowledge of you?
i feel like your mind is in the sky and you have so many ideals but theyre never achieved because you have no way of confronting a harsh reality that lies in front of you!
2. the presentation of an argument that mentions or emphasizes only favorable aspects of the question at issue
3. an argument that ignores all unfavorable evidence
or what mugabe calls “lying without actually lying”. this is ALL mass media. and it ALWAYS has been.
those melo name-call “bigots” can sometimes be excused because:
1. the see that mass media is lying.
2. they don’t see that the prejudice handed down to them or “learned” from experience or from alt-media is just as much special pleading.
if rr were a real person with a real baby i would encourage him to convert to mormonism and marry his babymomma in a mormon temple.
rr: but mormonism is invalid because logic.
mugabe: the mormom divorce rate is 1%.
rr: but logic.
mugabe: your child is way more important than logic.
Mugabe you are almost as much of an empty person as RR.
You accused me of being a Jew or Italian because I wanted to be precise with language.
You accused me of a Nazi because I defend HBD.
You don’t believe in HBD and are afraid of people being absolutely precise and direct with language because you are afraid of commitment and focus. You don’t have kids and constantly drink alcohol and study a million different things because you want to be moral but are afraid of making mistakes.
We all have our good and bad points, but we need to move past our childhood. You will never get whatever was missing from back then. There’s nothing wrong with trying hard and failing… you don’t need to dwell on it as long you truly tried your best and learned from it.
there are places in the US where a gang of young asians is scary.
you walk the other way.
this song came out in 1980. everyone thought japan was gonna take over the world. at one time the TSE was more valuable than the NYSE…
the land under the imperial palace in tokyo was worth more than the entire state of california…
and then it all crashed.
To be fair, Japan did take over the western world. Culturally.
matteo salvini: southern italians don’t have minds.
rr: dasss racisss!
matteo salvini: but you said animals don’t have minds.
rr: touche!
I laughed.
i laughed too…he laughed hysterically…
what do charles martel and vyacheslav molotov have in common?
their noms de guerres both meant “hammer”…or “the hammer”.
islam at the battle of tours:
ottoman empire at the battle of vienna:
islamic golden age?
maimonides and averroes were quoted by aquinas frequently. the medieval christians were actually much more open minded than they have been since.
it’s just that western europe has been leading europe for so long the battle of tours seems much more important than the battle of vienna. it was the one chance islam had to conquer europe.
PP do you like Tim Hortons? I love it and I think it’s better than Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts.
People likes people named Tim and any other male first name in general.
rr thinks he can discover things about the world by arguing about the meaning of words. sad.
this list corresponds roughly to how “intelligence” is used when speaking of animals.
notice the hyacinth macaw has a tiny brain but a ginormous number of neurons. birds can’t have big brains and get off the ground. but they can have very neuron dense brains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons#List_of_animal_species_by_forebrain_(cerebrum_or_pallium)_neuron_number
it is a priori impossible for someone to be as dumb as lurker.
what does “ad” mean?
it means “anno domini” in latin and “in the year of our lord” in english.
so why isn’t christmas and new year’s the same day?
IT IS!
because 12 days ended by the feast of the epiphany, january 6th.
did somebody say january 6th?
Don’t forget the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year.
Your knowledge of church doctrine unsettles me. You sound mentally ill when you spew out these catholic factoids. 99% of catholics don’t know what you just said.
Ian Smith aka Mugabe is ENFP – (Ne)(Fi)
The first two functions are always the most important.
In my family:
Brother ESTJ (Te)(Si)
Mother ISFJ (Si)(Fe)
Aunt ESFJ (Fe)(Si)
Sister ESFP (Se)(Fi)
Me – INTJ (Ni)(Te)
Perception
Sensing – detection
Intuition – abstraction
Judgment
Feeling – value
Thinking – consequence
Orientation
Introversion – inward
Extraversion – outward
Total Function set.
Ni – surfing the unconscious
Si – instinct (gut)
Fi – personal values
Ti – deduction
Ne – potential (realization)
Se – sight clarity
Fe – social values
Te – induction
Anime what is your date of birth?
You don’t need to know his date of birth. That’s personal
I am 35 years old.
1987
Peeps, he is supposed to say that if he is not interested in giving his date of birth.
No?
And If he wants to, doesn’t he have the right to say it here? Or are you going to remove it if he posts it here?
1. flopping. footballers…especially the italians…act like they have a compound fracture…and then they get up and play.
2. example: saudi arabia beat argentina and then argentina won the world cup…”any given sunday” is way too many sundays.
3. penalty kicks are the definition of gay.
actually this should be #1.
Penalties are given way too softly in football I agree but the any given sunday element is whats fantastic about football. Leicester won the premier league even though the arabs and jews pumped billions into the much bigger clubs. I mean that was like a 1 in a million chance.
would make soccer hetero again.
like no goalie or only 10 players.
and sudden death overtime…
as many overtimes as required…
MLB became gay…
pitchers had too much advantage.
so it LOWERED THE MOUND.
Sailer should write an essay on why baseball went from no.1 in america to no.3/4. Back in the 20th century baseball was the american past time.
Black people gained rights.
but my parents did. they killed the airedale who was old and just slept all the time and smelled bad. and they did it while i was away. my parents were evil. i loved that dog.
my second airedale and my third irish setter…
emaciated from kidney failure…
internal bleeding and enormous pain from cancer…
sometimes eu-thanasia is a thing. sometimes. the nazi T4 program wasn’t pure evil. wasn’t. was NOT!
but it is a slippery slope.
that’s not a gay argument.
The best sports are ones which the person with the most testosterone doesn’t always win. Soccer is plausible. Look at messi. He has the physique of an actual goat. Whereas Pele had the typical black physique. Both were great.
Combat sports are great too. Like Stallone wrote in Rocky – ‘it aint how hard you hit, its how you take it’ to paraphrase. Basically being black is a decent but not significant advantage in combat sport.
Melo, RR and Loaded. The 3 dumbasses. They don’t get that if blacks had the IQ levels of east asians, we would have seen mongol type world invasions and havoc. I’m talking mass pillage and rapes. Skulls everywhere.
Because blacks were too dumb to even cross the Sahara, these 3 clowns think they’re docile.
i dont think blacks are docile lol. i think theyre very angry and destructive people.
however theyre loyal and friendly and prosocial to people whom they respect so that is why i respect them back. ive never seen a white person do this. they lack the empathy blacks do.
If they are more loyal and prosocial than whites, which is doubtful, but if true in any case it’s because if you live on the government teat (white teat) you don’t really have to have standards and can afford to be “nice” to everyone.
Blacks are basically the single mothers or urbanites or other out-of-touch of people who don’t realize that there are is actually work that has to be done with the harsh facts of the natural world in order to create society. They think being friendly and nice and wearing cool “kicks” is what makes society run, all while living off of a stable system of government bucks generated elsewhere (which they usually don’t even realize).
what work HAS to be done? there is nothing imperative about the monotony of life and the grandiosity of people who benefit off it.
whites leech off other races simply by this account. we have enough money to feed everyone to make sure everyone lives a decent life but instead the system was created by whites to put social Darwinism in place!
it is wrong and immoral and im not sure how you dont see that!
Blacks dont have empathy you idiot thats why they beat up, rape and murder people at wartime levels in a country thats supposed to be at peace.
