[The following is guest post and does not necessarily reflect the views of Pumpkin Person]
It has always puzzled me that many atheistic “rationalists” are hostile towards so-called hereditarianism; it seems that an ounce of consistency and statistical intuition suffice to appreciate that purportedly amoral, purposeless physical forces alone could not beget a secular “human equality.” While one can reasonably object to over-indexing on hereditarianism, mere inquiry into its being a partial explanation for intergroup differences in such a thing as cognitive ability often arouses the hysterical outcry of supposedly dispassionate Darwinists.
To any anti-hereditarian physicalists ordained to the Church of ad hoc Sentimentality, I am curious: If not “divine intervention,” what gave rise to equal distribution of cognitive strengths between, say, men and women – or, moreover, between ethnic groups evolving for tens of thousands of years in reproductive isolation? Was it a lucky break? Are quanta omnibenevolent? Their egalitarian developments with regard to Mankind sacrosanct, questioned only by blasphemers just asking to be flogged?
Pumpkin Person 
Neo-darwinism is false, hereditarianism is false, it’s impossible for genes to cause/influence psychological psychological traits, natural selection isn’t a mechanism and even if it were, cognitive traits wouldn’t be able to be an object of selection since only physical things can be selected. Looks like “Teffec P” needs to do some more reading.
Your ass
Everyone ignore RR from now on. Stop feeding the troll.
RR, actually respond to his divine intervention argument.
But of course you don’t believe in “equal” intelligences because that requires measurability. But of course, intelligence is informed by culture. Culture which comes from interaction with the physical environment. So mind would be educed/reduced from the physical.
But of course, you’re stuck between a hard place of actually being logical and admitting that you might have to be “racist”, and wanting to get along with everyone around you, so you take the ultimately meaningless “middle road” of post-modernism.
Sad.
“If not “divine intervention,” what gave rise to equal distribution of cognitive strengths between, say, men and women – or, moreover, between ethnic groups evolving for tens of thousands of years in reproductive isolation?”
This is the only semblance of argument I see. The answer is how the tests are constructed (Rosser; Kidder and Rosner; Hilliard; Terman; Au; Garrison). It comes down to the biases that the test constructors had previously. Have different biases, have a different distribution of scores, it’s that simple.
Seems like he’s implying “natural selection” is the reason, but ignoring what I normally push, the fact that natural selection isn’t a mechanism means that it can’t be responsible for the fixation of traits in species nor can it be possible for natural selection to create species.
Are you serious?
evolution is true, innateness is true, the brain is affected by DNA, and that which survives survives. we model reality with our brain attention mechanism neurochemistry. our model of reality is what governs our ability to navigate reality and survive.
read on instinct and Jungian archetype.
Nightcore – D.N.A. (Demon And Angel) [HD]
”evolution is true”
I thought you believed in Intelligent Design…thought
Process Theology.
Thats quite hot.
Why the weird vid?
rr does not believe DNA controls the development of organisms.
bat embryos can become cats because DNA does not matter.
Human nature is neither good nor bad but both daemonic and angelic.
How do you explain yourself, RR
Your ”intelligence”, for example…
RR without google research is what??
This post isn’t even finished. Its more of a comment.
Teffec, this is a good post but please use less migraine-inducing words. You have a large vocabulary, that’s nice.
“Are quanta omnibenevolent?”
For instance, is there a difference here between saying omnibenevolent and just saying benevolent? Or do you mean omniscient and omnibenevolent?
Also it’s very short and I, RR, Santo, and animekitty have written many more substantive comments in the last month alone.
The sad thing is I edited my original schizopost to make it less turgid 😦 I uplift people’s verbal IQs as PP does their quantitative. I used omnibenevolent and other religious terms because I was implying that their devotion is pious. PP said you can designate a comment as a guest post if you want him to consider it for publication
Well, it is always useful as an intellectual exercise to stretch one’s vocabulary! I just wish the post was longer to pre-empt more of the counter-arguments of people like RR who is really one of the only people here likely to read and comment against your post.
Why are all intelligences equal? RR says because intelligence can’t be measured so the idea is incoherent. This implies there is no such thing as “understanding the world better” or “knowing more things” or “better problem-solving ability”, which naturally leads to nihilism for the most part, and hence atheism as the only answer to the God question.
An organism can happen upon regularities in the environment (or reality as a whole, such as mathematics), just like a mind can, and utilize that environment to its own ends (reproduction) like a mind can understand more about that environment in a repeatable way.
If there are regularities in the system, they can be utilized by mind or matter. The existence of life is proof that regularities exist and can be utilized by organisms and genetics, and the existence of technology is proof that they can be utilized by the mind.
Madison Cawthorne said a many republican congressmen engage in coke fueled orgies. The insinuation was the he was invited and turned it down. Anyways, they released a photo of him cross dressing and that ended his career. So basically its true that the congress critters have whacky sex lives.
I’m like Cenk Uygher and have come to realise that it doesn’t really matter about the personal integrity of politicians as long as they vote the right way and have the best policies so I would vote for a guy that participates in coke orgies.
Actually if you watch True Detective season 2, the storyline revolves around a bunch of state level california politicians doing these coke fueled orgies and how they traffick women for them. I thought the guy who wrote the storyline must have heard about the activities of the US congress. What a fucked up country.
Feinstein talking about Mugabe. (Ignore the fact that as a jew she believes Israel has a divine right to be remade in the 20th century)
Also…Coney Barrett is a very good looking woman.
yeah. let’s compare her to the black female justice.
peepee finds black women attractive. peepee is a black lesbian. there’s no other explanation. except that peepee is a severely gay black man with a small penis who claims to think oprah is beautiful…HAHAHAHA!
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fproxy%2F0YUDpYuvAZiQ5nEO4vXm1VIjWimZp0Vo2qODBDxx5xY85UIPNhdSBeNxePwf-zmTV0WjeEok-1wd9D6ZfEvzHwXCnhySQn0Gy4XaETe8PpllOSMUPnwQ27SnUAuiqYrDsn5s-iCa49CtsiEBRmqxbvKJ6az3iEEeBYfcWgGlm8buYQZu528Z9GSVRG2algaLKBf18OJERh1RTSGjlOCDbCEFVW3aahKinImd5kmI_aFZoON-Nj1CiyOn8ezu%3Dw1200-h630-p-k-no-nu&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=ca9fc32673470717405336605f5bdeeb8538dfcef80dd5b9f133f350d3377412&ipo=images
sad.
It is not accurate to say that looking like a baboon is equally attractive as humans. Baboons are a different species and have unique physical characteristics that are not typically considered attractive in human standards. Additionally, attractiveness is a culturally and socially constructed concept, meaning that what is considered attractive varies across different cultures and societies. However, generally speaking, human physical characteristics are considered attractive and those of baboons are not. Therefore, it is not appropriate to compare the attractiveness of humans to that of baboons as they are different species with different physical characteristics and cultural standards of beauty.
You can be smart and be a religious nut but theres a certain type of infantile thinking going on when you subscribe to it. My guess is that Mugabe does it because his whole family and community does it and he’s kind of a hostage to the bandwagon effect. It takes a pretty stubborn person to ignore their social environment and in most non-western countries you would be socially ostracised for saying religion is made up.
I seriously doubt politicians in Ireland engage in coke fueled orgies. Our politicians are petty but they aren’t as personally corrupted as the american or British ones. Neoliberalism has that effect on people.
Anyways I’d rather be a religious idiot than an autistic idiot. I still think you can be a real person if you believe in a cult but you aren’t really a person if youre autistic.
You’re still focused on that?
Maybe you might need to reevaluate your moral stances on it.
I still don’t know why you “objectively” say I am a (((robot)))?
I do kind of but I have only experienced what proper British people are like from the media.
I assume you have different views than me on what it means to be schizo and American.
Young Sheldon converts to Judaism
Alright, Pumpkin, I’m done with the dataset. For those who aren’t aware, I realized that by finding the correlation between brain size measured in cubic centimeters and the age of the fossil, I could see when brain size was increasing or decreasing for specific periods. If there is a negative correlation, it means encephalization was occurring, and if the correlation is positive, it means brain size decreased over time.
I also decided to go through the entire dataset and add geographical locations; from there, I could calculate the mean and r-value for specific races/geographic regions, respectively. Below are values from the Holocene.
Europe- 1396cc, .366
East Asia- 1407cc, -.265
Subsaharan Africa- 1478cc, .461
MENA – 1520cc, .251
SE Asia (including Australia)- 1223cc,
.449
America- 1303, .085
Most of the dataset is from the past 100 years. Taking that away, East Asia would only have an n of 3. So, I wouldn’t trust the r-value for East Asians. It’s a fluke. Moreover, there have been no Subsaharan African skulls in the past 100 years. If I was to cut all the European skulls from the past 100 years to match this, the European mean becomes 1506.
Luckily, the datasets with archaic specimens should be more accurate. Among Erectus, the South-East Asian variant showed the highest encephalization at -.68. East Asian and African (Ergaster) variants were -.57 and -.52, respectively.
Unfortunately, the European Heidelbergensis sample is concentrated from one time period, so I couldn’t test the correlation against the African variant. I could add Ergaster to the sample and test if Ergaster that left Africa were under more selective pressure than Ergaster that stayed. This gives European Heidelbergensis -.9 and the African variant -.82. But, this is assuming European Hiedelbergensis didn’t originate from African Heidelbergensis, which some researchers have argued against. On a side note, They have roughly equal brain sizes, with the African variant slightly larger.
Finally, I decided to lump species from the respective locations and test which region ultimately leads to the most robust selection. I tested from African Heidelbergensis to African Sapiens, European Heidelbergensis to Neanderthal, and East Asian Erectus to Denisovans. The results were -.76, -.46, and -.75, respectively.
The fact that no climate consistently encephalizes hominins the most showcases how CWT (and theories like it) are untenable. That said, I did test the novelty hypothesis, or more formally, The Climatic Variability hypothesis when I grouped Heidelbergensis and Egaster. While it did corroborate the theory, the African Variant was still encephalizing at such a considerable rate; it implies that if Novelty is the leading cause for regional discrepancies, it’s only a tiny part of what’s driving growth in brain size across the species as a whole. Unfortunately, I couldn’t test this on Homo Sapiens because of the small sample sizes.
So, Pumpkin, to answer your query about when Holocene “decephalization” began, it just depends. If I add data until the correlation starts to fall, it peeks around 133kya at -.87, and from then on, the correlation slowly changes to positive over time. Agriculture is different from what caused this latter trend. This would be evidence of an earlier date for decephalization to have occurred. As far as what could cause this, I’d speculate that increased population densities relax selection. Of course, population density has been postulated as a cause for encephalization, but this wouldn’t be true in all cases.
Now Desilva tested this by using segmented/piecewise regression, so to replicate his and Villamoare’s work, I sought to do the same. Of course, there are significant issues with his dataset, as Villamoare and Grabowski point out:
To fix these issues, Villamoare averaged brain size in 100-year blocks, focused on fossils within 30k-100ya, and then used SegReg (https://www.waterlog.info/segreg.htm) and Segmentation in R to test Desilva’s hypothesis. They stated that their findings did not confirm his research. However, I wanted to replicate their study too.
The difference between Villamoare and my dataset was that mine ranged up to 50ka (as far as I could go while retaining normality), and I averaged y (brain size) for each unique instance of x (age of fossil) instead of putting them into 100-year bins.
I tested for normality and homoscedasticity, and then I made a graph with SegReg: https://imgur.com/a6nDO6o (x-axis = x/100)
If I’m reading this right, there does appear to be a change around 2,400 years ago. But, strangely, Villamoare and Grabowski reported no shift around this time despite our nearly identical data. So, I decided to put their data in, and it returned this: https://imgur.com/a/j9dGU3Y
Adding eight data points reveals a downward trend that corroborates Desilva’s 2021 Hypothesis. Or at least that would be the case, but there is something else wrong with this data; it’s spread out over many different geographical locations. This could lead to problems. For example, let’s say Native Americans have an average brain size of 1250cc and Africans have an average brain size of 1500cc. Suppose the former’s data points are mainly from the past 100 years, and the latter is concentrated primarily during the middle paleolithic. In that case, it could give the false impression that there has been a decrease in brain size over time, even if both groups had a consistent average separately.
To do a true and proper test of this data, I did another run through SegReg, but I only used European data this time. It was the largest dataset (even after consolidation) out of the Homo sapiens skulls. None of the other regions had a large enough sample size to do any worthwhile testing, and even then, an n of 50 is probably not going to be representative of populations spread over tens of thousands of years: https://imgur.com/a/yNkPtHT
As you can see, there appears to be a dip at about 25ka and then a steady incline up to 100 years ago. What causes this dip? I have no idea, and it could be the result of a small sample size. Either way, it aligns differently from any dates for agriculture. If there has been a decline, the data suggests it happened before humans started domesticating plants and animals on such a scale.
Maybe this should have been a guest post lol
Wow this is a laudable effort.
If you could organize your research more succinctly, I could see you having a promising career in academia.
What I would like to see is just a simple chart of Sapien skulls. The chart would have maybe four columns showing different time periods: Lower Paleolithic, Upper Paleolithic, pre-agriculture Holocene, post-agriculture but before industrial revolution (the exact dates of agriculture etc would vary by location).
And then have several rows showing the location: Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Northeast Asia, Southeast Asia, Oceania, Americas
This would make your research more accessible and allow people to make apples to apples comparisons.
Overall, we know the average brain size dropped precipitously in the Holocene but we don’t know whether this was caused by agriculture or not. John Hawks told me it occured even in hunter-gatherers so agriculture probably wasn’t the cause but I countered that even hunter-gatherers would have been malnourished by agriculture because farmers would have pushed them out of the best land.
“If you could organize your research more succinctly, I could see you having a promising career in academia.”
If that is sincere, I seriously appreciate it. The stuff is my true passion, and I would have pursued it as a career if it paid the bills, haha.
“This would make your research more accessible and allow people to make apples to apples comparison”
I agree. Having a graph makes the results more visually apparent. It’d also be easier to digest than some long-winded essay.
I’ll see if there is some app or software I could use to make detailed graphs like that.
“Overall, we know the average brain size dropped precipitously in the Holocene”
Yes, overall, there does appear to be a dip; however, I think that’s simply an artifact. I believe the best way to test this hypothesis is to take a population, say, China, test for breakpoints with segmented regression, and then see if any breakpoints line up with the date agriculture became dominant in China. Finally, you could do this to Europe, Sub-saharan Africa, Oceania, etc. If a breakpoint appears for each location’s respective date, it will prove a causal connection between agriculture and decephalization.