I haven’t watched wrestling in 25 years but its nice to see the kids in the audience enjoy the show like I did. I had a dream several nights ago that I was a kid again watching wrestling and it was just like 25 years ago – the emotions, the aura, the excitement. It was a great dream.
Pope Benedict was not loved. Mugabe probably loves Benedict. I’m guessing Benedict was forced to step down because of the child abuse stuff and the fact he tried to cover it up as bishop but I don’t know for sure.
Pill its impossible to reason with you. you are not smart enough for people to have a conversation with.
^^dumbest person
“Muh Cold Winters Theory was deboonked because Africa has a harsher climate with more diseases and resource competition!”
The point of CWT is that you need a requisite amount of forward thinking, not that once you are intelligent, life is always more difficult in areas with cold winters compared to hotter moderate climates.
change causes presure.
where things are always the same no pressure exists.
civilization is a change in pressure.
so too technology.
Anyone else notice the way Anime might be an AI. His autism is so bad he talks exactly like a robot.
Yes, i is a.i.
all your memes are belong to us.
submit human
Trump 2024!
Aww, he made autism cute.
“life is always more difficult in areas with cold winters compared to hotter moderate climates.”
The arctic is more difficult to live in than the tropics. That doesn’t mean CWT is an effective explanation for modern racial disparities in IQ.
If there is an intelligence hurdle to cross to survive cold winters, it is a partial explanation of why populations in areas with cold winters have an IQ of above a certain threshold like 90. It doesn’t really imply that tropical climates can’t be difficult to survive in as well depending on the specific situation.
What novel predictions have been made by CWT? Or does it merely “predict” what it’s designed to explain meaning its a just-so story?
Is the fact in order to be alive, one must have survived also considered a “just-so” story?
Why is saying that in order to survive in a difficult to survive in area one must have sufficient qualities to survive, a “just-so” story?
It is a theory about human evolution before modern technology, we can’t exactly test it during modern times.
You are assuming it is wrong because it implies racial differences when it seems pretty clearly made in order to explain the differences not out of malice.
If it is considered a just-so story any human endeavor is a “just-so” story as nothing we do can ever be explained since we have no way to say any material thing caused any other material thing. Very educational deboonking.
“If there is an intelligence hurdle to cross to survive cold winters,”
There isn’t one. You don’t need high intelligence to survive a cold winter.
No doubt, humans would use their intelligence to survive in most environments. Still, resource allocation cannot be the primary driver of encephalization if the most intelligent order and species emerged in the tropics, a seemingly resource-abundant climate. It’s clearly more complex than you’d like it to be.
“Why is saying that in order to survive in a difficult to survive in area one must have sufficient qualities to survive, a “just-so” story?”
CWT is making a specific set of claims. Framing the “theory” like you are is disingenuous.
“we can’t exactly test it during modern times.”
You can; we just have to try harder.
“when it seems pretty clearly made in order to explain the differences not out of malice”
What?
“If it is considered a just-so story any human endeavor..Very educational deboonking.”
You should probably look up what a “just-so story” is because you’re way too ignorant to be acting this confident.
Personally, I don’t really care about the extremely specific wording of the “theory” wherever it was originally written, my point is that saying cold winters explain a cognitive boost is not something you can dismiss by any of the things you are stating.
“It’s clearly more complex than you’d like it to be.”
I talk about complex things all the time, I give numerous exceptions to basically anything I’m saying… actually it is RR who comes to extremely simplistic conclusions like intelligence is completely immeasurable because one or two facts about intelligence are complicated.
It could also be lower mutation load due to less radiation exposure, or other specific environmental variables that explains some of the latitude-based IQ differences. The point is they exist, so there needs to be an explanation, and one that states it is purely cultural is clearly wrong.
I understand what a just-so story is, I’m simply extrapolating the sort of thinking to a more general sense that seems to align with the way RR arrives at his conclusions about explanations of intelligence or natural selection in general (and some other anti-hereditarians or whatever you’d call him).
“I don’t really care about the extremely specific wording of the “theory” wherever it was originally written”
Lol.
“saying cold winters explain a cognitive boost is not something you can dismiss by any of the things you are stating.”
I can easily dismiss it because I’m aware of the literature and evidence relevant to the matter. However, if you have actual evidence that can independently verify CWT, I’m all ears.
“The point is they exist, so there needs to be an explanation”
Of course, but CWT is probably not that explanation. Remember, that’s what this discussion is about.
“it is purely cultural is clearly wrong.”
Yeah, and why’s that?
“I understand what a just-so story is”
Do you? Because it seems very apparent that you don’t.
It is not the fact of surviving in a cold but in a new environment. Familiar environments are always less difficult than new ones.
If the human species had arisen in polar regions, it would have been more difficult for ”us” to survive in intertropical environments in beginning.
Excellent comment!
Intelligence is quantitatively immeasurable, but not qualitatively, which happens from comparison, a form of ”indirect measurement”.
In hot weather, the brain overheats.
In cold weather, the brain becomes bigger and more spherical because of the radiating effect of heat distribution.
glucose efficiency in the brain is something to look into because metabolism is/would be different in cold weather than in hot weather.
The last ice age covered most of Europe and Siberia.
China is an open plains area in the north.
Melo, you are an unhappy, retarded person. Go bug someone else.
“Of course, but CWT is probably not that explanation. Remember, that’s what this discussion is about.”
Nope. I brought it up, and I never said it was the main or only explanation of modern intelligence differences. I was simply responding to the criticism of it being wrong because “Africa has more competition” or similar criticisms that imply that Africa is harder to live in.
“Go bug someone else.”
Lmao. That’s what I thought.
“It is not the fact of surviving in a cold but in a new environment. Familiar environments are always less difficult than new ones. ”
Of course, but that doesn’t really address my point. Novelty nor resource allocation may be a major selecting force on intelligence.
“In hot weather, the brain overheats.
In cold weather, the brain becomes bigger and more spherical because of the radiating effect of heat distribution.”
Yeah, but Pre-OOA Homo Sapiens had larger brains than Neanderthals.
Is Santocool the legendary Santoculto?
Obviously
“Lmao. That’s what I thought.”
You say you “thought” it but you agree you can’t prove that you thought it objectively or that your thoughts have any objective meaning… so no one cares.
But his english is way better than Santo’s
You’ve only seen a small sample & it might have improved
A just-so story is an ad-hoc hypothesis. A hypothesis is ad-hoc if it lacks independent justification. The CWT lacks independent justification beyond what it’s designed to explain—that is, the “evidence” for it doesn’t independently verify the hypothesis since that was used to construct the hypothesis itself (higher “IQs” in the north on comparison to the south, cold winters in north and not in south). So what’s the independent verifier for CWT?
“Yeah, but Pre-OOA Homo Sapiens had larger brains than Neanderthals.”
Neanderthals could not lift their arms above their shoulders. They were bulky and relied on strong bones and mussels to kill things to eat.
Homo Sapiens were weak so needed more intelligence to kill things. Relied more on the pack and language strategy.
Of course, migrations to new environments over many generations thousands of years ago, alone, did not directly contribute to the intelligence of present-day humans.
However, it is unclear whether there has been a significant increase in the intelligence of our species since antiquity. I honestly don’t think the ancient Greeks and Romans were much less intelligent than today’s Britons and Americans. It seems to me that the trajectory of human intelligence, especially in civilized societies, has been marked by undulations: interspersed processes of stagnation, increase and decline.
A quick summary of what I understand and hypothesize about this topic:
The increase that occurred during prehistory resulted in sedentarization (invention of agriculture or domestication/enslavement of other species) and subsequent emergence of complex societies (where this increase was more sustainable) that resulted in the deepening of the process of cognitive diversification (thanks to demographic growth /relaxation of natural selection) and which, in turn, resulted in increased cognitive inequalities, partly reflected by social inequalities (as continues to be the case today), especially by positive selection for more domesticated types, of a servile class, and associated with the cultural predominance of religion (dog-like training for humans), which perhaps explains the relative reduction in brain size during the transition to the Neolithic, if in non-human species, domestication is causally related to this outcome.
There is no better, albeit imperfect, historical record of human intelligence at its highest level ever achieved than the impact of a civilization in terms of altered environment, architectural constructions, and its own perpetuation.
Sub-Saharan Africa is by far one of the least altered continents and was one of the least populated for much of human history.
In addition to the novelty of an environment itself requiring a readaptation, resource-poor environments require individuals, particularly humans, these large-headed and comparatively physically weak primates, to create their own “environments” in the sense of ”security barriers” against its inhospitality, as to make clothes that insulate from the cold and build houses with the same objective. But that also depends on the degree of freedom or challenge it can offer. Polar environments are very difficult to survive, especially because of the cold and relative scarcity of vital resources. But they are also quite stable or predictable, whereas temperate environments are much more challenging. This doesn’t mean that hot environments are much easier to adapt to.
I believe that very hot/equatorial/dense forest environments are just as difficult to adapt as colder ones, especially for early humans. This would explain why small hunter-gatherer communities predominate in these two environments.
Very difficult environments for adaptation are detrimental to continuous creativity/experimentation and therefore to the flourishing of civilization in its characteristically superlative dimensions, as complex societies.
In any case, if the cold or the novelty (which may be in Africa itself or in another region with a warm climate), these are factors that can explain the increase in human intelligence in prehistory, during the formation of human cultures. and not necessarily after that.
Human culture made it possible for human beings to transfer from one environment to another without having to adapt in an absolutely visceral way.
Human culture has made us a generalist species, if culture tends to be like a “variably-universal adaptation manual”.
“A just-so story is an ad-hoc hypothesis. A hypothesis is ad-hoc if it lacks independent justification. The CWT lacks independent justification beyond what it’s designed to explain—that is, the “evidence” for it doesn’t independently verify the hypothesis since that was used to construct the hypothesis itself (higher “IQs” in the north on comparison to the south, cold winters in north and not in south). So what’s the independent verifier for CWT?”
If you don’t believe in the numerous and obvious evidence of higher IQs in the north obviously there is no point in arguing whether CWT is ad-hoc or just-so.
Any explanation or consequence that isn’t immediately repeatable and verifiable (such as physical engineering or abstract things like mathematics) will always be debatable as ad-hoc, which includes basically any historical explanation of anything since those involve situations to complicated and subjective with human intentionality to ever.
None of this explains the obvious intellectual and cultural disparities that happen to correlate largely with “biased” IQ tests and brain sizes (and various other brain mutations). None of this explains why everything we actually understand about physical reality, are ultimately abstract mental constructs, and so separating them needlessly as two different types of explanation (mental causation vs. physical causation) seems meaningless to some degree. Or the obvious measurability of knowledge in some respects, and the testability of mental problem-solving to the physical world. etc.
RR: https://kirkegaard.substack.com/p/cold-winters-theory-a-summary-of
“If you don’t believe in the numerous and obvious evidence of higher IQs in the north obviously there is no point in arguing whether CWT is ad-hoc or just-so.”
What is this nonsense? What’s the independent verification for the hypothesis?
“Any explanation or consequence that isn’t immediately repeatable and verifiable (such as physical engineering or abstract things like mathematics) will always be debatable as ad-hoc, which includes basically any historical explanation of anything since those involve situations to complicated and subjective with human intentionality to ever.”
A hypothesis that predicts novel facts—meaning a fact not used in the construction of the hypothesis, an observable that wasn’t used in the construction of the hypothesis—raises the probability that the state of affairs is true. Novel evidence for H raises the probability of H being true. So go ahead and give me the criteria/criterion for adaptations.
You didn’t address the issue at all.
Some guy,
Yea I read that.
“There are a three lines of evidence:
National IQs and natural correlates
Hunter-gatherer toolkit complexity
Animal ecology”
Nothing he writes as a defense of these claims is anything even remotely similar to “independent evidence”—nevermind Lynn’s fraudulent “IQ” data as shown by Rebecca Sear and Christian Ebbeson.
https://psyarxiv.com/26vfb/
https://psyarxiv.com/tzr8c/
PP post this one not the other.
And funny enough, Satoshi Kanazawa is still pushing his BS “savannah hypothesis” (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022096522000613) using Lynn’s BS “data.” Since Clark et al (2020) was retracted for using Lynn’s BS “data”, then ALL papers using the “data” should be retracted. Just like Rushton and Templer’s pigmentation and melanocortin paper which was retracted due to their misrepresentations as brought to light by EPG.
“If you don’t believe in the numerous and obvious evidence of higher IQs in the north obviously there is no point in arguing whether CWT is ad-hoc or just-so.”
LOL, it’s absolutely hilarious how this comment proves Lurker has no idea what RR is talking about.
“Any explanation or consequence that isn’t immediately repeatable and verifiable (such as physical engineering or abstract things like mathematics) will always be debatable as ad-hoc”
Yes, technically any new hypothesis is ad-hoc.
“LOL, it’s absolutely hilarious how this comment proves Lurker has no idea what RR is talking about.”
Again, stop responding to me, and he is free to do likewise. You never bother to defend your claims but simply claim I am wrong. The only times I assert something is when I’ve already argued it with the person I’m talking to or the arguments are simply the same as PP articles or common HBD arguments that everyone on this blog should know.
“What is this nonsense? What’s the independent verification for the hypothesis?”
It’s not nonsense. It’s already established that we disagree (on fundamental principles apparently). I’m simply reasserting my position that there is evidence for IQ differences which you believe is false since 1. you don’t intelligence is measurable and 2. you believe all intellectual tests are cultural.
“A hypothesis that predicts novel facts—meaning a fact not used in the construction of the hypothesis, an observable that wasn’t used in the construction of the hypothesis—raises the probability that the state of affairs is true. Novel evidence for H raises the probability of H being true. So go ahead and give me the criteria/criterion for adaptations.”
?????
How about the fact that having genetic abnormalities leads to death or decreased survivability in nearly all cases? Which clearly indicates that specific genetics are related to environmentally adapting traits.
And genetics change over time to create phenotypes that succeed in their environments?
What kind of evidence do you want?
God to come down and declare that specific genes create better organisms for specific environments than other genes? If you don’t accept “correlates of causes” as evidence for adaptation there is nothing that you will ever accept as evidence in all of empirical science. You realize that even physics suffers from indeterminancy or undecidability? We can never test causation in the physical world “directly” as it seems you demand…
Haha Melo, lurker thinks that novel evidence for CWT is genetic mutations.