The European test showed no evidence, but this extended back as far as 37ka. If I limit it to just the past 12k years, it shows a dip at 2.5k years. But this doesn’t align with when agriculture became widespread in Europe, so it still doesn’t prove agriculture is the cause.
“even hunter-gatherers would have been malnourished by agriculture because farmers would have pushed them out of the best land.”
That’s a good point to make. Historically, hunter-gatherer populations are treated like trash by their farming cousins.
The stuff is my true passion, and I would have pursued it as a career if it paid the bills, haha.
There are scholarships, especially if you can score high on the SAT. If your scores aren’t high enough, you could obsessively practice and see how much you can improve on a test that supposedly measures innate ability (that in itself would be a fun experiment). And then if you get into graduate school they fund you while you get to spend years doing nothing but averaging cranial capacity size during the Holocene and writing about the results.
Then you spend the rest of your life getting paid to research these fascinating questions with a huge research budget, endless volunteers for your experiments, and grad students to help with the research, while 22-year-old white women fuck for an A on their papers. What more can you ask? 🙂
Of course you could never openly support HBD, though I doubt you have much desire to.
I’ll see if there is some app or software I could use to make detailed graphs like that.
I use this:
https://www.rapidtables.com/web/tools/html-table-generator.html
The European test showed no evidence, but this extended back as far as 37ka. If I limit it to just the past 12k years, it shows a dip at 2.5k years. But this doesn’t align with when agriculture became widespread in Europe, so it still doesn’t prove agriculture is the cause.
So are you saying that Holocene brains older than 2.5K years were as big as Upper Paleolithic ones? I found pre-war Holocene brains were 1324 cc, compared to 1459 cc in the Upper Paleolithic, but I didn’t subdivide the pre-war Holocene brains into those before and after 2.5 kya (which likely corresponds to a huge increase in population size, and perhaps the brain shrinking pandemics that come with it?)
https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth
“What more can you ask?”
That does actually sound pretty nice, lol. I have been taking classes at my local Community College, but that was for IT-related things. I might set up an appointment with an advisor, but I feel 26 is a little too old to try and pursue a graduate degree. IT is just more bang-for-buck; you know what I mean? It just sucks because I’m really good at it, but I’m nowhere near as passionate about it as Anthropology.
“I use this:”
Oh, I thought you meant an actual graph, but this could work too. So, my idea was to make a scatter plot with all homo sapiens datapoints, label the x-axis with time periods (lower-upper paleolithic, Holocene, etc.), and then color code each datapoint by geographic location.
If I post that HTML code into this comment box, will it produce a graph when I hit ‘post comment’?
“So are you saying that Holocene brains older than 2.5K years were as big as Upper Paleolithic ones?”
Bigger. There were two dips: one at 24ka and one at 2.5ka. Pre-dip Europeans from the Upper Paleolithic had a mean of 1500cc, whereas pre-dip Holocene brains were 1512cc. After the first dip, brain size slowly recovered until the next drop at 2.5ka, where it actually fell below the post-dip Upper Paleolithic mean brain size.
I might set up an appointment with an advisor, but I feel 26 is a little too old to try and pursue a graduate degree.
You’d only be about 8 years behind your classmates at the most, and you could catch up a bit by taking summer courses.
IT is just more bang-for-buck; you know what I mean? It just sucks because I’m really good at it, but I’m nowhere near as passionate about it as Anthropology.
It’s a tough call but I would definitely meet with an advisor and others who have pursued these career paths.
https://lionoftheblogosphere.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/it-sucks-to-major-in-stem-and-computer-programming/
Oh, I thought you meant an actual graph, but this could work too. So, my idea was to make a scatter plot with all homo sapiens datapoints, label the x-axis with time periods (lower-upper paleolithic, Holocene, etc.), and then color code each datapoint by geographic location.
And you’ll probably need a curve of best fit as opposed to a line of best fit, since the data is not linear; kind of like what I used here:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/10/26/the-rise-and-fall-and-rise-of-brain-size/
If I post that HTML code into this comment box, will it produce a graph when I hit ‘post comment’?
You would think so but who knows. You can always just email it to me and I could publish it as a guest post.
Bigger. There were two dips: one at 24ka and one at 2.5ka. Pre-dip Europeans from the Upper Paleolithic had a mean of 1500cc, whereas pre-dip Holocene brains were 1512cc. After the first dip, brain size slowly recovered until the next drop at 2.5ka, where it actually fell below the post-dip Upper Paleolithic mean brain size.
I decided to check for myself. I didn’t stratify the data by region but just talking about our species as a whole:
200 kya to 51 kya: 1452 cc
50 kya to 24.8 kya: 1494 cc
24 kya to 12 kya: 1441 cc
11.8 kya to 3 kya: 1506 cc
2.9 kya to 0.11 kya: 1372 cc
0.1 ka: 1297 cc
There’s definitely a massive downward trend around the time of civilization but the dip at 24 kya is probably just sampling error and might not be statistically significant.
I’m going for a graduate degree right now. It’s never too late to go back to school. (DPT in case anyone cares.)
By the way, if anyone is thinking of going to a chiro, don’t. Anything a chiro does that is good you can get from a good physical therapist. PTs are far more knowledgeable than a chiro.
“It’s a tough call but I would definitely meet with an advisor”
I’ll do some heavy research before I make a decision. Thank you for the advice, Pumpkin!
“And you’ll probably need a curve of best fit as opposed to a line of best fit, since the data is not linear; kind of like what I used here:”
Ah, so I actually did perform polynomial regression (which I know isn’t the exact same thing as non-linear regression, but I figured it’d suffice), and this was the result: https://imgur.com/a/8RsKKpJ
I used a degree of 7, which may be a little high, so I likely overfit the data, but it gave me the highest r2 and lowest MSE possible at 0.164 and 12949.485, respectively (neither are really good, though, lol).
Also, this data is from all regions and begins at 47ka to 100ya.
“You would think so but who knows. ”
Once I’m done making the graphs and tables I’ll email you or post them here. Might be a while, though.
“I didn’t stratify the data by region”
Well, it seems to have mattered little as your results line up with mine. Most of the dataset is European anyway, so it’s expected.
“There’s definitely a massive downward trend around the time of civilization but the dip at 24 kya is probably just sampling error and might not be statistically significant.”
Yes, ultimately we would need far more data to identify trends that span across tens of thousands of years.
>As you can see, there appears to be a dip at about 25ka and then a steady incline up to 100 years ago.
Sorry, I didn’t read your whole post, only scanned it and this stood out. If you meant a dip in Europe, I think it has to go with the near extinction of Aurignacians and a complete extinction of Gravettians during the Last Glacial Maximum, which was 25,000-ish years ago. After this, Europe gets populated mostly by WHGs (a new kind of hunter gatherer genetic cluster) and some remaining Aurignacian descendants in Iberia. Eventually the Iberian Aurignacian descendants mix with WHGs and get physically shorter as well.
I have a dataset on European Upper Paleolithic to Mesolithic skulls, and the pre-LGM skulls (early to middle upper paleolithic) are bigger than post-LGM skulls (late upper paleolithic and mesolithic) in the list. So I can confirm that there was a decline in Europe at that time. SAD!
tl;dr: Big brained Gravettians died out and Aurignacians declined, while smaller brained WHGs populated Europe.
Wow, thank you! I didn’t know all of that. It’s good to know my data has been independently verified.
PP,
Why do you allow this snake to continue commenting??
What, exactly, is your problem with that? What do you think of the outright ridiculous things DeSantis wants to implement in Florida?
rr calling someone ridiculous…hahahaha…
Genetics do not cause anything any more than anything else in the environment?
OK let me remove a chromosome pair from every one of your cells.
No good? OK let me remove the exact same amount of material but from your hair, slightly making them all shorter.
Everything in the environment is equal right?
“I’m not schizo like you.”
I’m only 10% black thanks.
The rest is autism if you get my drift. 🙂
pastillas! pastillas!
Anyway Teffec, of course the answer is that atheism and anti-hereditarianism tend to converge, because both are heavily centered around a lack of objective meaning.
It’s obvious how common forms of atheism implies no real goal or point of the universe. Everything is just random or deterministic “matter in motion” and all experience is “chemical reactions in the brain”.
Anti-hereditarianism involves no such thing as “better problem-solving ability” which implies there are no actual problems to solve because naturally there would be organisms who stumbled upon predictably better heritable structures that were able to physically interact with the world better, leading to increased mental capacity (as in capacity to think, not the thoughts themselves), given that the universe is predictable and regular (as the laws of physics demonstrate).
A short answer is: we atheists are very diverse people so it expected we have different types of ideological trends.
Le end.
But even if majority of atheists was like RR, atheism still is only rational conclusion we can come when we use logical thinking about existential questions, historically attributable to religion.
Majority of atheists seem to be nerdy or have autism.
e.g Puppy.
On avg, atheists believe evolution in theory but not in practice while creationists disbelieve evolution in theory but not in practice.
That seems to be very accurate. Everyone has to believe their life and life in general is progressing somehow.
RR is a nihilistic as most neolamarckxists. They think doesn’t matter if Italy or any other nation, specially white, become another nation racially and then culturally. That’s the reason for the correlation between atheism and anti hereditarianism. Some or many atheists are nihilistics as well many leftists also do. For them what’s matter is not if swedes are mostly blue eyed but if there is “equality”. Anti hereditarianism has one of its origins on pseudoscientifical denial of human races existence.
To any anti-hereditarian physicalists ordained to the Church of ad hoc Sentimentality, I am curious: If not “divine intervention,” what gave rise to equal distribution of cognitive strengths between, say, men and women – or, moreover, between ethnic groups evolving for tens of thousands of years in reproductive isolation? Was it a lucky break?
Although I’m HBD, I can understand how smart rational people would reject it. For example the genetic differences between different subspecies of chimps are far greater than the racial differences among humans, and yet no one claims some chimp types are smarter than others.
Also, height is hugely genetic and blacks and white American differ very little in average height.
Neanderthals and Sapiens were separated by hundreds of thousands of years but showed little difference in brain size and even technology prior to the Upper Paleolithic.
The IQ gap between Europeans and chimps is about 85 points despite separating 6 million years ago. By that standard races that differ by only 60,000 years should differ by less than 1 point.
And while different races may have been separated for tens of thousands of years, most of that time was after cultural evolution replaced biological evolution as the main cause of innovation.
If it weren’t for the huge differences in brain size, I’d probably reject HBD too
And while different races may have been separated for tens of thousands of years, most of that time was after cultural evolution replaced biological evolution as the main cause of innovation.
False.
You should think before you type
Chomsky said it not me.
No cultural evolution is possible without being supported by biological evolution. That’s why we call it gene-culture co-evolution.
PP,
Doesnt matter being very smart in learning ability but not in reasoning ability. It’s like having a memory of an elephant but a reasoning of a parrot.. You can be very smart potentially but dedicate your intellect mostly to pseudoscience or unimportant fields. So at least specifically a redneck with an avg IQ who believe racial differences are real is smarter than a high IQ pseudo-philosopher. It’s the difference between potential and performance or achievement. The high IQ astrologuer is not smarter than a avg or low IQ astronomy enthusiast. The direction of the intellect is also very important. Deprived rational capacity even if specifically depress cognitive capacity achievement, even it doesn’t have a direct impact on its potential, roughly “measured” by cognitive tests.
Santo is right about the direction of intellect but hes wrong about the biological basis of change. Look, a 15 point IQ difference evolved in modern times between blacks and other races…and that explains everything. Not ‘culture’.
We get that pill, we’re just saying in theory it could be explained all by culture. In the last couple centuries we’ve seen the Industrial Revolution, the computer revolution, the genetic revolution, despite no genetic increase in IQ
There was a genetic increase in IQ. Its called the Flynn effect. Very well documented puppy.
The Flynn effect is not genetic, it’s nutrition.
We are social creatures, variably speaking, and the way a society is organized or who dominate it can generate noticiable avg differences specially because majority of people are socially conformist and or brainwashable. For example, North Korea (even thought South Korea is not very good either. At least is not a full blown 1984 totalitarian regime).
Genetic plasticity is genetic or biological too. Without a biological or genotypical potential to improve throught environmental interventions specifically for IQ would not be possible raise it even thought seems most of Flynn Effect is an artfact of randomness of different tests being used and without a general standardization of methods and type of tests.
Different culture selects for different directions.
Peter Frost believe people became smarter due higher survivability of middle and upper class offsprings although the same fertility rates specially in Europe from the end of medieval period until XX century. I believe human intelligence in civilizations has intercalated periods of increase and decrease.
The Flynn Effect is biological I meant. Most of the improvement is biological rather than cultural.
There’s been little if any Flynn effect in the last 10 years yet technology continues to leap forward. Humans are the one animal that evolves independently of biology.
It’s impossible evolve totally independent from biology.
You have a very strange view of how the brain works. Its like RR. You view it as some sort of invisible machine that just does things. In my opinion the machine has changed a lot since civilisation began.
Paradoxically even if humans were capable to evolve independently of biology it would be biologically determined because it is our biologies which produce or sustain culture, culture simply doesn’t exist without us, organic dudas and specially for the most domesticated because more free “spirits” are more likely to create a more authentic culture.
“Also, height is hugely genetic and blacks and white American differ very little in average height.”
Based on what? Does “hugely genetic” mean “genetic causation”? Are you talking about heritability estimates?
“The IQ gap between Europeans and chimps is about 85 points despite separating 6 million years ago”
Imagine actually believing this.
“If it weren’t for the huge differences in brain size”
What sources do you think best show this difference and what do you think said implications are?
What is the avg height of african black and european white?? But within european and african groups there are lots of variation.
I think you once said that every 10 points, the ability to sort information or just things in general doubles. So a black-white average difference would imply a 2-4 x better ability at sorting, but an 85 point difference would imply something like 250x+ better ability at sorting. Also the divergence in brain size/intelligence with chimps wasn’t constant, it was relatively slow until like 2.5 million years ago and then Habillis emerged and started a burst of faster divergence. So smart people being dumb on this kind of have themselves to blame.
“If it weren’t for the huge differences in brain size, I’d probably reject HBD too”
Jesus fucking christ. The difference in races is almost as much as the difference in dog breeds and the one factor you think is salient is a factor you cant even see with the naked eye. What a fucking dummy you are.
LOL! Brain size (at least its proxy cranial capacity) is the HBD clue we can MOST see with a naked eye. When people were skeptical of Rushton’s theory, he would encourage them to just look at the heads of people from different races
Your an idiot. Most blacks have the exact same skull size as other races. Where we see differences between races is their heights, muscle tone, IQs and personality. Brain sizes is literally something only 1% of the population would have access to.
I can’t educate you if you don’t calm down. The black-white cranial capacity gap is about 100 cubic centimetres
99% of people who see differences between races don’t judge it based on skull size.
I immediately noticed all those differences as a kid, but to learn they were backed up by differences in head size had a major impact given my interest in human evolution, especially as I could see these huge differences in head size as I walked the streets.
“LOL! Brain size (at least its proxy cranial capacity) is the HBD clue we can MOST see with a naked eye.”
PP, this is ludicrous. None of us have x-ray vision. Cranial circumference is not a reliable indicator of brain size.
The ‘HBD clue’ most apparent to the naked eye is the violent, impulsive behavior of dark-skinned people and the carefully considered, non-aggressive behavior of light-skinned people.
PP, this is ludicrous. None of us have x-ray vision. Cranial circumference is not a reliable indicator of brain size.
Reliable is relative.
I agree with Rushton who stated: “”Next time you see the North Korean president [the late Kim Il Sung] and
his aides on television, just look at their heads and compare them to Jimmy Carter’s and the white dignitaries’ in the audience. Then when
you sec some high-speed runners from, say, Kenya, look at their heads. If you can’t see the difference, I’d be surprised.”
The ‘HBD clue’ most apparent to the naked eye is the violent, impulsive behavior of dark-skinned people and the carefully considered, non-aggressive behavior of light-skinned people
But one could argue those things are cultural (poverty, legacy of slavery & colonialism). Much harder to argue head size is cultural.
“The ‘HBD clue’ most apparent to the naked eye is the violent, impulsive behavior of dark-skinned people and the carefully considered, non-aggressive behavior of light-skinned people.”
What’s the explanation? MAOA? Testosterone? Androgen receptor gene? Melanin?
What’s your explanation RR? Development? Which fundamentally is caused or explained by what? Itself? Nothing?
You have no origin for the immaterial mind or the material world. So really, you have no explanation for the differences, because development hinges on a specific system, including the properties and structure of that system, and you claim the properties and structure of the system are both immeasurable (mind) and that no better or more true things exist except culturally defined.
“But one could argue those things are cultural (poverty, legacy of slavery & colonialism). Much harder to argue head size is cultural.”
One could so argue, but not in good faith. Two thousand years of well-documented history prior to modern slavery and European colonialism demolish that explanation.
From a historical standpoint, the moral and intellectual superiority of the fair peoples (both Indo-European and East Asian) is overwhelmingly obvious and borderline axiomatic.
One could still argue it’s cultural. Fair skinned people had to advance their cultures to survive the cold winters, but it was their cultures that evolved, not their biology, one could argue. The head size proves their biology evolved too.
“What’s the explanation? MAOA? Testosterone? Androgen receptor gene? Melanin?”
The low-I.Q. struggle with long-term planning and prediction, just like they struggle with all ‘intellectual’ tasks. This is almost tautological.
If you’re asking why it should be the case that the dark-skinned races are less intelligent and more impulsive than the fair-skinned races, I would cite the cold winters hypothesis. With that said, the explanation is irrelevant: the fact is manifest. Thousands of years of documented history testify to it.
An interactionist one, of course, in which the situation and the agent interact for the outcome. Of course people are the source of their actions but causes of action are situational, so it’s kind of a new-age situationism that takes into account the psychology of the agent along with the situation the agent is in. Mazur’s honor culture hypothesis account can be seen in this light, too.
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-criminol-030920-091320
My point was to point out the inadequateness of hereditarian explanations—testosterone causing aggression has been definitively ruled out, as has MAOA.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/01/28/race-testosterone-aggression-and-prostate-cancer/
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/10/15/maoa-race-and-crime-a-simple-relationship/
“I would cite the cold winters hypothesis.”
Hahaha
“From a historical standpoint, the moral and intellectual superiority of the fair peoples (both Indo-European and East Asian) is overwhelmingly obvious and borderline axiomatic”
???
Roman Empire was really totally superior in moral and intellectual terms than pre columbian civliizations in America?? All non-civilized american and african indigenous people has been really morally handicap than industrialized societies??
This seems a gross simplification of human history and nature throught inter-cultural comparisons.
If we compare point by point or in more depth we’ll see a more complex comparative scenario. Just a one example: while is well known that civilized pre columbian populations in Americas practized human sacrifices is not true all american indigenous people did. Actually seems most of chosen to be sacrificed were from enslaved or defeated tribes and i can’t see big difference between murdering people by ritualistic (and political) ends and forcing enslaved ones to fight each other to death and including fighting against ferocious animals, like happened in Roman arenas and to “entertain” ‘good citizens’.
Socially speaking, low IQ communities or societies struggle with higher % of people incapable to build an “advanced” or industrialized environment but fundamentally by the social domination of sociopaths and supersticious beliefs like religion. So even if a poor country has no capacity to become “economically advanced” it could be at least socially if it is not plagued by signficant predominance of high testosterone and psycho men in the power. In these environments, the sheer capacity to dominate overshadowed the possibility to raise reasonable ones to power even more than in “developed” countries. So one of the main reason why many countries are poor is directly related with their political-economic “elites”.
“An interactionist one, of course, in which the situation and the agent interact for the outcome. Of course people are the source of their actions but causes of action are situational, so it’s kind of a new-age situationism that takes into account the psychology of the agent along with the situation the agent is in. Mazur’s honor culture hypothesis account can be seen in this light, too.”
The situation the agent finds themself in is having a lower IQ and time preference and a bone structure and muscular structure and a reproductive strategy that makes violence more tenable for them.
We could try to actually unpack what an agent is, what determinism is, etc. and actually understand reality more but that would require you admit simple things like physical properties being properties and hence fully graspable by the immaterial mind. Otherwise I’m not even sure where to start. I have no idea where the agent begins and the situation ends, where will comes in, what is objective and what is subjective, and where determinism vs. indeterminism is, because your “situationism” seems to be a ridiculous simplistic (common sense) view of reality. It’s like NCSD which explains almost nothing except the fact that people have consciousness and are the sum of chemical properties.
I meant to say “are NOT the sum of chemical properties”. Basically NCSD is correct insofar as it realizes that humans have a special form of consciousness and that consciousness is not simply “physical matter in motion”.
That doesn’t address the argument in the paper. IQ isn’t a cause. And your r/K bullshit is long-refuted. An agent is a being with the capacity to act. I’ve explained this ad nauseam. NCSD holds that persons or selves are substances and distinct from their physical bodies or parts of it but not capable of disembodied existence. Hereditarian explanations are so hollow.
“An agent is a being with the capacity to act.”
Magic is a thing that does what I say it does. God is a thing that explains the gaps in my theory = your definition of an agent.
Yeah I already know I feel that I have a capacity to act. This explains NOTHING about reality that a five-year old doesn’t understand implicitly.
“I’ve explained this ad nauseam. NCSD holds that persons or selves are substances and distinct from their physical bodies or parts of it but not capable of disembodied existence. ”
Yes but you’ve given no explanation as to why a mind suddenly emerges given a specific organization of material if mind is not inherent in matter.
Imagine a scientist on TV saying what RR does:
“You see folks, the mental is not reducible to the physical. Where does the mind come from? It’s simple. Once material organizes in a certain way, a mind emerges. But if you were raised in a dark room you won’t have a mind. Also, mind emerges from the matter but it is separate from the matter. Does that explain anything not obvious about what the mind or physical really is? Well folks, I don’t give a shit, I just know it must be true because my apriori arguments are sound.”
NCSD explains the relationship between the mental and the physical. Glad we agree on that, at least.
There’s no magic there. I don’t know WHY—I don’t think we can explain everything. Is there anything wrong with the claim that we can’t explain everything? My guy, you must know what NECESSARY condition or a DEPENDENCY conditionsl is.
I’ve already established that an immaterial mind exists—I don’t need to explain how exactly it arose. I don’t need an answer on the origin.
Because as I’ve said 1000 times before, everything physical is defined in terms of its properties, which is something the mind can also grasp. Therefore there is no hard line between what can be conceptualized by the mind and what can exist physically (or else we wouldn’t be able to measure anything anyway). This explains why we can actually measure the physical world, while your apriori arguments for dualism don’t and instead explain it through “I don’t ultimately know” which is just magic.
Furthermore, you say “agents” choose things without explaining anything about the necessary conditions for there to be an agent, that chooses things. Physicalists have an explanation for this at least, which is that agents arise through natural selection and that free will is basically an illusion. It doesn’t explain consciousness and seems a bit far-fetched but it makes a sort of sense with the rest of what we know about the history of the universe.
Panpsychists also have explanation for this which is that everything has some form of consciousness, so agency comes from simply existing.
Dualism has no explanation. That’s why your arguments for where mind arises is circular “only human beings have minds because only human beings have minds” or “I don’t know man but my apriori arguments show it’s true”.
We can measure what is in space.
Agents act for reasons (beliefs, desires, goals).
Only human beings have minds because only human beings have propositional attitudes and they have language.
chimps have propositional attitudes. How else would they know which chimp is alpha? They have to believe it to be true. Anything that is true or false is a proposition.
Chimps have language?
they have propositional attitudes. And they have some language. A vocabulary of about 12 sounds.
And chimps have intention; otherwise they couldn’t make tools. That’s goal oriented behavior (what you call action).
How does the claim “they have some sounds” mean that there is a language they use? Which premise of my argument is false? Intentions imply plans, to plan implies deliberating, to deliberate implies a mind.
Because the sounds have meaning like warning other chimps of danger. They can plan. How else would they be able to connect sticks to make one long enough to reach a distant banana?
A PA is a mental state held by an agent toward – and about – a proposition and they are denoted by verbs. Beliefs, desires, hopes, fears, intentions are some PAs. That they make sounds doesn’t imply they have language, only humans are language utterers.
“My thesis is not, then, that each thought depends for its existence on the existence of a sentence that expresses that thought. My thesis is rather that a creature cannot have a thought unless it has language. In order to be a thinking, rational creature, the creature must be able to express many thoughts, and above all, be able to interpret the speech and thoughts of others.”
Click to access Davidson-Rational-Animals-1982.pdf
Humans are the only animal with grammar but chimps have words because words are sounds with meaning. Chimps probably do have beliefs, hopes, fears and intentions. They’re about as developed as a human toddler. Look at the level of emotion this chimp displays:
More evidence that chimps have minds
Chimps have language? Remember the argument:
(1) To be able to think, an organism must have a full range of propositional attitudes (PAs). (2) Having a full range of PAs rests on having language. (3) Nonhuman animals lack language. (4) So nonhuman animals lack PAs. (5) So, nonhuman animals don’t think. (6) So nonhuman animals lack mind.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2022/12/28/nonhuman-animals-are-not-agents-language-sets-humans-apart-from-the-rest-of-the-animal-kingdom/
I was replying to your comment “Only human beings have minds because only human beings have propositional attitudes”. You didn’t say anything about the full range in that comment. What the hell is the FULL range of PAs? I suspect most humans don’t have minds by that standard.
“Roman Empire was really totally superior in moral and intellectual terms than pre columbian civliizations in America??”
Morally? Yes, without a shadow of a doubt. The Romans put an end to the practice of human sacrifice. The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice. No contest here.
Intellectually? Of course. Who is the Aztec Cicero? The Mayan Plautus? The Mayan St. Jerome or St. Augustine?
“All non-civilized american and african indigenous people has been really morally handicap than industrialized societies??”
Yes, civilization requires a degree of planning and impulse control. Those who practice libidinal restraint are morally superior to those who don’t. I do not admire savages. Rousseau can blow me.
“. . . like happened in Roman arenas and to “entertain” ‘good citizens’.”
A practice to which the Christianized Romans themselves eventually put an end, just as they abolished slavery.
God punished the iniquities of the Romans by turning them into dagos. Race Realist is a race antirealist because the kids at his school regularly beat him up and called him a dumb wop.
“We can measure what is in space.”
What is space? An abstraction of 3 mutually perpendicular lines, all of which are graspable by the mind.
“Agents act for reasons (beliefs, desires, goals).”
A rock’s mind could desire to act as a rock, and seems to be doing so.
“Only human beings have minds because only human beings have propositional attitudes and they have language.”
So having language somehow grants you an immaterial mind completely irreducible to the material, even though before that, the organism was purely inert physical matter? That’s not an explanation.
Something about chimps and animals understand certain things about hierarchy and space, whether or not they “understand that they understand” (recursively/meta-understand).
a proposition is a causal chain.
if a = b and b = c then a = c
parrots have higher intelligence in this respect than chimps.
“Morally? Yes, without a shadow of a doubt. The Romans put an end to the practice of human sacrifice. The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice. No contest here.”
En masse enslavery?? Pillage of conquered people?? Gladiator fights .. human sacrifices???
“Intellectually? Of course. Who is the Aztec Cicero? The Mayan Plautus? The Mayan St. Jerome or St. Augustine?”
Their astronomical knowledge was outstanding! As well about other fields like archicteture. But i thought you knew that…
“Yes, civilization requires a degree of planning and impulse control. Those who practice libidinal restraint are morally superior to those who don’t. I do not admire savages. Rousseau can blow me.”
So simplistic. Morality is not just about sexual control. It’s even quite complex comparing it by individual levels. And i dont know when this is in line with this part of conversation. American and african indigenous peoples supposedly have had any cultural behavioral restraint??
“A practice to which the Christianized Romans themselves eventually put an end, just as they abolished slavery.”
Very unlikely they abolished slavery specially in that time. I don’t have this specific knowledge but i could bet high that they didn’t.
In order to have a belief, an organism must have a concept of belief. To have a concept of belief, then the organism must have language. Thus, organisms that lack language lack a concept of belief so they don’t have beliefs.
I can measure a door frame, get a set of measurements, then one can verify my measurements. You can’t measure the mind. Psychometrics isn’t measurement and that claim doesn’t even depend on my irreducibility arguments.
“A rocks mind could desire to act like a rock” – this is nonsense.
Well to be able to think one must be able to have PAs, PAs are only available to language users, only humans have language so only humans can intend so only humans have mind. Nevermind the fact that rocks don’t even have the dependency condition of a CNS or a brain—your nonsense claim is straight up false.