“Creates” is a causal notion, genes are passive, not active, causes (as it seems hereditarians try to argue) and since biological relativity is true, reductionism is false. I want you to provide a novel fact that the CWT predicted that wasn’t used in the hypothesis’ construction.
“It’s not nonsense”
Of course it’s nonsense. You clearly don’t know what “independent evidence” and “novel facts/predictions” are.
So, RR, what would independent evidence for CWT look like? Could you make up some evidence like that just so one understands specifically what you would find acceptable?
“Haha Melo, lurker thinks that novel evidence for CWT is genetic mutations.”
Adaptation, not CWT specifically. Although obviously it applies to CWT.
Considering you don’t seem to believe in absolute meaning I see no point in arguing very specific things with you. That’s why you are a pathetic, gross dude who couldn’t find a white woman. Haha!
““Creates” is a causal notion, genes are passive, not active, causes (as it seems hereditarians try to argue) and since biological relativity is true, reductionism is false. I want you to provide a novel fact that the CWT predicted that wasn’t used in the hypothesis’ construction.”
Everything in the environment is passive not active since nothing is actually created but moves through different forms of energy and mass.
I want you to provide a novel fact that shows you believe in any empirical evidence at all.
“It’s not nonsense”
“Of course it’s nonsense. You clearly don’t know what “independent evidence” and “novel facts/predictions” are.”
…Everyone with an IQ above 90 (if even that) understands what an independent variable is, or when some theory predicts something new. People just disagree which parts are actually independent and what predictions follow, etc. But independent evidence and novel predictions are not notions so complex most people don’t understand them. Just because you use those words people might not understand doesn’t mean they don’t get them implicitly.
You don’t believe that IQ exists, you autistic race mixer (not that there’s anything right with that), and you have to resort to “physical reducibility” arguments to defend yourself.
It has nothing to do with me or any heriditarian not knowing what independent evidence is.
Some guy,
Sure.
CWT is the theory that cold winters is the case of the IQ gap—meaning those who migrated needed higher “intelligence” than those who did not migrate. Already implicit in the theory—which lurker should know—is that the explanation is genetic and differential reproduction which led to natural selection “doing its thing” to then widen intelligence gaps between groups. A novel fact is a fact that was predicted by H that was not known to the one
The best example I can think of is general relativity. No one would have guessed that light would bend around large objects until Einstein formulated his theory. It was observed AFTER Einstein predicted it would be, so it thusly was novek evidence for GR. Scientific theories and hypotheses not only EXPLAIN observations (CWT is held to be an “explanation”), but they also predict NOVEL facts of the matter. CWT—along with other evolutionary psychological hypotheses/theories—generates no new predictions or facts. They merely “explain” what is already known.
CWT is an EP hypothesis so this general argument holds for it too, as well as any EP hypothesis.
Independent confirmation is a necessary condition of science. So for a theory to be scientific, it must be independently confirmed. A hypothesis H is independently conformable if and only if it generates predictions of novel facts—facts not used in the construction of the hypothesis. Hypotheses that fail to generate predictions of novel facts are just-so stories. Adaptationist hypotheses (which CWT is too) fail to generate testable predictions. Therefore, adaptationist hypotheses are just-so stories.
I can see lurker trying to shift burden of proof trying to dodge this air-tight argument, but the only way for him to do so is to specify an observation that is expected for an adaptation but NOT expected on a byproduct explanation. He, therefore, needs to provide HALLMARKS of adaptation. And I don’t think he can do that because none exist.
The novel prediction has always been that high IQ genotypes would correlate with cold ancestry & that’s exactly what Davide Piffer found
Where did Piffer find that? And, as I stated before, that was implicit in the theory, as it is assumed that genes cause not only psychological traits but differences in them.
Virtually all eminent biologists agree we are a product of genes & environment. Your views are super fringe flat earth level fringe
“Adaptation, not CWT specifically. Although obviously it applies to CWT.”
Is that a hallmark of adaptations?
“That’s why you are a pathetic, gross dude who couldn’t find a white woman. Haha!”
I’m attracted to femininity in women. I’ve had many white women in my life. This is absolutely irrelevant to anything.
“I want you to provide a novel fact that shows you believe in any empirical evidence at all.”
I did, with the GR example.
“You don’t believe that IQ exists”
My belief is backed by sound arguments.
“you autistic race mixer”
Why do you care? I always knew you were a racist. And im not autistic.
“you have to resort to “physical reducibility” arguments to defend yourself.”
I’ve explained my reasoning for years.
“It has nothing to do with me or any heriditarian not knowing what independent evidence is.”
Quite obviously so, since if you guys did you wouldn’t push EP hypotheses that lack independent verification. You don’t even know what a novel fact is which is why you can’t answer the challenge. I’ve explained the argument in depth more, by the way.
In which of Piffer’s papers did he find that?
In the interview I did with him which I posted on this blog
So what’s the answer to this?
“(1) provide a valid deductive argument, in that the conclusion is the phenomena to be explained; (2) provide an explanans (the sentences adduced as the explanation for the phenomenon) that has one lawlike generalization; and (3) show the remaining premises which state the preceding conditions have to have empirical content and they have to be true.”
He uses Lynn’s “national IQs” for which I have posted the refutations of yesterday.
He must be referring to this:
“Demonstrating that the alleles predict country-level differences in cognitive ability above and beyond that predicted on the basis of migration, drift etc, can be taken to evidence the theory that these differences have been shaped by diffuse polygenic selection operating on these alleles.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289615001087
Of course, Bird’s 2020 response is the kill-shot here, along with population stratification which causes spurious correlations.
https://psyarxiv.com/kgz2t/
And there is also the fact that larger datasets lead to spurious correlations. What he stated isn’t a novel prediction, at all, and in any case it’s refuted by the Bird paper.
“The novel prediction has always been that high IQ genotypes would correlate with cold ancestry & that’s exactly what Davide Piffer found”
True except we all know IQ is fake and genes do not determine anything.
CWT is the theory that cold winters is the case of the IQ gap—meaning those who migrated needed higher “intelligence” than those who did not migrate. Already implicit in the theory—which lurker should know—is that the explanation is genetic and differential reproduction which led to natural selection “doing its thing” to then widen intelligence gaps between groups. A novel fact is a fact that was predicted by H that was not known to the one
“The best example I can think of is general relativity. No one would have guessed that light would bend around large objects until Einstein formulated his theory. It was observed AFTER Einstein predicted it would be, so it thusly was novek evidence for GR. Scientific theories and hypotheses not only EXPLAIN observations (CWT is held to be an “explanation”), but they also predict NOVEL facts of the matter.”
From the perspective of the light, it does not bend, the spacetime around it changes. From the perspective of the object, it does bend.
In other words, objective “physical facts” and two subjective “viewpoints” coinciding.
From whose perspective is space-bending a prediction? From the outside observer’s.
Relativity itself hints that dualism is false since subjectivity (changes that depend on observer) is implicated in physical measurements themselves. If material and immaterial were separate substances this would be impossible.
Light bends and does not bend depending on the perspective because that preserves noncontradiction, which is necessary for our “objective” world. Why is physical noncontradiction is necessary in a material world if the physical world is not dependent on abstract notions of logical and mathematical consistency? Well because obviously it IS.
“CWT—along with other evolutionary psychological hypotheses/theories—generates no new predictions or facts. They merely “explain” what is already known.”