“Race Realist is a race antirealist”
Whwre have I ever espoused being a racial antirealist? I’m a pluralist about race, leaning toward the claim “race is a social construct of a biological reality.”
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2022/12/26/the-racial-identity-thesis-why-race-is-a-social-construct-of-a-biological-reality/
In order to have a belief, an organism must have a concept of belief.
False.
“In order to have a belief, an organism must have a concept of belief. To have a concept of belief, then the organism must have language. Thus, organisms that lack language lack a concept of belief so they don’t have beliefs.”
As PP stated that is false. You can have a desire or a will to do something without knowing yourself that it is your desire or will. I have a desire to pee right now but I’m not always thinking about or knowing it. Same for animals or babies.
“I can measure a door frame, get a set of measurements, then one can verify my measurements. You can’t measure the mind. Psychometrics isn’t measurement and that claim doesn’t even depend on my irreducibility arguments.”
You can measure physical things because they adhere to abstract properties that your mind can understand. The point of showing that there is nothing purely physical is that there is no apriori reason to believe all minds have the same general level of problem-solving ability if we can show other abstract things are measurable.
“A rocks mind could desire to act like a rock” – “this is nonsense.
Well to be able to think one must be able to have PAs, PAs are only available to language users, only humans have language so only humans can intend so only humans have mind. Nevermind the fact that rocks don’t even have the dependency condition of a CNS or a brain—your nonsense claim is straight up false.”
As I literally JUST explained, having a desire and understanding that you have the desire are two different concepts. And there is no apriori reason that CNS is required for a mind if a mind is purely immaterial. That’s your circular assumption.
Do you actually read and think about what people write or are you on some sort of script?
“False.”
The idea behind Davidson’s (the person RR has cited) arguments is that if an organism has beliefs, it must also be able to be surprised if that belief turns out wrong. Being surprised about a wrong belief implies the organism can differentiate between a belief one holds and reality in front of them, which Davidson believes is only possible with language because it allows one to contrast what they believe against what others believe.
Of course, it’s not really clear why animals necessarily need propositional attitudes/beliefs that are sential in structure. Some Philosphers have argued that animal beliefs are imagistic. They can convey concepts but not in a way that is propositional (as RR is using the term). RR has never really addressed this, but I am reading an article right now about the matter. I’ll be back.
“En masse enslavery?? Pillage of conquered people?? Gladiator fights .. human sacrifices???”
Slavery, pillage, and gladiatorial combat? Yes. Every ancient civilization had these. Human sacrifice? Read more closely. The Romans abolished the practice in the territories which they conquered.
“Their astronomical knowledge was outstanding! As well about other fields like archicteture. But i thought you knew that…”
It was rudimentary compared to that of the Greeks and Romans. They had an accurate value for the duration of the solar year. So what? Science merely begins with measurement.
“So simplistic. Morality is not just about sexual control.”
Don’t you speak a Romance language? Consult your Latin dictionary. Libido is desire as such.
“American and african indigenous peoples supposedly have had any cultural behavioral restraint??”
Civilization and provision for the future are inseparable. Blacks eat tomorrow’s dinner today.
“Very unlikely they abolished slavery specially in that time. I don’t have this specific knowledge but i could bet high that they didn’t.”
It’s documented history, dude. After Christianity became the state religion slavery was officially abolished. This is why the European economies of the Middle Ages were based on serfdom rather than slavery.
“False”
Why is it false?
“As PP stated that is false. You can have a desire or a will to do something without knowing yourself that it is your desire or will. I have a desire to pee right now but I’m not always thinking about or knowing it. Same for animals or babies.”
What’s the argument that an organism’s can have a belief without the concept of belief? What’s the argument that one can have PAs without language? Which premise of my argument is false?
“The point of showing that there is nothing purely physical is that there is no apriori reason to believe all minds have the same general level of problem-solving ability if we can show other abstract things are measurable.”
Remember the argument from causality and the argument from prediction.
If there is causality in the world, then there is a world independent of human minds.
There is causality in the world.
Therefore there is a world independent of human minds.
If there is a physical world independent of human minds, then we can make consistent predictions and perceive it.
We can make consistent predictions about the world and perceive them.
So there is a physical world independent of human minds.
It follows that there is a mind-independent physical world.
“As I literally JUST explained, having a desire and understanding that you have the desire are two different concepts. And there is no apriori reason that CNS is required for a mind if a mind is purely immaterial. That’s your circular assumption.”
How can one have a belief without a concept of belief? Rocks don’t even have sense organs. A CNS is a dependency condition, along with brains, for mind. It’s not a” circular assumption.” It’s impossible for a rock to be able to intend or have beliefs or desires. They’re purely physical. But what’s the argument for rock minds?
“What’s the argument that an organism’s can have a belief without the concept of belief? What’s the argument that one can have PAs without language? Which premise of my argument is false?”
Because you have no idea of where the mind even is, let alone anything about its properties/structure because you view it as completely immaterial and immeasurable. There is no reason a mind has to be of the type able to formulate language in order to have a desire.
What if there are different types of minds and the ones that want to/are capable of forming language attach to human bodies and the ones that just want to be “hard, grey and roughly spherical” attach to rocks?
“The point of showing that there is nothing purely physical is that there is no apriori reason to believe all minds have the same general level of problem-solving ability if we can show other abstract things are measurable.”
“Remember the argument from causality and the argument from prediction.
If there is causality in the world, then there is a world independent of human minds.
There is causality in the world.
Therefore there is a world independent of human minds.
If there is a physical world independent of human minds, then we can make consistent predictions and perceive it.
We can make consistent predictions about the world and perceive them.
So there is a physical world independent of human minds.
It follows that there is a mind-independent physical world.”
Again none of this matters if the mind and the physical material are made of the same substance. A physical world independent of human minds does not show that the physical world is not made of the same stuff as human minds or that human minds are not measurable.
There are many reasons to think they are measurable as I’ve mentioned before and anyone who has an understanding of their own mind can attest to, as well as apriori reasons.
Is the physical world defined by its properties? Yes. What makes these properties mutually incompatible with the properties of the mind?
“If there is a physical world independent of human minds, then we can make consistent predictions and perceive it.”
That assumes that the mind and physical world hold a common structure which you deny.
I’m also not sure how causality being in the world means implies the world can exist independently of a mind or even human-like minds. If you’re claiming “event causation” exists and therefore a physical world exists you are begging the question as to what event causation actually is. It could be agent-driven.
“How can one have a belief without a concept of belief?”
How do animals communicate without knowing they are communicating?
“Rocks don’t even have sense organs.”
You mean the sense organs that magically transfer physical information to our immaterial minds? You don’t know what structure is required for the immaterial besides what we understand from communicating with other people.
“A CNS is a dependency condition, along with brains, for mind. It’s not a” circular assumption.””
Of course it is. You literally think the immaterial is irreducible to the material so stating any specific material organization is required for a mind is contradictory, so you need to ignore the contradictions with circular arguments.
“It’s impossible for a rock to be able to intend or have beliefs or desires. They’re purely physical. But what’s the argument for rock minds?”
1. The mind is irreducible to the physical.
2. The immaterial mind is not dependent on any specific organization of material.
3. We would never be able to grasp another immaterial mind through our senses that only take in physical/material information.
4. Some physical structures have minds associated with them (Humans, animals).
5. If the mind is irreducible to the physical, there is no reason to assume that it only exists when specific physical structures exist.
6. Therefore, every physical structure in the universe is likely to have an associated mind/immaterial element.
That’s an argument in a more structured way that I’ve been stating in ways anyone with a brain and as much knowledge as you should have been able to infer from day two.
“Slavery, pillage, and gladiatorial combat? Yes. Every ancient civilization had these. Human sacrifice? Read more closely. The Romans abolished the practice in the territories which they conquered.”
Gladiator fight IS a type of human sacrifice.
Every civilization has been predominantly wrong in moral terms. It’s not because everyone is doing some stupid things that they will be right.
“It was rudimentary compared to that of the Greeks and Romans. They had an accurate value for the duration of the solar year. So what? Science merely begins with measurement.”
“The Classic Maya in particular developed some of the most accurate pre-telescope astronomy in the world, aided by their fully developed writing system and their positional numeral system, both of which are fully indigenous to Mesoamerica. The Classic Maya understood many astronomical phenomena: for example, their estimate of the length of the synodic month was more accurate than Ptolemy’s,[1] and their calculation of the length of the tropical solar year was more accurate than that of the Spanish when the latter first arrived.”
Source: mayan astronomy wikipedia
“Don’t you speak a Romance language? Consult your Latin dictionary. Libido is desire as such.”
This comment has anything with nothing i said.
I don’t know latin, it’s a dead language…
“Civilization and provision for the future are inseparable. Blacks eat tomorrow’s dinner today.”
You are missing the differences among hunter gatherer traditional communities, recently urbanized black africans in Africa and with the poorest of afro american working class.
“It’s documented history, dude. After Christianity became the state religion slavery was officially abolished. This is why the European economies of the Middle Ages were based on serfdom rather than slaver”
OFFICIALLY. And serfdom??
Serfdom is a type of semi slavery, creature.
Minds are intentionally constituted. Intentions require a mind and a mind requires a body. So whatever doesn’t have a mind or body can’t intend, so rocks lack minds. And stating that the physical is necessary for mind isn’t circular.
Just give up RR. You won’t understand anything until it is in a paper penned by a Cohen.
Like I said before, you utilize metaphysical apriori arguments when it suits your social constructivism and then ask for “citations” when it doesn’t.
Now you’re talking about “DETERMINISTIC PHYSICAL LAWS” of heredity in your blog… when physical laws themselves are not deterministic, as quantum uncertainty implies… come on.
If intentions are part of reality that can’t be reduced, it either makes sense that they are part of everything, and always existed, or that irreducibility is an illusion and they are actually just an emergent phenomena of material structure. You have to pick one.
You can’t claim that immaterial agents do not follow deterministic physical laws and then state that the material world MUST.
Do you not see these obvious double standards?
You can’t just keep saying “intentions and mind are not physical, therefore they are separate substances and beholden to different METAPHYSICAL laws” because metaphysics like determinism are OUTSIDE the scope of physics. They are what set the foundations of physics, and so the mental as well; you cannot apriori separate the metaphysics of mind from material.
Furthermore as I’ve said numerous times, all physical measurements are relative. Lengths are measured compared to other lengths, and since there is consistency, we assume “objectivity”, but they are all actually relative. This means there is no apriori reason to assume that an object of measurement cannot be relative, like IQ.
If you think novel problems solved in X time is not a measurement, you must think that you can’t optimize a computer to run programs faster, and upgrades to the CPU speed and RAM size that allow faster programs and more at once have nothing to do with the hardware and must be a difference in the PC’s acculturation to the programs.
Self knowledge is a very important but overlooked ability, specially by hbd, often obsessed about IQ. Self knowledge is an expression of self awareness, how knowledgeable we are about our own limitations and potentials. It’s separate a talented artist from a bad one who think he is better than he really is.
RR is a demonstration of how low a human self awareness can reach, at least specifically. He really thinks he mastered philosophy and then other fields like psychology. He really thinks everything he believes is totally right. Because he is very intellectually dishonest, he never admit he thinks is right about everything. The problem is not believe in it if is true but if it is not. And we can be superficially or essentially right about something without being “totally” or signficantly. The trick is knowing how knowledgeable you are and your capacity to improve it or not.
Know you don’t know is great and lots of high IQ people if not majority of them believe they are intellectually invencible.
Doesn’t matters read a lot of books if most of times reading is more to personal entertainment than for real knowledge acquisition. Also matters understand what you are reading, being capable to critically evaluate the content of books. Sadly people like RR think their favorite books are oracle of absolute truths. These people want to teach people to have critical thinking but they themselves are very poor on it or They think only conservative people need to develop their critical thinking skills…
You just dont get it. RR has a low IQ. Thats why hes wrong about everything.
Know what’s even more important? Self-accomplishment. What have you accomplished in your life?
What have you accomplished in your life, Fredo? I sold people baubles and trinkets, and you teach them how to deadlift. I’m nobody and you’re nobody, but only one of us is aware of this.
I wonder what the correlation is between self-accomplishment and IQ?
Both accomplishment and knowledge are important. You have to know what the context of your life and actions are, and then knowing them, you obviously want to accomplish something within that context. You have to know the system, and the necessary processes to maximize the utility, in order to maximize the utility.
To be such high class charlatan he needs at least an avg IQ above 100.
Zizek is a high class charlatan. Derrida and Lacan were high class charlatans. If they’re the haute couture of bullshit, RR is the Kmart of bullshit.
I don’t think Zizek is totally alike (i don’t admire him). Seems he is at least sincere and less typically pseudo intelectual than Lacan or RR’s.
Zizek rarely says directly what he means to say so it gives the impression hes merely obfuscating.
how did rr get into a highly selective graduate program?
answer: far more qualified applicants were rejected.
peepee is full of self-contradictions and oxymorons.
another one is how “genetically superior people” agree with mugabe.
peepee wants to give them a jewish cereal box test and then claim the test doesn’t matter because “smarpipo get to the top ‘naturally’ n sheeeit”.
peepee is mentally retarded and black. sad.
To be frankly i never pay attention to him or his works. Most of officially and professionally recognized philosophers of today and of the past give me a boring and tired feeling. They usually are never honest and direct.
Santo, I used to have mixed feelings about Zizek. I lost what little respect for him I once had after he shit on Agamben for having the courage to call the lockdown measures what they were: an unlawful and unjustifiable seizure of authority.
Pill, Zizek’s shtick is to make so many humorous and erudite digressions that his audience forgets that he hasn’t made an argument. He then declares, “SHOW YOU SHEE, IT ISH THE OPPOSHIT OF HOW IT SHEEMS” and the moronic communist rabble applaud.
Hegel and Kant turn the brain to mush. Aristotle and the Scholastics are where it’s at.
“Santo, I used to have mixed feelings about Zizek. I lost what little respect for him I once had after he shit on Agamben for having the courage to call the lockdown measures what they were: an unlawful and unjustifiable seizure of authority.”
They aren’t.. just a retard to think it is freedom spread a novel virus without thinking about the obvious consequences.
“They aren’t.. just a retard to think it is freedom spread a novel virus without thinking about the obvious consequences.”
You can’t even compose intelligible English sentences. Your opinion on which measures are appropriate for preventing the transmission of an out of season cold are less than worthless.
Your opinions here are one the worse. SORRY! Your observations about morality are pathetic. Are you really a very high IQ person??????
Just the dumb dumb or morally idiot to believe about covid-19 fake news, even more three years after the appex of this pandemics without precious vaccines. If you think you are immune to bullshit or indoctrination you are very delusional.
Indoctrination is not just of the left…
English is one the most incoerent languages in the world. So i don’t care BUT if you don’t have any better arguments to defend your illiteracy about covid-19, QAnon level, just this emotional triggering, it shows more about you not me.
Biggest argument against tougher restrictions in 2020 during the covid-19 without vaccines: “it’s just a little flu, so it not justifiable”
Reality: great majority of people who died or have die from covid wouldnt die from a real little flu. Every day, millions of people caught a flu and don’t die, even among the risky groups like elderly and immunocompromised people if its mortality rates are like 0,1% of deaths if compared with ~ 1% or more of deaths by covid-19 (and higher for risk groups).
ONLY thing i could agree is that about business, governments that imposed restrictions should think in a more nuanced approach but an economic crisis caused by pandemics would be inevitable even in countries like Sweden.
Every YEAR…
“Your opinions here are one the worse. SORRY! Your observations about morality are pathetic. Are you really a very high IQ person??????”
English may not be your mother tongue, but this is pitiful. You write like a child.
“. . . even more three years after the appex of this pandemics without precious vaccines.”
Literal gibberish. The ‘pandemic’ began almost exactly three years ago. The apex (whether determined by number of infections per day, number of hospitalizations per day, or number of deaths per day) occurred long after the pandemic began.
“If you think you are immune to bullshit or indoctrination you are very delusional.”
Read my posts re philosophy and penance as self-examination, you illiterate dunce.
“English is one the most incoerent languages in the world.”
My Latin is better than your English, and I only began my study of the language a few months ago. You could at least run your imbecilic rants through a spellcheck.
“So i don’t care BUT if you don’t have any better arguments to defend your illiteracy about covid-19, QAnon level, just this emotional triggering, it shows more about you not me.”
There’s nothing to defend. By late May of 2020 the official Covid stats from Lombardy proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Covid was only a serious threat to the obese, the elderly, and the already seriously ill. We can’t shut down the global economy to save your abuela from the flu, Marco.
“English may not be your mother tongue, but this is pitiful. You write like a child.”
Neandertard,
Your self awareness is as low as RR’s. Cheers!!
If nobody tells you how limited you are you will believe in your nonexistent genius for ever like a retard.
“Literal gibberish. The ‘pandemic’ began almost exactly three years ago. The apex (whether determined by number of infections per day, number of hospitalizations per day, or number of deaths per day) occurred long after the pandemic began.”
The RETARD even quoted the pandemic word. Just a Trump balls sucker.. i bet you are another white trash who like “strongmen” and believe in invisible jewish saviour… embarrassing you are here. This is, at first, completely irrelevant. Secondly, the appex of pandemics started right in 2020 when the number of hospitalizations and deaths reached its plateau.
“Read my posts re philosophy and penance as self-examination”
Another loser talking and wiriting in the name of WISDOM, something you don’t have, noti in this life. It’s very clear here.
SELF EXAMINATION
Hahahahaha
Your extremely low level of self awareness really should be considered a mental disorder. Actually it is.
“My Latin is better than your English, and I only began my study of the language a few months ago. You could at least run your imbecilic rants through a spellcheck”
You’re dumb like a rock. I doubt your IQ is three digits. You write in your mother tongue like someone who have below avg IQ with little sophistication.
Your latin may be as simplistic as your low class sounding english. maybe a vulgar latin like your primitive mind.
“There’s nothing to defend. By late May of 2020 the official Covid stats from Lombardy proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Covid was only a serious threat to the obese, the elderly, and the already seriously ill. We can’t shut down the global economy to save your abuela from the flu, Marco.”
Abuela is a Spanish not a Portuguese name, white trash.
Look how PSYCHOPATH you are sounding. And do you think you are morally superior Just because you’re whitey????
People as you should be interned, sterilized and chemically castrated. I’m talking very seriously. This should be the best thing really superior human beings could do to start to correct imbecile humenity… ostracizing sub humans like you from any possibility of freedom.
I wont waste my time with a human beast. Your “arguments” are very low level but even worse you showed how psychopathic you are.
I think whether to shutdown and how hard to shutdown are complicated and not easy to answer questions so I’m neutral in your little debate.
…Thats a funny summary of Zizek haha.
Our culture has become fundamentally narcissistic.
Take Lady Gaga’s hit song ‘Born This Way’. It’s a celebration of mediocrity. It treats cynical resignation as a virtue to be praised.
Greek philosophy and medieval penitential practices were both fundamentally about self-examination. You have to confront yourself and your shortcomings and either work to correct them, or at least have the decency to admit that you have them.
St. Augustine almost single-handedly developed the genre of autobiography (in the full sense of the word as opposed to a mere personal chronicle).
“Know you don’t know is great and lots of high IQ people if not majority of them believe they are intellectually invencible.”
I joined an I.Q. society a few years ago. Most of these people have no knowledge of history, geography, languages, etc.. They’re enormously and appallingly ignorant, incurable philistines, deracinated mongrel goons.
We only need honesty with ourselves and aproximate accuracy at least about intellectual self evaluation.
About morality, just follows a simple question: what is fair or just??
Fair: necessary, thoughtful//moderate, true…
It’s exceedingly easy to deceive yourself. If you don’t have some kind of practice of regular self-examination (whether it’s meditation, or Catholic confession, or keeping a diary . . .), you’ll almost certainly swallow your own bullshit.
Please note that I’m referring only to a notional ‘you’. You’re probably less inclined to self-deception than I am.
“intellectual self evaluation”
Intelligence is relative and multi-dimensional.
skills and knowledge is about where we live
culture, but this doesn’t mean some people don’t learn faster than others.
if I learn faster I get better faster, this is brain plasticity and culture. you are exposed and then the plastic absorbs.
then metacognition happens and empathy.
we know what we are strong and weak at.
we see this in others with social intelligence.
we make relative comparison.
pp is better at statistics by himself but I need school and motivation.
I am only semiautodidactic.
pp is full autodidactic. can do maths.
170 IQ people are super autodidactic.
they don’t learn by rote they create new things.
not copy-paste but generate the new.
putting things together meaningfully
a diffrent kind of laungauge and percption.
Neandercel,
I agree is extremely easy to self deception but it is exactly the point. It is inevitable. The main problem is not comit a mistake but never acknowledge and fix it. My process was very intuitive and it couldnt be different for me. It was a messy process and still is. I understood there are some problematic aspects of my personality directly related with my self knowledge which i can’t change, like emotionality. So if i can’t change it i need adapt myself to it. Of course there are some tricks we can teach but i don’t think religion or something more specific like meditation (even thought it is not, there are different types of it) is necessary to help people to be more rational. About things like self knowledge and rationality they look extremely easy to master because we tend to think we are naturally capable of but it exactly this apparent facility to learn or improve that deceive most people even those who express motivation to be more self knowledgeable and or rational.
“skills and knowledge is about where we live”
Not all. There are universal skills (language) and knowledge (to survive) too.
“culture, but this doesn’t mean some people don’t learn faster than others.
if I learn faster I get better faster, this is brain plasticity and culture. you are exposed and then the plastic absorbs.”
I don’t. I’m always irregular in learning skills. Too bad in some fields and not so in others.
“we know what we are strong and weak at.”
Unfortunately most don’t with some accuracy. And it seems worsen as higher learner people are.
“we see this in others with social intelligence”
Social intelligence can be relative too because there are different contexts. What is socially smart for you may not for me.
“we make relative comparison.
pp is better at statistics by himself but I need school and motivation.
I am only semiautodidactic.
pp is full autodidactic. can do maths.
170 IQ people are super autodidactic.”
So pp’s IQ is 170??? Wow
“They don’t learn by rote they create new things.
not copy-paste but generate the new.
putting things together meaningfully
a diffrent kind of laungauge and percption.”
No, kid. Higher IQ is not high creative skills. Sorry. Try to learn this. Even famous Terman study proved it.
High IQ without high creative capacity = very good to memorize, learn and or to make sense.
High IQ without high creative capacity AND high rational capacity = very good to memorize, learn but at high risk to overrationalize personal beliefs.
Stephen Ceci showed that Terman’s study showed when IQ is equated and social class is not, social class is determinative of personal and professional success, not IQ.
But in the Terman Studies, it was found that people with highest scores (150 or more) who are observed throughout these lives were LESS likely to be “socially and professionally succesful” than those “termites” who scored comparatively less.
I don’t think so
Really??
https://prometheussociety.org/wp/articles/the-outsiders/
I mean “socially adjusted” but it seems the same as “social and or professionally succesful”.
Pingback: Guest post: Cognitive cognitive Disonance; or, The Apparent Antinomy of Atheism and Anti-Hereditarianism by Teffec P – Glyn Hnutu-healh: History, Alchemy, and Me
Salve Teffec!
The explanation of this inconsistency must be sought in the long arc of European intellectual development. It is otherwise inexplicable.
The basic tendency of western civilization from the 14th century onward has been toward increasing secularism and a rejection of everything Catholic or traditional (monarchy, hierarchy, aristocracy, mystery, ordination, etc.). Catholicism is hierarchical in its very foundations, and rejects UTTERLY the misguided notions of human moral, intellectual, and political equality.
Locke, Hume, and other protestant-secularist ‘philosophers’ imagined that individual differences in moral character and intellectual ability were the result of early education and individual choice. This was consistent with their humanistic rejection of the medieval scholastic anthropology. The fedora-tippers never succeeded in ridding themselves of this juvenile and obviously false notion even after the psychometric data demolished it beyond the last trace of a reasonable doubt.
Tl;dr – Fedora-tippers are only interested in science and philosophy insofar as they’re able to use them to sophistically defend the worldview which they have adopted solely to bolster their own fragile egos. They can’t stand to think that their (largely imaginary) ‘critical thinking’ abilities are ~80% hereditary and a, “gift from God”.
one can imagine this as an “evolutionary strategy”.
learn better but to do so takes more time. and never forget.
vs
learn quickly but only service-ably, enough to get by. and forget immediately.
bezos says: “slow is smooth, smooth is fast.”
So if I see I need to “decompress” or “let some steam off” to describe my stress or mental states, that is not using physical language to describe the mental because it is metaphorical… nor if I say something is “in my mind”.
But if I use mathematics to describe length and time that is physical and not mental even though mathematics does not actually exist in any physical form but is always abstracted and inferred from our observations (or forms the structures of the observations themselves).
But when I test someone’s intelligence using mathematics I’m simply testing their “cultural knowledge” and not actually testing anything objective even though mathematical terms (dimensions and their extension along those dimensions) are the only things we use describe “objective physical observations”.
Wow. This certainly seems like a logical worldview that debunks hereditarianism.
Hereditarianism is debunked through numerous avenues. What’s the specified measured object, the object of measurement and the measurement unit for IQ? I’ve given an example for the physical, a stick. Your claims about privileging genes fall way short. It’s just incoherent. Causal parity > generic reductionism.
What do you take the hereditarian hypothesis to be? And how would it defeat a cultural view?
You said genes are “in charge of how to build proteins which make up our body”—how are genes “in charge”? If they’re in charge, then they’re privileged. But genes aren’t privileged resources. ALL aspects of the system need to be interacting with each other to form the phenotype. The phenotype is irreducible to any interactant. Per Noble’s biological relativity argument, there is no a priori privileged level of causation. You haven’t produced an argument that would defeat this argument that shatters hereditarianism/behavioral genetics. Nevermind the “laws” of behavioral genetics which aren’t really laws.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262309/
Genes are in charge because if I have your DNA I can clone you.
Behavioral individuality arose in clonal fish and this implies that individuallity is an unpredictable and inevitable outcome of development.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15361
Developmental factors caused individuallity in genetically identical mice.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23661762/
Genes are merely inert molecules that do nothing until activated. Claiming genes are special resources in 2023 is absurd based on what we know about how individuality arises and what we know about how developmental resources interact.
By the way, lurker, Kevin Bird disproved natural selection being the cause of racial differences in IQ. The differences aren’t driven by genetics and natural selection isn’t responsible.
Click to access 2021-bird.pdf
Oh yes I know, “development” is responsible. The “development” that magically seems to correlate strongly with inherited genetics.
More than genes are inherited and no one resource has causal primacy over another. Yet another stake into the heart of the undead vampire known as hereditarianism.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2023/01/25/the-answer-to-hereditarianism-is-developmental-systems-theory/
“More than genes are inherited”
So what? And the form of inheritance matters. It my grandparents give me a cow it’s a bit different than inheriting cow DNA into my own DNA. The structure and the specific interaction of chemical properties with its environment is what make DNA powerful, not the “causal primacy” of the genes. It has never been said that the “genes” as molecules are what cause things all by themselves.
Again, if you don’t need to know the origin of mind to know whether it is present, why do we need to know the exact reason why genetics predict so much? Or conversely, if the environmental interaction is important to the development of the organism, which it obviously is, why not ask what structure associated with the organism learns and develops from the environment? Why not ask whether one organism’s learning structure could be more powerful than anothers?
Why are structural and apriori arguments for “mind” and “intelligence” so important to you when it comes to showing how minds are the same, but correlational studies (that can be heavily distorted and politically manipulated) are the only important studies to you when showing that people might have different minds?
If the origin and structure of the mind is so unimportant as a metaphysical question that you constantly ignore it, why is showing that the origin of any mental differences only arise from environmental interaction so metaphysically important to you that you rest at nothing to respond to almost any claim on this blog?
Because the specific hereditarian claim is that traits are inherited through genes, they are likened to programs, recipes, or blueprints, and since the CPT is true, then hereditarianism must be false.
I know I have a mind. That’s absolutely not contested.
“but correlational studies (that can be heavily distorted and politically manipulated) are the only important studies to you when showing that people might have different minds?”
What studies?
“why is showing that the origin of any mental differences only arise from environmental interaction so metaphysically important to you that you rest at nothing to respond to almost any claim on this blog?”
Because I like to argue. And hereditarianism needs to be pushed back on, since there are many reasons why it’s false.
Why has animal breeding been such a huge success if hereditarianism is false?
Ignoring substantive criticism and debunking strawmen is not fighting against hereditarianism. Causal Parity and genetic reductionism are not problems for hereditarianism.
And right now, hereditarianism is not the problem with our society. Where the hell in the West do you see people reducing everyone to their genes? So you’re wrong about both the problem and what you think the problem is.
“What studies?”