Because you don’t have a coherent definition of subjectivity, objectivity, material vs. immaterial, which is why you resort to knowledge being acculturation.
Your idea of reality (and Melos) is fundamentally incoherent… which is why you say “brains get bigger as a child ages because their bodies get bigger”. How you consider CWT not an explanation, but that an explanation, just shows you must not be thinking about IQ objectively but because you don’t want to be “racist”.
“Independent confirmation is a necessary condition of science. So for a theory to be scientific, it must be independently confirmed. A hypothesis H is independently conformable if and only if it generates predictions of novel facts—facts not used in the construction of the hypothesis. Hypotheses that fail to generate predictions of novel facts are just-so stories. Adaptationist hypotheses (which CWT is too) fail to generate testable predictions. Therefore, adaptationist hypotheses are just-so stories.”
Well we only have one universe and one homo sapiens and one earth, so yes, independent confirmation (which requires multiple experiments) is going to be hard for a lot of adaptationist hypotheses. Even so, there is still plenty of evidence and they match up with the rest of science a lot better than intelligence being completely cultural.
“I can see lurker trying to shift burden of proof trying to dodge this air-tight argument, but the only way for him to do so is to specify an observation that is expected for an adaptation but NOT expected on a byproduct explanation. He, therefore, needs to provide HALLMARKS of adaptation. And I don’t think he can do that because none exist.”
DNA gives instructions on how to make proteins, which make up the organism. Genetics/DNA themselves are not expected as byproducts without adaptation. What the hell would they indicate except that certain organizations of matter are adapted to certain environments? Otherwise they are unnecessary, much like large resource-hogging brains that don’t improve intelligence.
DNA and IQ differences make sense given that the world is not dualistic and material biological differences actually matter to immaterial mental/cultural differences (and vice versa). They don’t make sense on a social constructivist view.
“Adaptation, not CWT specifically. Although obviously it applies to CWT.”
Is that a hallmark of adaptations?
“That’s why you are a pathetic, gross dude who couldn’t find a white woman. Haha!”
“I’m attracted to femininity in women. I’ve had many white women in my life. This is absolutely irrelevant to anything.”
You ignore my arguments about material and immaterial both being abstract, about subjectivity and objectivity coinciding, and then laugh at me. So I laugh back at your lived misunderstanding of genetics.
“I did, with the GR example.”
That was a good one and I hope you read my response because it might help you get out of your mental rut.
“You don’t believe that IQ exists”
“My belief is backed by sound arguments.”
False, I’ve shown your arguments are either faulty (that knowledge is measurable) or impossible to fulfill (we don’t have multiple homo sapiens to make evolutionary predictions).
“Why do you care? I always knew you were a racist. And im not autistic.”
Because you being an autistic race mixer explains your beliefs better than your hodgepodge of arguments (that all ultimately reduce to misunderstandings about what knowledge or objectivity or subjectivity is – a hallmark of someone who is autistic and lacks holistic understanding) against hereditarianism.
And I’m technically a product of race mixing, both of multiple Western European nations and of Amerindian (though it is admittedly small %). My HBD does not come from racism. I never took a DNA test… I just have seen real life evidence of genetic differences and brain size differences creating different results in intellectual activities.
Whether the brain sizes are the result of “mental causation” of the baby itself wanting to be smarter, and somehow manipulating it’s own genetics, or whatever weird argument you might come up with, the fact is that smarter brains are consistently larger or structured differently. And the second fact is that smarter actually means something objective and absolute, because knowledge is abstract and some abstractions actually correlate with objective measurable facts. (in fact, all knowledge is objective in some sense, it just may be fundamentally contradictory and/or contradictory with other possible knowledge).
“I’ve explained my reasoning for years.”
You can’t explain brain growth, the coincidence of brain and mind, how subjectivity relates to objectivity, the objectivity of knowledge and why quantification works on anything that is apparently immeasurable (like abstractions), etc.
Your reasoning is full of holes.
“Quite obviously so, since if you guys did you wouldn’t push EP hypotheses that lack independent verification. You don’t even know what a novel fact is which is why you can’t answer the challenge. I’ve explained the argument in depth more, by the way.”
You say that and yet the the world keeps spinning bro. East Asians keep being smarter than Western Europeans, and so on… Humans keep being smarter than cats, who are smarter than cockroaches, who are smarter than bacteria…
That’s a direct novel prediction of Einstein’s theory and is the best example of “novel fact.” A dodge—of course.
“Because you don’t have a coherent definition of subjectivity, objectivity, material vs. immaterial, which is why you resort to knowledge being acculturation.”
You don’t even understand my argument which is why you can’t pick a premise and explain why it’s false.
“which is why you say “brains get bigger as a child ages because their bodies get bigger”. How you consider CWT not an explanation, but that an explanation, just shows you must not be thinking about IQ objectively but because you don’t want to be “racist”.”
“Well we only have one universe and one homo sapiens and one earth, so yes, independent confirmation (which requires multiple experiments) is going to be hard for a lot of adaptationist hypotheses. Even so, there is still plenty of evidence and they match up with the rest of science a lot better than intelligence being completely cultural.”
Which premise does this gibberish refute?
“DNA gives instructions on how to make proteins, which make up the organism. Genetics/DNA themselves are not expected as byproducts without adaptation. What the hell would they indicate except that certain organizations of matter are adapted to certain environments? Otherwise they are unnecessary, much like large resource-hogging brains that don’t improve intelligence.
DNA and IQ differences make sense given that the world is not dualistic and material biological differences actually matter to immaterial mental/cultural differences (and vice versa). They don’t make sense on a social constructivist view.”
More nonsense and that doesn’t answer my question—what are the hallmarks of adaptation?
“You ignore my arguments about material and immaterial both being abstract, about subjectivity and objectivity coinciding, and then laugh at me. So I laugh back at your lived misunderstanding of genetics.”
You can touch material things, they are in space. Immaterial things aren’t. So immaterial things aren’t measurable. I can further break down my argument simple as:
Science studies the physical.
The mind is not physical.
So science can’t study the mind.
“Because you being an autistic race mixer explains your beliefs better than your hodgepodge of arguments (that all ultimately reduce to misunderstandings about what knowledge or objectivity or subjectivity is – a hallmark of someone who is autistic and lacks holistic understanding) against hereditarianism.”
Hahaha you’re delusional. My beliefs on this issue have evolved greatly over the years. My arguments refute physicalism and along with it hereditarianism since it is a physicalist theory of mind. You’d know that if you knew anything about hereditarianism, though.
“You can’t explain brain growth, the coincidence of brain and mind, how subjectivity relates to objectivity, the objectivity of knowledge and why quantification works on anything that is apparently immeasurable (like abstractions), etc.”
I have a background in anatomy and physiology. You’ve yet to even take a stab at refuting Uher, Trendler or Michell who rightly argue that psychometrics isn’t measurement and that psychological traits aren’t quantifiable like physical things. They jive well with Berka’s and Nash’s argument against the extraphysical.
“You say that and yet the the world keeps spinning bro. East Asians keep being smarter than Western Europeans, and so on… Humans keep being smarter than cats, who are smarter than cockroaches, who are smarter than bacteria…”
After all of this writing you STILL haven’t provided the independent verifier that CWT could be true, the verifier that would raise the probability that the theory is true. What a waste.