Studies in the soft sciences that can only show correlations. You state that they don’t matter when they show IQ is real and has measurable effects, and then when they dispute IQ and show environmental-based increases you cite them as showing how the tests were culturally biased.
You only rely on apriori claims to that seem to imply the immaterial is immeasurable, but when I show numerous contradictions and problems with your apriori arguments you double down and ignore them. And then rely on arguments that are either circular or nonexplanations (only humans have a mind because a mind requires language which only humans can communicate in but btw I don’t believe one can measure the mental through the physical so I’m not sure how I know any of this but trust me bro).
Ultimately you’re a either a dishonest pseudoscientist as Santo and Mugabe claims, or your autistic and have a limit on your abstracting ability.
BTW you don’t need a citation to figure out how mathematics is an abstraction. Use your head, and a dictionary or encyclopedia.
“Because the specific hereditarian claim is that traits are inherited through genes, they are likened to programs, recipes, or blueprints, and since the CPT is true, then hereditarianism must be false.”
The implication here is that only intentionality has causal power and inert matter can ever organize in a certain way due to the laws of physics. If that’s the case you are arguing that the whole universe is an intentional mind since inert matter seems to be doing stuff all the time without human or animal minds causing it to. Have you ever thought of taking your apriori claims to their logical conclusions?
“I know I have a mind. That’s absolutely not contested.”
The ability is though. And secondly, you take everyone else having a mind for granted based on what your own mind interprets. And thirdly, you ignore that there may be minds that work differently from yours because you don’t understand them.
“Causal parity and genetic reductionism are not problems for hereditarianism.”
Causal parity definitely is an issue for hereditarianism, because of its true then hereditarianism is false. This is because hereditarians conceptualize genes as active causes, like blueprints, codes and recipes. Hereditarianism is definitely a form of genetic reductionism, have you not seen the slew of GWAS and PGS studies over the years?
What studies? Shown me some specifics. IQ isn’t real—if it were real then it would be construct valid. Tests being culturally biased is due to test construction, and I’ve proven the point with a few citations.
M is immaterial. P is material. So P can be measured, but M can’t.
Ultimately, your idiotic “diagnoses” about me are wrong, as are Santo and Mugabe.
The universe can’t be minded. Inert matter (like genes) do what they do DUE to the physiological system, they are caused to do what they do by the system.
I know I have a mind and a body and brain. I see other humans that also have bodies and brain. Thus I can rightly infer that other humans have minds too.
So, what do you think hereditarianism is and: What. Sources. Do. You. Have. For. Your. Claims?
What do you take “hereditarianism” to mean? Heredity isn’t hereditarianism.
“Causal parity definitely is an issue for hereditarianism, because of its true then hereditarianism is false. This is because hereditarians conceptualize genes as active causes, like blueprints, codes and recipes.”
Causal parity is not an issue when the structure system itself is what privileges genes. Again it’s like
“Hereditarianism is definitely a form of genetic reductionism, have you not seen the slew of GWAS and PGS studies over the years?””
So trying to find correlations between genes and traits means that we are saying everything about an organism is reduced to the genes?
“What studies? Shown me some specifics. IQ isn’t real—if it were real then it would be construct valid. Tests being culturally biased is due to test construction, and I’ve proven the point with a few citations.”
Correlations between literally all achievement tests and civilizational accomplishments indicate that IQ is real.
“M is immaterial. P is material. So P can be measured, but M can’t.”
Why can P be measured? Describe it in a way that isn’t circular. Like stating “I can take a stick and measure it X inches and other people agree.”
Other people also agree on intelligence levels and we can use mathematics on nonphysical systems. So those can’t be your reasons.
“The universe can’t be minded. Inert matter (like genes) do what they do DUE to the physiological system, they are caused to do what they do by the system.”
Wow. You’ve just stated what every hereditarian believes.
“I know I have a mind and a body and brain. I see other humans that also have bodies and brain. Thus I can rightly infer that other humans have minds too.”
But you cannot rightly infer that the universe or any material in the universe does not have a mind.
“So, what do you think hereditarianism is and: What. Sources. Do. You. Have. For. Your. Claims?”
I already wrote what I think hereditarianism is.
I don’t argue using citations. There is nothing we’re arguing about that requires citations except general knowledge about the world and biology. Why do you need a citation to define a word? What’s the point of citing something in the soft sciences that you will refute with other politicized soft science claims and apriori arguments? No point at all except academic circle-jerking.
How does “the structure system itself privilege genes”?
Correlations are inevitable, especially as the dataset gets larger, and this leads to spurious correlations, which is what all GWAS “hits” are.
Correlations between IQ and achievement tests are due to the simple fact that they’re different versions of the same test. That doesn’t mean that “IQ is real.”
P can be measured iff there is a specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit. What’s the measurement unit for IQ?
Hereditarians believe that genes are blueprints, codes or recipes (eg Rushton), so no, that is not what they believe too. For if they “believed” holistic systems biology principles, then they wouldn’t be hereditarians.
If something doesn’t even have the minimal requirements for mind then I can rightly infer that they lack mind.
What do you think hereditarianism is?
Citations are used for specific claims. It I make the claim that the sun is 93 million miles away from earth, this is common knowledge and so does not require citation. My asking you for a citation is so I can see what references you have that back the beliefs you hold.
“How does “the structure system itself privilege genes”?
Correlations are inevitable, especially as the dataset gets larger, and this leads to spurious correlations, which is what all GWAS “hits” are.”
Because… the structure is formed in such a way that genetic material determines to some extent the organism that develops.
Just because correlations can be deceptively derived or accidentally derived does not mean that finding correlations between genes and traits is “genetic reductionism”.
There is a huge correlation between blue eyes and fair skin and light hair, it doesn’t mean that blue eyes cause fair skin, but it would be idiotic to claim the correlation is spurious.
“Correlations between IQ and achievement tests are due to the simple fact that they’re different versions of the same test. That doesn’t mean that “IQ is real.””
Again that doesn’t explain anything. Why is cultural knowledge testable if the immaterial unmeasurable? Why can we not assume that IQ tests are meant to test all subsets of culturally possible knowledge, if you want to define all knowledge as “cultural”.
Also: Civilizational achievements, which are not manmade tests.
“P can be measured iff there is a specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit. What’s the measurement unit for IQ?”
Object of measurement: A person’s general problem-solving ability.
Measurement Unit: IQ point.
If it wasn’t measurable, how are people measuring it? They’ve isolated something as a measurement.
Furthermore, as stated months ago, do you realize that length is relative to light, which is measured relative to other processes, which are again measured relative to light, and so measurement is circular and interdependent?
“Hereditarians believe that genes are blueprints, codes or recipes (eg Rushton), so no, that is not what they believe too. For if they “believed” holistic systems biology principles, then they wouldn’t be hereditarians.”
Recipes don’t tell you what happens if you accidentally use spoiled milk. It assumes you won’t, because you know better. There are assumptions built in to recipes. Blueprints don’t tell you not to use rotten wood.
Saying genes are a recipe or blueprint does not mean you are assuming the genes are magically causing everything around them. There are structural assumptions that the structure of the material around the genes is such that the genetics can actually function as more of a code… just like there are structural assumptions about lakes that allow them to enclose a large amount of water, rather than some random flat plain located in a desert.
“If something doesn’t even have the minimal requirements for mind then I can rightly infer that they lack mind.”
You’ve yet to show that a CNS is required for a mind, or that verbal communication is required, or communication that you can understand is.
In fact, your whole apriori argument about immaterial not reducible to physical measurements contradicts the idea that one must be able to communicate through physical sensory channels to have a mind.
“What do you think hereditarianism is?”
That traits, behavior, and/or structure is inherited to some degree from ones parents.
“Citations are used for specific claims. It I make the claim that the sun is 93 million miles away from earth, this is common knowledge and so does not require citation. My asking you for a citation is so I can see what references you have that back the beliefs you hold.”
The civilizational achievement differences speak for themselves, don’t they?
Well as long as you consider the modern world to be better than tribal, cannibalistic, slave-trading shamanism.
“genetic material determines”
This claim is false. Do you even know what genetic reductionism is and it’s relationship to hereditarianism?
It does explain it—since they have similar item content they are bound to correlate. Nevermind the “validation” of tests with other non-valid tests. It’s circular all the way down.
“IQ point” isn’t a unit of measurement. “general problem solving ability” isn’t an object of measurement.
Genes aren’t a code that claim has been refuted decades ago.
No CNS means no brain activity, and brain is a necessary pre-condition for mind.
“Traits, behavior and/or structure is inherited to some degree from ones parents”
What evidence do you have for this claim?
“Civilizational achievement differences” don’t validate IQ.
“This claim is false. Do you even know what genetic reductionism is and it’s relationship to hereditarianism?”
I know what genes are, and I know what reductionism, and I know what hereditarianism is.
Do you understand the relationship between the immaterial, properties/attributes, and the material?
Do you understand the relationship between the objective and subjective, and the absolute and relative?
“It does explain it—since they have similar item content they are bound to correlate. Nevermind the “validation” of tests with other non-valid tests. It’s circular all the way down.”
Yes, similar item content: One involves solving novel problems, the other involves solving novel problems. Sounds like a useful correlation.
““IQ point” isn’t a unit of measurement. “general problem solving ability” isn’t an object of measurement.”
Yes they are.
You can’t simply refute it because of your self-contradictory apriori beliefs that only length and mass are measurements.
“Genes aren’t a code that claim has been refuted decades ago.”
I’m saying that code or blueprint is not what you were portraying it as. You don’t have to be a materialist to believe that genetics could function to some degree as a blueprint.
“What evidence do you have for this claim?”
The evidence that every organism gives birth to the same species, and their children always seem to be more similar to the them than other members of their species. Are you retarded?
““Civilizational achievement differences” don’t validate IQ.”
They do to a lot of rational people.
You didn’t answer this:
“Why can P be measured? Describe it in a way that isn’t circular. Like stating “I can take a stick and measure it X inches and other people agree.”
Other people also agree on intelligence levels and we can use mathematics on nonphysical systems. So those can’t be your reasons.”
What’s the relationship between hereditarianism and genetic reductionism? Hereditarianism relies hard on the “laws of behavioral genetics”, laws need to be exceptionless, and if they’re not, then they’re not laws.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2023/01/27/on-the-so-called-laws-of-behavioral-genetics/
What references do you have for the claim that hereditarianism is true?
I’ve already given two arguments for the existence of a material world independent of human minds.
What novel problems? I’ve exhaustively shown that they’re similar tests so that’s why they correlate. Nevermind the fact that IQ tests are validated with other non-valid tests as I’ve already described.
How is an “IQ point” a unit of measurement? How is “general problem solving ability” an object of measurement, it’s not physical.
Length and mass are but 2 of many actual measures.
The claim that gene are a blueprint has been refuted for a long time.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/07/21/dna-blueprint-and-fortune-teller/
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/07/15/dna-is-not-a-blueprint/
Species-typical traits are more than what’s inherited from parents, there is non-genetic inheritance.
What does it mean for something to be construct valid? “Intelligence levels” are due to a priori biases which the constructors built into the test. You’re obviously ignorant to test construction and item analysis. P can be measured because it’s material and there are specified measured objects, objects of measurement and measurement units—the basic tenets for metrication. Read Karel Berka and Roy Nash on measurement.
“how are genes “in charge”?”
you will say I’m stupid because you play word games and don’t like analogies but:
a computer without an operating system is just a lump of minerals.
the software and hardware interact to form the system.
“the software and hardware interact to form the system.”
You’re almost there. There is nothing abkht the claim that resources “work together” that one has primacy over another.
IQ is partially cultural like we can’t test illiterate people because IQ and human intelligence is mostly about language.
I like to compare IQ (and human intelligence) with sports. We need to learn the basics: learn to write, read and math to do a cognitive test. We need to acquire some cultural knowledge to start with. Without culture, no correct evaluation.
And we have sports. So without learning the rules of it we can’t practice it and being correctly evaluated.
BUT there are noticiable differences on individual performance in that way we can say that “some people seems have a better combination of psychological and physical traits that allow them to perform better or to develop their skills more than others”. We can’t say “IQ is 100% genetic” as well about athletic performance but we can conclude that people need literally to born with some combination of traits if they want to perform better.
“What’s the specified measured object”
The brain network graph efficiency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_theory
statistics is a hard concept to master for some people.
never happens in real life:
these pictures are posed for.
“these pictures are posed for.”
Yes, generally speaking, most people pose for pictures. Is this your attempt at convincing us you aren’t socially retarded?
this is why i hate mlk.
he equated racism with colorism.
and that was a LIE!
“If we clone Animekitty then within a certain artificial context his clone will become (develop into) a bat rather than a human.” -rr
Animekitty:
peepee is full of self-contradictions and oxymorons.
another one is how “genetically superior people” agree with mugabe.
peepee wants to give them a jewish cereal box test and then claim the test doesn’t matter because “smarpipo get to the top ‘naturally’ n sheeeit”.
peepee is mentally retarded and black. sad.
Cereal boxes from around the world.
Admission to a Doctor of Physical Therapy program in the United States is highly competitive. According to the Aggregate Program Data Report from CAPTE from 2016 to 2017, the average grade point average for enrolling students was 3.6 out of 4[22] with a range of 3.20–3.88 for all programs.[22] On average, there were 1,000 applicants per program with an average of 46 students enrolled.[22] A bachelor’s degree generally is required before beginning a Doctor of Physical Therapy program, but there is no requirement on the degree earned as long as all prerequisite course requirements are met.[23] Obtaining a DPT could also be done by accelerated programs by some universities that can be applied by freshman. Through these programs students can receive a bachelor’s degree and a DPT in 6 to 7 years.[24] During the admission process into schools, one must fulfill the course prerequisites of the program. Students also must obtain physical therapy experience from clinics, with hours that might have to be verified by a physical therapist, depending on the school they are applying to. The Graduate Record Examination (GRE) is required for most programs, and must be taken and submitted to the school.[25]
rr needs to share his scores.