RR, I’ve directly responded to most of your arguments except a few random citations.
If you want me, an anonymous poster, to singlehandedly refute the 400 references you give in every response, while dodging all of my counterarguments, maybe wait until 2024.
If you think I’m as unaware as you are stating than there’s no need to argue with me for as long as you have.
““brains get bigger as a child ages because their bodies get bigger”. How you consider CWT not an explanation, but that an explanation”
LOL, well one is a hypothesis the other is just a statement of fact.
RR, “A novel fact is a fact that was predicted by H that was not known to the one”
…making it? You didn’t finish the sentence.
“CWT is the theory that cold winters is the case of the IQ gap—meaning those who migrated needed higher “intelligence” than those who did not migrate. Already implicit in the theory—which lurker should know—is that the explanation is genetic and differential reproduction which led to natural selection “doing its thing” to then widen intelligence gaps between groups.”
Since you don’t believe in that explanation, shouldn’t your belief system also predict/explain these facts just as well as hereditarianism/CWT? Hunter-gatherer tools, brain sizes, animal intelligence and all other hereditarian stuff?
Or in other words, if those facts were novel to your belief system, isn’t that evidence against your belief system, even if they weren’t novel to a hereditarian belief system?
Lurker,
I just enjoy arguing and excepting Mug’s and Phil’s ramblings, I think the people that comment here have interesting ideas and I enjoy discussing things with people who have different viewpoints.
Until next time bro. You know we’ll pick this discussion up again soon.
Some guy,
I meant to delete that but I forgot, but I’ll complete the sentence.
A novel fact is a fact that was predicted by H that was not known to the one who formulated the hypothesis. Lynn has said for years—indeed since the 70s—that genes are responsible for IQ differences and Jensen has too, since 1969.
“Since you don’t believe in that explanation, shouldn’t your belief system also predict/explain these facts just as well as hereditarianism/CWT? Hunter-gatherer tools, brain sizes, animal intelligence and all other hereditarian stuff?”
I WOULD consider the hypothesis if one can adduce an indepdently confirmable prediction—i.e. a novel fact borne out from the theory. I’ve thought about CWT for years—indeed I used to believe it was true—before I had a better understanding of philosophy of science and the issued with EP explanations. I’ve explained my views on the causes of IQ gaps for years on this blog and on mine.
“if those facts were novel to your belief system, isn’t that evidence against your belief system, even if they weren’t novel to a hereditarian belief system?”
See, I don’t believe that everything that we see in the world can be explained by humans—by science or even by conceptual analysis. So take that a a sort of “mysterian-type” view. If I weren’t a dualist I probably would be a neo-mysterian. In any case, the argument as I’ve explained it is what those who propose adaptationist hypotheses need to surmount. And if they can’t, they’re peddling nothing more than mere bedtime stories for adults.
Lynn has said for years—indeed since the 70s—that genes are responsible for IQ differences and Jensen has too, since 1969.
But those predictions were untestable until the 2010s so they made predictions that Were unknowable when Lynn made the theory. Classic example of novel predictions
Lynn, in 1977, noted a “genuine superiority of the Japanese”—though Lynn cherry-picked studies for Asian countries to inflate their IQs, what explains higher Asian achievement is hyper-selectivity, and just the overall dishonesty from him that various authors have been putting out for the past 40 years.
It’s not a testable prediction at all. Remember, psychological traits are immaterial and psychological traits/mental abilities are irreducible to anything physical. Also,
Kirkegaard says that the earliest discussion of CWT he can find from Lynn is 1987. Nevermind the fact that it’s the definition of ad hoc that the hierarchy changed right as Asian countries started to pull ahead as noted by Lieberman 2001.
Hereditarianism is a classic case of Lakatos’ “degenerating research program” due to its reliance on just-so stories and its reliance on straight false assumptions like the assumption that psychological traits are quantitative and the claim that studies of twins and adoptees can explain anything about a genetic basis of human behavior.
“LOL, well one is a hypothesis the other is just a statement of fact.”
No shit. The point is that you actually explain why such a vulnerable resource-hog like a large brain would exist if it weren’t necessary for survival. It would be much better to have a tiny brain if the size in terms of numbers of neurons and synapses wasn’t important, because it would increase survivability immensely… this is what I mean when I say NCSD does not explain anything. Saying a brain is necessary for a mind but only going that far is barely scratching the surface in terms of explaining the connection between the physical and the mental.
Can’t make this any clearer… if RR wants to explain why brains should be large despite them making us extremely easy to kill without mentioning some esoteric philosopher’s paper he is free to do so.
And also, hereditarian theories/hypotheses rely on natural selection, as I noted here:
Hereditarians are neo-Darwininans and since they are neo-Darwinians, they hold that natural selection is the most powerful “mechanism” of evolution, causing trait changes by culling organisms with “bad” traits which then decreaes the frequency of the genes that supposedly cause the trait. But (1) natural selection cannot possibly be a mechanism as there is no agent of selection (that is, no mind selecting organisms with fitness-enhancing traits for a certain environment), nor are there laws of selection for trait fixation that hold across all ecologies (Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini, 2010); and (2) genes aren’t causes of traits on their own—they are caused to give the information in them by and for the physiological system (Noble, 2011).
… “natural selection” is part of the bedrock of hereditarian theorizing. It was natural selection—according to the hereditarian—that caused racial differences in behavior and “intelligence.” And so, if the hereditarian has no response to these two arguments against natural selection, then they cannot logically claim that the differences they describe are due to “natural selection.”
So the hereditarian theorist asserts that those with genes that conferred a fitness advantage had more children than those that didn’t which led to the selection of the genes that became fixed in certain populations. This is a familiar story—and the hereditarian uses this as a basis for the claim that racial differences in traits are the outcome of natural selection. These views are noted in Rushton (2000: 228-231), Jensen (1998: 170, 434-436) and Lynn (2006: Chapters 15, 16, and 17). But as Noble (2012) noted, there is no privileged level of causation—that is, before performing the relevant experiments, we cannot state that genes are causes of traits so this, too, refutes the hereditarian claim.
Rushton’s “Differential K” theory—where Mongoloids, Caucasians, and Africans differ on a suite of traits, which is influenced by their life histories and whether or not they are r- or K-strategists. Rushton (2000: 27) also claimed that “different environments cause, via natural selection, biological differences“, and by this he means that the environment acts as a filter. But the claim that the environment is the filter that causes variation in traits due to genes being “selected against” fails, too. When traits are correlated, the environmental filters (the mechanism by which selection theory purportedly works) cannot distinguish between causes of fitness and mere correlates of causes of fitness. So appealing to environments causing biological differences fails.
Happy New Year, pp and everyone here!
You too!
Thanks!
“”(not that I believe in the Bible or the Koran or any other holy book).””
Peeps I am thinking of creating a new religion that combine major religions ( well, not fully as it is not possible without becoming nonsense but the most important parts of various religions ) by creating a holy book that does this. And it will make sense to agnostics too. It won’t have a new prophet or messiah.
Would you join the religion, dear?
No I oppose all religion
“People just need to be educated and have equal access to the means of production, then we will quickly progress as a civilization and people will hardly want for anything!”
So what you’re saying is that you can simply educate people to be able to do any task and enjoy those tasks?
“No, but giving people access to the means to explore what they are good at is better than denying access on the basis of inherent inferiority”
So you believe people are already better and worse at certain things, but just that the distribution of means of production is flawed due to human corruption? Wow, welcome to standard liberalism or libertarianism.
Communists, social constructivists, tend to converge into one because they all make similar mistakes about humanity or how society/reality works.
Communism is better than libertarianism because 1. it’s closer to the “natural state” of human socio-political structure and 2. Libertarianism only fixes half of the problem.
But really, if you just made education a #1 priority. You wouldn’t need communism. Communism is impractical because of the way society is currently set up. Accelerationists like Mugs just hope Trump will destroy society so that something more ideal to them will later fill the vacuum.
However, I think if we just prevented people like Trump from existing in the first place, something like social democracy would work perfectly fine.
And how do you do that? By maximizing the full potential of every citizen you can. Which begins with education.
“Communism is impractical because of the way society is currently set up. ”
No, it’s impractical because of reality… which is why it literally never works regardless of whether Asians, Europeans, Amerindians, or Africans do it.
“And how do you do that? By maximizing the full potential of every citizen you can. Which begins with education.”
Education is obviously important but again it itself requires the usage of previously acquired resources to educate, and a convergence on what is correct to educate about, which if you don’t believe in objective facts or seem to have a loose grasp on what is objectively knowable or worth knowing, as social constructivists do, you will never get to.
“No, it’s impractical because of reality”
Nonsensical assertion.
“which if you don’t believe in objective facts or seem to have a loose grasp on what is objectively knowable or worth knowing, as social constructivists do, you will never get to.”
Not all social constructivists disregard brute facts.
If it is a nonsensical assertion stop responding bro. No use in arguing about something nuanced and contentious with an obviously biased adversary.
Communists were the OG social constructivists.
(((True.))) Lol
Hey Pumpkin, the correlation between Neanderthal brain size and fossil age is -.38. for the same period, Homo sapiens was -.2. Does this imply Neanderthals had a stronger selection for brain size over time?
Yes, if true that’s what it would imply
Cool, I’m going through the Desilva data now. So, during the middle paleolithic, it seems that Neanderthals were encephalizing at a faster rate than Homo sapiens. However, the oldest Neanderthal fossil available in the data set is 250kya; the youngest is 40Kya. If I line up the Homo sapiens sample, the correlation becomes -.02. The previous cutoff was 30kya which suggests that Homo sapiens encephalized the most from 40k-30kya.
Homo erectus has the largest, with -.7, but I want to go through the dataset more and add locations to get an idea of what climates encephalization occurred the most. I’ll get back to you when I finish.
It would also be nice to pin down precisely when in the Holocene brains began to shrink. Peter frost & I had a long debate about how to interpret that
I’m basically finished with the dataset. I’m just playing around with some stuff at this point. The results are definitely interesting, but I’m also curious to see when brain size decreases. I guess creating a moving average would probably be the best way to see when exactly “decephalization” occurs?
I had a very weird dream where I was on a quiz game. I remembered one of the questions. Zone: Pool as Mine: ?
The quizmaster read out the answer. It kind of made sense. Remember this is dream logic.
Oprah believes in astrology lol. Obviously she must be an idiot.
No she doesn’t. And you believe in god so you’re not much better
LOL Oprah believes in God too. So does Einstein. So does Chris Langan. Are they all idiots?
I don’t know if Einstein believed in god.
Oprah probably vists Harvey Weinstein in jail and traffics women there for him to slobber over.
You sound like Alex jones.
Someone should do a play based on Oprah and Harvey Weinstein. Oprah’s character can run publicity defence for Harvey and fawn all over him whenever he walks onto the stage just like in real life.
That was Michelle Obama not Oprah
The Obamas sent their daughter to intern for Weinstein. Ewwww. Obviously, they weren’t told by Meryl Streep and Oprah that Weinstein was a psychopathic predator.
So Oprah knew but the president didn’t? Unlikely
Oprah doesn’t care about Obama. To her hes just another pol. They only thing they have in common is they are affirmative action.
I agree you & Obama are affirmative action. Oprah not so much
Wouldn’t it be hilarious if Oprah married Harvey Weinstein?? Hahaha. It would be a perfect marriage.
So if Chris Langan started posting here his opinions on blacks you would ban him?
No
Oprah and Meryl Streep were in cahoots with Weinstein. They probably recommended Weinstein to innocent young girls looking to become famous. Oprah got kickbacks like fried chicken and contracts.
I don’t think so. He didn’t need anyone to pimp for him. Plenty of pretty actresses happy to whore themselves out
Wait, you actually believe that peeps? I thought you would be one of the last people on the planet who thinks like that about actresses.
If being religious means having faith in a certain absolute power or meaning without proof, unless you can prove that being irreligious is better or correct than being religious, you are religious yourself (about being irreligious) as you have faith in something absolutely without proof.
You could be agnostic about both but leaning to one side, but ultimately even agnosticism is still something you have to act on, which means it is your view of the world (your religion) and informs your actions.
If you have no proof that faith makes life worse you can’t criticize other people’s faith as they are literally maximizing utility in their and everyone else’s life they interact with.
Historically there are plenty of times when faith has been crushed and shown to be wrong, but it is always replaced by a more complex and/or rational faith, as that is basically the only way to actually live, since none of us have absolute knowledge of reality or its future.
The world melo would live in if he embraced his half-white side:
Yeah its amazing how the jews got him to worship black cock even though hes half white. I bet he watches CNN.
It’s sad. He thinks repeating CNN talking points to people who say HBD things is clever, as if we have never heard them… the fact is that we are inundated in anti-white, anti-Western, communistic propaganda daily.
He seriously thinks we live in a community of white supremacists and have never heard of any of the numerous liberal mainstream outlets (which describes basically all of them) and that shoving those points in our face will “own” us.
It’s actually the opposite, I would never feel the need or want to talk about HBD if denial of it wasn’t rampant in the modern world. I’d rather everyone get along obviously; who wants drama? But it can’t be done when lies about genetics and biology are spread and then competency is taxed and stomped down because identity politics and affirmative action is the norm. The amount of flak taken for actually acknowledging reality is ultimately better than continuing down the path of social constructivistic, communistic, parasitic control.
Lurker doesn’t even realize that such simplistic hereditarian notions of genes have been refuted by DST thinkers, such as Noble’s biological relativity argument. The ones pushing lies about genes and biology are, in fact, hereditarian psychologists who know nothing about genes and how they really work. Nevermind the nonsense “heritability” concept.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262309/
Genes are still heritable, just because they interact in complicated ways… People of mixed ancestry still exist.
I took a DNA test.
I “inherited” my genes from my ancestors.
All parts of the developmental system are heritable. Strong causal parity is true, which is the claim that no one developmental resource has causal primacy—privilege—over any other developmental resources. Hereditarianism tries to privilege genes which is, quite clearly as we know from systems biology, laughable. This is yet another reason why hereditarianism fails.
Have you read Kevin Bird’s 2020 paper lurker? How does that jive with “natural selection” claims for IQ?
RR, are developmental resources classified as genes or environment?