I watched the first episode of The Last of Us. Great! Especially the very first scenes showing the transition from normal life to the outbreak of human-parasitical fungus pandemics. So i look at how game characters were portrayed in the tv show. Sarah, Joel’s daughter, in the game, is a blonde white girl. Joel seems to be a white brune(tte) man as his brother. They can pass as a mediterranean or atlanto med from british isles. So in the tv show, Joel is portrayed by a Chilean actor and his brother by a Mexican actor. Both look alike to the game’s characters. But Sarah is portrayed by Tandie Newton’s daughter …. ok … I really liked her acting. I never played this game (i prefer mario kart sorry) but i really liked her 2003 typical american teen before the pandemics. But it is interesting to notice that while the little mermaid is not racially described by its author (implicitly a Danish girl??) and she was portrayed by a Black actress in the newest movie about it, Sarah from the game The Last of Us, actually has a very white face BUT the Jewish creators thought it was better casting a biracial. So spontaneously done…
There are at the max 10 million jews in U$ from 330 million people but they are extremely overrepresented in the key social positions (media, government, economy). IQ alone can’t explain this extreme overrepresentation. All pro semitic HBDers are wrong about it.
Is also interesting that even nazis are wrong about most of things they are more right than pro semitic people, including probably the majority of jewish people, in one crucial thing: virtually speaking, there is no people in the world and throughout all human history who was and is only good or innocent or victimized, and it’s obviously include jewish people. But it exactly what pro semitic narratives are saying “all individuals and organizations that belong to jewry are above any direct criticism” so if we have Weinsteins (steens…) is never because their jewishness or something related with, if hollywood and academia have extreme overrepresentation of jewish people is not necessarily a bad thing or they indoctrinate sheeple to believe most of these “white” actors and students are just “whites”. Clever but extremely dishonest, evil, to say at least.
Not going to watch it, for reasons you mentioned (classic Netflix) and also because the Last of Us was already a very cinematic experience as a game.
Making into a show is a bit redundant.
Of course I agree with you about Jewishness.
What’s even more aggravating is when they say that “jewish culture” makes them successful, which disregards the fact that some cultural practices are not repeatable on a massive scale since they seem to be inherently subversive and parasitical.
Not everything about “culture” is a non-zero sum game.
It’s true that IQ alone can’t explain Jewish over-representation, but some combination of location, interests, values, and IQ probably can.
Jews are OBSESSED with money and influence, way more so than gentiles, so it makes sense to see a lot of them in politics, media, law, and finance. Having a lot of family members and friends in these fields helps a lot, too. Pure nepotism probably plays some role, but I’d imagine it’s relatively minimal.
Intellectually dishonest Jews would have you believe that the lack of nepotism means their over-representation doesn’t matter, but that’s obviously a non sequitur to anyone who isn’t stupid. That argument seems to convince a lot of HBD gentiles, though.
That being said, the college admissions data that Unz has written about might call some of what I said into question. If his math is even half right, it strongly suggests a push by admissions offices to restrict gentile whites from attending elite universities (and thus from becoming “elites”) by as much as possible. According to him, Jews actually outnumber gentile whites at some Ivy League universities.
This might just mean that Jews are better at gaming the system, though.
Yes but there are a lot of gentiles who are as obsessed with Money and influence as jews. Not some nepotism, huge. But i think it would be impossible without lot of very creative jews like the creators of this tv show. I think they has been selected for high functioning high verbal IQ psychopaths, exactly those people who are money and power-hunger.
Santo basically just read my comments and said what I believe to be the determinate factor – psychopathic personalities.
Among white and asian gentiles this type of selection also has happening but among jews it seems higher partially because their population size (an advantage of little populations).
One of the best games I’ve ever played, honestly.
Really?? Seems very good just seeing some short videos of the game.
(((Wait! One of the creators of this series is a creator of the game)))
The sequel is very notorious for being diverse. It also has a lame reversal of hero and villain… I haven’t played it though and haven’t watched anyone play it.
What games do you play?
Last of Us 2 is better than part 1. I liked the story of both. Gameplay is similar in both.
“Last of Us 2 is better than part 1.”
I don’t think so. I felt like the second one’s message of “rEveNge BAd” was ridiculous when there are a million more things that could be used as an interesting plotline in a zombie apocalypse scenario.
I liked the story personally and I’m way more socially conservative than you.
They’d probably respond with some combination of the following:
(1) The races haven’t been apart long enough to see changes.
(2) Lewontin’s Fallacy. Differences in group means are smaller than intra-group differences; therefore, we’re all the same.
(3) Mental ability cannot be measured with our current tools. Therefore, group differences on IQ tests are meaningless.
(4) It can’t be true because the implications are too racist.
With any complex issue, there’s no shortage of excuses.
Maybe one day your lot will stop parroting the phrase “Lewontin’s fallacy”—I won’t hold my breath.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bies.202100204
RR’s IQ is probably too low to be commenting here Puppy. If you let him guest post I will never come back here again.
Promise?
Frankly your social IQ is too low to be commenting here either.
LOL! My social IQ is through the roof. If you and I walked into any party I guarantee I’d fit in better than you.
If the party was full of autists like Bruno, then yes.
Philly might have a better intuition (HUGE might), but Pumpkin is definitely a better chameleon which is what you need to blend into social groups.
“If you let him guest post I will never come back here again.”
Really? I was going write something on clonal populations, equal environments and how individuality arises. When I do, don’t post here again then.
You can’t write anything RR youre thick as shit. All your ideas are from jews with 40 IQ points on you.
Let’s all hope you uphold your end of the bargain in a few weeks.
Stephen Jay Gould’s corpse controls RRs mouth like a puppet.
I wish. Gould denied HBD but at least he believed in mainstream genetics and natural selection. Even Gould is way too much of a Darwinist for RR’s latest dogma.
I mean, Gould, along with Jablonka and Lamb, Noble, Moore, Oyama, Richardson, Fox Keller, Griffiths, Gray, Stotz, Laland, Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini and others are the ones that have questioned neo-Darwinian assumptions of evolution and have paved the way forward for the EES. While my own personal views are probably a bit more radical, there is considerable support for the views I push.
what does “support” have to do with TRUTH?
NOTHING!
you’re evil!
maybe this is what happened to rr. he had to get some minimum score to get into pt school and he took the test 100 times and then eventually just applied to a school which didn’t require it.
Ave Poculum Urinae!
hereditarianism and atheism are both forms of environmentally-incurred retardation. environmentalism is stupid too when it becomes environmental determism—because what’s truly stupid is determinism.
i can’t be bothered to figure out what RR’s perspective is exactly, but he’s the only one here who seems to speak anything close to sense. the one thing i can see he is wrong about is when he says stuff like “genes can’t influence mental traits because genes are purely physical”.
neither genes nor mental traits are purely physical or purely mental (spiritual)—genes are code, words, language—are mental traits not influenced by language? my guess is he’s an atheist, which means he can’t explain why we even have consciousness in the first place. all physical objects are “conscious” because all of reality exists within God’s consciousness—read Berkeley’s dialogues.
and don’t ask me to “prove God exists”—YOU have to find out for YOURSELF. saying that God exists means saying that the universe was created out of love—asking for scientific or logical proof that God exists is like asking for scientific or logical proof that your girlfriend really loves you. it’s the idea of an insane paranoiac.
an intelligence is your ability to adapt to a certain task. the distinction between “physical” and “mental” tasks is arbitrary just like in any other kind of silly mind-body dualism. your body is just the accumulation of the decisions you’ve made throughout your life—your body defines your “crystallized intelligence”; your spirit defines your “fluid intelligence”, and all tasks require the coordination of both. most of the things you probably regard as unchangeable about your body are actually quite changeable if you actually look into it with an open mind—yes, that includes your height, facial bone structure, and dick size. and no i’m not talking about surgery.
you have fluid intelligence in a certain domain when you have a tendency to (patiently, and with a spirit of openness and curiosity) apply mental effort to that domain, and you gain crystallized intelligence by applying mental effort to that domain for an extended period of time. i was not a mathematical prodigy as a kid, but i became one after i dropped out of high school because math is boring in school but interesting when you explore it on your own—hence i didn’t bother to apply any mental effort to it in school, but did when i dropped out.
general intelligence then, is your ability to adapt to tasks in general. but it is impossible to operationalize a concept as loose as “tasks in general”—hence any attempt to do so is myopic. in modern society, we value test scores, and tend to see any kind of task as a test of our innate ability to complete the task (especially when other people are watching or will know the result), and the operational definition of intelligence we use is obviously influenced by these values.
so the correlation between psychometric g and basically any other metric of success in our society (success being regarded as “passing the test of life”) is easily explained by the fact that people who try hard to pass tests of one kind also tend to try hard to pass tests of other similar kinds. and since IQ tests emphasise the kind of skills that academia values (because we think “good at school”=“smart”), academic success has the highest correlation.
this simple explanation can be applied to almost any of the classic controversial problems of IQ—flynn effect, black-white gap, you name it. does the razor sting, Ockham?
the closest thing you could get to a measure of general fluid intelligence, would be to invert the original “mental age” model of intelligence, since children learn things faster than adults (the only thing adults seem to learn faster than children are things that they have more prior knowledge in—they’re not learning faster, they’re just adding grain to a larger stockpile). this is why Poincare scored so low on Binet’s test—his childlike mind allowed him to learn mathematics faster than other adults even into old age.
and if you believe in IQ and think test scores have a lot of meaning, then don’t bother trying to argue with me about this—my verbal and mathematical test scores are almost certainly higher than yours (yes, especially you, PP—by an incredibly wide margin. PATMA was a piece of cake. all you really have is social intelligence—just like your hero Oprah [except you attract crazies while she attracts normies]—which is why the only worthwhile part of your blog is the social commentary, horror reviews, and comment section. all of the mathematical and statistical work is unrigorous garbage—a numerological guessing game), and shape rotating skills have no power here—go play with some legos.
i wonder if a high iq moron like greg cochran would be able to understand this. the reason your family is so good at SATs, greg, isn’t because you’re all genetically superior, it’s because you’re vain people who value test scores over wisdom.
Big text and in the very first are already sheer bullshit. Don’t waste my time reading essays from people with brain damage like this.
Religious “belief” is basically a psychotic disorder and it is strongly correlated with the dumbest group of any country. Historically and evolutionarily speaking, religion is absolutely disastrious. This shit is retarding humanity moral, social and intelectual evolution since a very long time.
WISDOM is about the Love for KNOWLEDGE or TRUTH, completely opposite of so called religion since ancient times.
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”
Sagan, Carl.
That’s correct.
But it doesn’t mean that “god” or religion is true. In the context of absence of evidence it necessary to see what we have to support or not an hypothesis. So if i compare god existence hypothesis with extraterrestrial life hypothesis i will see that while there are previous facts or patterns that corroborates indirectly to the second case, i mean, there is a logical basis in which i can start with to not eliminate its possibility, there isn’t virtually any previous facts or patterns which could corroborates indirectly to the god existence likelihood. We have: life on earth, universe’s size and millions of planets that are similar to ours to keep extraterrestrial life hypothesis possible or likely to be true even without any real evidence of it. But we have absolutely nothing, even a logical basis to start, to support god existence hypothesis. Atheism is a rational conclusion from when scientifical thinking (logical-rational or impartial-objective) analyse existential questions or perspectives.
u r gay
But God is (((LOVE)))!!!!
Bi and superior than u, white trash.
hereditarianism and atheism are both forms of environmentally-incurred retardation. environmentalism is stupid too when it becomes environmental determism—because what’s truly stupid is determinism.
i can’t be bothered to figure out what RR’s perspective is exactly, but he’s the only one here who seems to speak anything close to sense. the one thing i can see he is wrong about is when he says stuff like “genes can’t influence mental traits because genes are purely physical”. neither genes nor mental traits are purely physical or purely mental (spiritual)—genes are code, words, language—are mental traits not influenced by language?
my guess is he’s an atheist, which means he can’t explain why we even have consciousness in the first place. all physical objects are “conscious” because all of reality exists within God’s consciousness—read Berkeley’s dialogues.
and don’t ask me to “prove God exists”—YOU have to find out for YOURSELF. saying that God exists means saying that the universe was created out of love—asking for scientific or logical proof that God exists is like asking for scientific or logical proof that your girlfriend really loves you. it’s the idea of an insane paranoiac.
an intelligence is your ability to adapt to a certain task. the distinction between “physical” and “mental” tasks is arbitrary just like in any other kind of silly mind-body dualism. your body is the accumulation of the decisions you’ve made throughout your life—your body defines your “crystallized intelligence”; your spirit defines your “fluid intelligence”, and all tasks require the coordination of both. if you disagree, you probably just have an unimaginative idea of where your body and mind begin and end. most of the things you probably regard as unchangeable about your body are actually quite changeable if you actually look into it with an open mind—yes, that includes your height, facial bone structure, and dick size. and no i’m not talking about surgery.
you have fluid intelligence in a certain domain when you have a tendency to (patiently, and with a spirit of openness and curiosity) apply mental effort to that domain, and you gain crystallized intelligence by applying mental effort to that domain for an extended period of time. i was not a mathematical prodigy as a kid, but i became one after i dropped out of high school because math is boring in school but interesting when you explore it on your own—hence i didn’t bother to apply any mental effort to it in school, but did when i dropped out.
general intelligence then, is your ability to adapt to tasks in general. but it is impossible to operationalize a concept as loose as “tasks in general”—hence any attempt to do so is myopic. in modern society, we value test scores, and tend to see any kind of task as a test of our innate ability to complete the task (especially when other people are watching or will know the result), and the operational definition of intelligence we use is obviously influenced by these values.
so the correlation between psychometric g and basically any other metric of success in our society (success being regarded as “passing the test of life”) is easily explained by the fact that people who try hard to pass tests of one kind also tend to try hard to pass tests of other similar kinds. and since IQ tests emphasise the kind of skills that academia values (because we think “good at school”=“smart”), academic success has the highest correlation.
this simple explanation can be applied to almost any of the classic controversial problems of IQ—flynn effect, black-white gap, you name it. does the razor sting, Ockham?
the closest thing you could get to a measure of general fluid intelligence, would be to invert the original “mental age” model of intelligence, since children learn things faster than adults (the only thing adults seem to learn faster than children are things that they have more prior knowledge in—they’re not learning faster, they’re just adding grain to a larger stockpile). this is why Poincare scored so low on Binet’s test—his childlike mind allowed him to learn mathematics faster than other adults even into old age.
and if you believe in IQ and think test scores have a lot of meaning, then don’t bother trying to argue with me about this—my verbal and mathematical test scores are almost certainly higher than yours (yes, especially you, PP—by an incredibly wide margin. PATMA was a piece of cake. all you really have is social intelligence—just like your hero Oprah [except you attract crazies while she attracts normies]—which is why the only worthwhile part of your blog is the social commentary, horror reviews, and comment section. all of the mathematical and statistical work is unrigorous garbage—a numerological guessing game), and shape rotating skills have no power here—go play with some legos.
i wonder if a high iq moron like greg cochran would be able to understand this. the reason your family is so good at SATs, greg, isn’t because you’re all genetically superior, it’s because you’re vain people who value test scores over wisdom.
also it’s patently clear that the most intelligent and wise regular PP commenter always has and always will be Illuminaticat.