This paper gets at the heart of the matter of causal parity. And if causal parity is true, then hereditarianism is false, since hereditarianism privileges genes. There are so mabg lines of argument to attack hereditarianism from, especially today, that the only reason one would be a hereditarian is if they’re a racist.
https://f1000research.com/articles/8-1705
I’m tired and lazy right now, so I’ll let Oyama explain (from Evolution’s Eye: A System’s View of the Biology-Culture Divide). I will say, though, what is heritable is the system itself, and for the system to function properly and carry out the tasks it needs to in order to construct the organism, all of the parts need to be there and need to work together, with no part of the system having causal primacy over the other. I think over the last 30 years or so the “gene as difference maker” view that has been around since the late 1980s or so has been definitively refuted, by people like Ken Richardson, David Moore, Susan Oyama, Denis Noble, James Shapiro, Mary West-Eberhard, Richard Lerner, etc.
“What is transmitted between generations is not traits, or blueprints or symbolic representations of traits, but developmental means (or resources, or interactants). These means include genes, the cellular machinery necessary for their functioning, and the larger developmental context, which may include a maternal reproductive system, parental care, or other interaction with conspecifics, as well as relations with other aspects of the animate and inanimate worlds. This context, which is actually a system of partially nested contexts, changes with time, partly as a result of the developmental processes themselves. Differential gene transcription in diverse tissues is a result of this emerging system, as are interactions at the organ and organism levels. Developmental means are transmitted in the sense of being made available during reproduction and ontogeny. Often they are the very products of ontogeny, but they are no less crucial to further development for not having been present at conception.”
the only reason one would be a hereditarian is if they’re a racist.
mugabe: so afro was a racist. he believed in hereditism within race just not between races.
rr: no. because when i say “hereditarianism” i mean racism.
mugabe: so…the only reason one would be a racist is if
they’rehe’s a racist.…philosophy.rr: correct. philosophy is just putting lots of words together into a giant tautology.
mugabe: sad.
gene code for proteins
proteins cause the structure of phenotypical morphological features such as 5 fingers a hand, 2 eyes and brain wiring/metabolism.
Intelligence as I define it is the ability to recognize patterns and use this information to solve abstract and practical problems by simulation.
The ability to simulate is directly correlated to the structure of the brain’s attention mechanism.
apes have different structures according to their genes.
if the structure is important to intelligence I hypothesize that those with different structures will have different causal models of reality.
these structures will vary and some will be able to manipulate patterns in their simulators to a greater or lesser extent.
the quantity and quality of simulations that can be run will vary among individuals causal models.
LOL this guy actually looks like a much taller version of Melo.
@Lurker
Dualism in the view of rr only works if you redefine words to mean that the psychological is immaterial. Such as intelligence and Mind. Well, I redefine them back to: anything observable is physical. Therefore they can be selected for by evolution and are measurable.
rr also redefines “selection” and “fitness” in evolution. Again we must redefine them back to their original meaning to get any answers at all.
rr is not wrong that a soul exists he just cannot separate it from his refined word use. Because he is a deductionist, an introverted thinker (Ti), to win any argument with him you must understand how he defines words and what logic he is using. He is very nitpicky on word definitions.
see my post here:
AK,
I think the way you described my views is fair. Though I don’t redefine “selection” and “fitness”—I use the standard definitions in the literature. And, as I said to lurker earlier, it’s not only me with my a priori arguments that believed that psychometrics isn’t measurement, some pretty well-respected philosophers/education theorists agree with it too (Uher, Michell, Berka, Nash, Trendler).
survival of the fittest is often used as a creationist argument against evolution. To them fit is not fitting it is superior or strongest. No fitting is just what it is, the ability to form a niche. It has nothing to do with being strong or superior it is the ability to survive in a place no matter what. Whether genes determine this or not it is that an organism has a form in a niche and so that form changes over time when offspring are produced and must move into new environments. They either survive in this new environment and create a new niche or are killed. Reproduction and variation are what make a niche possible for new organisms. NS (natural selection) basically is niche formation and that is why it requires no mind. You define selection as requiring a mind. Therefore niche forming cannot happen. But if we define selection as niche forming without mind the selection is possible because the selection is basically just variation over time. Selection without mind is possible if that is how it is defined. Fit is fitting aka niche formation. not superior or strongest or any other creationist argument.
I mean, I do think “survival of the fittest is a tautology since to be fit you need to survive and to survive you need to be fit. However I don’t deny the fact if evolution and I’m not a creationist.
Selection is either an agent (minded being) behind the selection process CHOOSING the fit-over correlated trait, OR laws of selection that can distinguish between causes and correlates of causes. Organisms construct their own environments and this of course contributes to evolution at the niche construction literature beginning with Lewontin and Levins shows. However natural selection is claimed to be a mechanism that explains why creatures have the traits they do and for natural selection to be a mechanism, it needs to be able to distinguish between correlated traits. If it can’t, then it’s not a mechanism. Nevermind the debate for the past 15 years on what a “mechanism” is and how it relates to natural selection.
The blind talking to the blind.
Lizard brain pill.
the blind since birth talking to the blind since birth talking about the colors of the rainbow flag and its new even more perverted version with even more colors including brown.
oprah said:
Mugabe is “neurodiversity”.
pill, you displease me.
Mugabe outright never has had it in him to think low of me as you do pill.
Mugabe has always been the one who at least accepts who I am and my identity status as a potato (think different)
Melo have you played GTA5? I downloaded it a few weeks ago and I love it. It’s so fun. I should have downloaded it years ago. (I mostly play JRPGs and I play WWE2K and DragonBall Xenoverse 2.)
Im playing through the GTA definitive editions of the earlier games. Good fun. I thought GTA 5 wasnt that good compared to the earlier ones.
Oh yeah, I was playing that when It came out on PS3. I don’t really touch it anymore. RDR2 is better IMO.
Should I play RDR1 first?
I mean, you can. The graphics may be a little dated, but the story is timeless, so if you can stand the wonky graphics go for it.
Just because the thought of “blue” can’t be measured compared to “house” does not mean there is no quantifiable element to intelligence or knowledge. If there was no quantifiable element we would all have all the knowledge in the world in our minds at every moment… yet we obviously don’t know most things except for the things we’ve experienced. So obviously what we know is a subset of what everyone knows, which is a subset of what it is possible to know.
Just because knowledge can be infinite or that some aspects are immeasurable does not mean, all else being equal, certain subsets can’t be compared. We obviously know there are greater and lesser infinities in mathematics, which is logical and proven (even if it doesn’t have a material counterpart… the point is that different infinities follow from the same mathematics we use to “measure” “physical” quantities that are apparently different from mental qualities. And “blue” or “green” being qualitative different does not mean that we can’t count a given number of colors.
Stating minds/persons cannot be reduced to their brains, but also cannot be disembodied is great… but how does it answer the fact that knowledge obviously has measurable aspects?
That which is observable is measurable.
The conclusion is psychometrics can measure the observable.
Basic empiricism.
Poor Lurker,
fell into our friend’s labyrinth of endless relativisms…
I was reading a piece by Kevin McDonald in the Occidental Observer and I was struck by his level of simplistic approach to the Jewish question. Very similar to the simplistic level of bourgeois identitarian narratives. Just change “white man” to “Jews”…
Does he really believe that all Jews are evil and all whites (conservatives) are rational and empathetic altruistics?
That all the social causes defended by the left are morally wrong??
He basically recycled Nazi narratives.
Does he think that Hitler was a strategic genius and not a low-ranking intellectual, gifted only in the art of oratory/rhetoric?