Genes are physical. Genes can influence physical traits, working with the system in concert. The mental isn’t physical. So genes can’t cause mental traits or differences in them.
God is so to not be able to fail. Agency implies the possibility of failure. So God isn’t an agent.
Do you believe in disembodied minds too?
For psychometric g to be a thing, it needs to be a brain property. This is how Spearman conceptualized it, and how his followers also conceptualize it. But we can’t localize cognition to parts of the brain. So psychometric g isn’t a brain property and doesn’t exist. It’s a creation of pairing subtests that show a strong correlation with the overall test while they toss out what doesn’t correlate—it’s kind of like how tests are constructed to form a bell curve.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/11/15/the-history-and-construction-of-iq-tests/
you still do not understand then. the categories of “material” and “immaterial”, “body” and “spirit”—these distinctions are products of our minds (which doesn’t mean that there isn’t a *true* distinction that exists within God’s mind—but that distinction would be so unfathomably complex that we could not fully comprehend it), they’re not hard and fast.
whether or not psychometric g exists depends on how you use the word “exist”—and how you use the word “exist” depends on your assumptions about the world. i like to constantly change my assumptions about the world so i can understand it in new ways and communicate to different people—and i don’t try to obtain a contradictiom from these assumptions, i try to obtain a resolution. e.g. if you want to communicate your ideas with hereditarians better, you should try to understand their perspective in the —start from their assumptions, and include the assumption that these assumptions are good. then you’ll understand the *good* side of where they’re coming from, since you already understand the evil—and no person is entirely good or entirely evil (God would not create something that is entirely evil—yes i am including satan. sometimes we need a little sympathy for the devil).
i am perfectly happy to agree with you when you say “psychometric g” does not exist, because i understand what you mean by that—it’s not important, it’s a man-made vanity.
when i talk about psychometric g as a thing that “exists”—i am explaining how its apparent existence to those that believe in it arises from our own society’s assumptions about how the human mind works—and these assumptions are baseless as assumptions are baseless by definition.
in your article you put the scare quotes around “intelligence”—i would put them around “measure”
“But we can’t localize cognition to parts of the brain.”
That’s not actually true.
“So psychometric g isn’t a brain property and doesn’t exist.”
How does this follow from the previous statement?
“it’s kind of like how tests are constructed to form a bell curve.”
Do you know why they are constructed to form a bell curve?
Why isn’t it true?
Well if cognition can’t be localized to parts of the brain, it follows that psychometric g isn’t a brain property, because the claim is implicit. I said that for psychometric g to be a thing then it needs to be localized in the brain. But if cognition can’t be localized to parts of the brain, then if g is a brain property then it doesn’t exist.
Because that assume the “trait” should be distributed in a certain way, and so they build the test to fit that assumption. Using test construction (item analysis and elimination), test constructors can create any type of distribution they want. They include more items which an average number of the norming sample got right and fewer that people got right or wrong. So it’s designed to have fewer people on the tails and most in the middle.
Intentions require a mind and a mind requires a body. So how can God intend?
When I question the existence of psychometric g, I’m assuming what g-theorists assume. It doesn’t hold any water. I’ve already assumed the assumptions were “good”, and then I changed my view.
I agree with almost everything you’re saying, God stuff aside.
“g” is located in the white matter between the parietal and frontal cortex.
“Why isn’t it true?”
Wait, to clarify, do you mean to say since P != M, therefore, g != brain property Y? Or are you making an empirical claim?
“Because that assume the “trait” should be distributed in a certain way”
Why do you think they have this assumption?
The first one. You did ask me how what I said followed from the previous statement, after all.
In my view, because they believe that there should be few people on the tails with most in the middle. Why do you think they have the assumption? If the bell curve doesn’t exist—and if non-normalized tests DON’T show a bell curve—then we are seriously wrong in having certain beliefs that derive from the assumption. They have a prior belief on who is or isn’t intelligent, and they build the test to conform to that notion. Terman explicitly did this.
“The first one. You did ask me how what I said followed from the previous statement, after all.”
My bad. I read your comment a little too quickly and thought you were making an empirical claim. However, I still think your first premise is shaky. Psychometric g could exist; it could just be non-physical. And considering most people think P = M, Spearman may have conceptualized it as a mental and physical phenomenon. But I haven’t read all of his works, so I don’t know.
“Why do you think they have the assumption?”
So, the reason Psychometrcians construct tests to follow a normal distribution is that it makes statistical analysis more manageable. For example, when testing Desilva’s hypothesis, Villamoare noticed Desilva failed to normalize his data. Desilva tried using piece-wise regression to find breakpoints for identifying trend changes in brain size over time. The problem is, if you’re attempting to use regression, you have to make sure your data is normal and homoscedastic; otherwise, regression will be inaccurate. Same thing when Pumpkin estimates IQ based on correlations. That only works if both variables follow a bell curve.
Now, this doesn’t address the fact that items can be removed to induce differences between groups (like with Gender). Still, you need to show that researchers are doing that for racial groups to prove that racial differences in IQ are a result of this constructing method.
Furthermore, you’d also need to be specific with these changes and how they are implemented. Like, which items are blacks doing better on? Are they removed because the Scientists are racists, or do the items have low predictive validity (incredibly important)? And so on and so forth.
I read most of the article you posted above, but it didn’t attempt to address any of these inquiries. Which is understandable because of when it was written, but if you want to ensure this criticism is effective, you need to answer them.
I think it was in The Abilities of Man where he calls it a “mental energy”. But he said that if one questions the hypothetical mental energy then we can just say that mental phenomena just “behave as if” a mental energy existed.
Yea I’m aware about the “ease of analysis”, but as I said earlier, if the data isn’t normally distributed on its own and we need to force it, then we are seriously wrong in thinking certain things about what arises from the data. Theodore Micceri showed all non-normal distributions in 400 of the tests he analyzed.
I’m not aware of anything like that for race, but due to the item content, that’s why they score lower. I am aware, though, that there is an unconscious bias against blacks in the SAT. Kidder and Rosner 2002 found that test items that blacks were more likely to get right were thrown out as “psychometrically invalid”. They give item examples too.
https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol43/iss1/3/
“but as I said earlier, if the data isn’t normally distributed on its own and we need to force it, then we are seriously wrong in thinking certain things about what arises from the data.”
And as I said earlier, that’s not true. You’re supposed to force data to fit normal distributions; that’s why Villamoare and I forced Desilva’s data to fit a normal distribution. IQ test makers just do it preemptively. Even Ken Richardson knows a normal distribution is an assumption crucial to many statistical analyses done on test scores. The issue arises when people like HBDers conflate this artifact with how Intelligence is distributed “in the wild” and then make biological assumptions based on this misconception.
And changing distributions won’t change how the tests measure knowledge, so it isn’t really clear what “certain things” you could be referring to here. For example, if I changed the distribution of test items where most items were from a sample that the majority of takers got wrong, the hierarchy of outcomes would remain virtually the same. The people who scored higher on the original item distribution would score even higher on the new one, and the others would be even lower.
“They give item examples too.”
Awesome! I’ll read it and get back to you.
Who is this retarded?? What should be his mental disorder?? Yes because here…
Is you Iluminatikitty????
The source of the kiwi personality is not the source of the Animekitty personality.
meow
Sorry, Illuminatikitty to think this shit was written by you. Just someone with low IQ and several mental disorders to write such big and useless text. I know your IQ is three digits…
“and if you believe in IQ and think test scores have a lot of meaning, then don’t bother trying to argue with me about this—my verbal and mathematical test scores are almost certainly higher than yours (”
I believe IQ is real and has meaning, but people’s preferences for studying to tests can increase test scores obviously. The point is that things generally balance out, and you can also notice what races/cultures tend to over-value tests due to being “over-socialized” and look at their civilizational accomplishments to see if perhaps their IQ scores don’t represent their actual problem-solving ability (Chinese and Ashkenazis).
I argue with people who I know have higher test scores, and are probably more generally intelligence. Most prominent ancient philosophers or scientists would have IQ scores at many deviations above the norm but obviously lacked other resources to understand the reality more completely. Average people debate about their ideas all the time.
your beliefs are boring because you are a boring person. you should try believing interesting things so you become an interesting person. average people debate, because debate is for the average, therefore don’t debate
Your beliefs are interesting, but not correct. Because you don’t care about being correct as much as you care about being interesting.
No need to respond to me if you find me boring.
And notice you have no actual response to what I say but to criticize my tone. Thanks.
kiwi is retarded and autistic and evil just like rr. thus his absurdly long comment. and totally missing the point of tests.
the point of tests as means of making personnel and admissions decisions is that they are objective and without any objective means of making decisions, decisions can’t be improved. if you can’t measure it, you can’t change it.
rr: but you can’t measure the mind n sheeeit so muh teachers had to give me straight A+’s or i’d report them to the DEI people.
kiwi: but muh IQ n sheeeit.
mugabe: meritocracy started in china. it’s equivalent to objective assessment. if the results suck the problem is with the test not tests per se.
sabermetrics revolutionized baseball for example. totally OBJECTIVE.
the only objective fact is that objective facts don’t exist
Objectivity exists if you want a coherent system. A square circle is a concept that can exist as a word, but if you want one coherent shape it cannot be both a square and a circle, because a square has four sides and circle has one. If you want a single system with no contradictions, objectivity exists. If you want a series of disconnected concepts (like a permanent dream) objectivity need not exist across the whole series… but it must exist at every frame of the series.
Free will cannot trump self-consistency, it can only change the system to some other consistent system.
Qanon,
So your LORD ALFA God exist”???
the only objective fact is that objective facts don’t exist
shoot yourself in the butthole immediately.
“hereditarianism and atheism are both forms of environmentally-incurred retardation. environmentalism is stupid too when it becomes environmental determism—because what’s truly stupid is determinism.”
Determinism in terms of logic is a fact. If A, then B.
It’s what it is that is doing the determining that is up for debate. Is the universe a machine unfolding over time? Undecidability indicates that it isn’t, and the fact that the “machine” has to have a reason and origin that would ultimately come out of potential and the immaterial.
“i can’t be bothered to figure out what RR’s perspective is exactly, but he’s the only one here who seems to speak anything close to sense. ”
Amazing, you don’t understand him and yet he makes the most sense.
“the one thing i can see he is wrong about is when he says stuff like “genes can’t influence mental traits because genes are purely physical”. neither genes nor mental traits are purely physical or purely mental (spiritual)—genes are code, words, language—are mental traits not influenced by language?”
So basically what I have said for months.
“my guess is he’s an atheist, which means he can’t explain why we even have consciousness in the first place. all physical objects are “conscious” because all of reality exists within God’s consciousness—read Berkeley’s dialogues.”
As Mugabe and I have basically stated.
“and don’t ask me to “prove God exists”—YOU have to find out for YOURSELF. saying that God exists means saying that the universe was created out of love—asking for scientific or logical proof that God exists is like asking for scientific or logical proof that your girlfriend really loves you. it’s the idea of an insane paranoiac.”
Unfortunately the only thing we can can ever ask for in terms of evidence is rational.
You trying to convince others that God exists by saying “don’t ask me to prove God exists” is slightly contradictory.
“an intelligence is your ability to adapt to a certain task. the distinction between “physical” and “mental” tasks is arbitrary just like in any other kind of silly mind-body dualism.”
And yet you think RR is the most sensible. Good job.
“your body is the accumulation of the decisions you’ve made throughout your life—your body defines your “crystallized intelligence”; your spirit defines your “fluid intelligence”, and all tasks require the coordination of both.”
It could also be the accumulation of decisions made by your ancestors (genetics) or even more, if the whole universe has intentionality.
“general intelligence then, is your ability to adapt to tasks in general. but it is impossible to operationalize a concept as loose as “tasks in general”—hence any attempt to do so is myopic. in modern society, we value test scores, and tend to see any kind of task as a test of our innate ability to complete the task (especially when other people are watching or will know the result), and the operational definition of intelligence we use is obviously influenced by these values.”
Language is an indication that we can adapt to tasks in general, as language is a recursive structure involving references to other things. But yes, G intelligence is hard to operationalize as a concept.
“so the correlation between psychometric g and basically any other metric of success in our society (success being regarded as “passing the test of life”) is easily explained by the fact that people who try hard to pass tests of one kind also tend to try hard to pass tests of other similar kinds. and since IQ tests emphasise the kind of skills that academia values (because we think “good at school”=“smart”), academic success has the highest correlation.”
Except what we can apply our motivation to is constrained by our mental resources. You seem to think we can infinitely extract mental resources out of the ether with sheer will. If that were the case we’d be in the same situation because the wills of various people would be equalized and no one would be able to accomplish what they want, given finite material resources to do it with.
What does it mean to think? To conceptualize, right? Which are singular qualities that are immeasurable when related to themselves. But concepts are related to each other by distinctions. Hence quantity enters when we start to be able to count distinctions, and why the size and structure of the brain material used to store/materialize the concepts we are thinking might be important.
“this simple explanation can be applied to almost any of the classic controversial problems of IQ—flynn effect, black-white gap, you name it. does the razor sting, Ockham?”
“the closest thing you could get to a measure of general fluid intelligence, would be to invert the original “mental age” model of intelligence, since children learn things faster than adults (the only thing adults seem to learn faster than children are things that they have more prior knowledge in—they’re not learning faster, they’re just adding grain to a larger stockpile). this is why Poincare scored so low on Binet’s test—his childlike mind allowed him to learn mathematics faster than other adults even into old age.”
That’s reversing of mental age sounds true but adults also have a larger and faster brain.
“and if you believe in IQ and think test scores have a lot of meaning, then don’t bother trying to argue with me about this—my verbal and mathematical test scores are almost certainly higher than yours (yes, especially you, PP—by an incredibly wide margin. PATMA was a piece of cake. all you really have is social intelligence—just like your hero Oprah [except you attract crazies while she attracts normies]—which is why the only worthwhile part of your blog is the social commentary, horror reviews, and comment section. all of the mathematical and statistical work is unrigorous garbage—a numerological guessing game), and shape rotating skills have no power here—go play with some legos.”
Obviously it is a guessing game, but it’s not “numerological”. I find estimations like chimps having 15 IQ to be ridiculous, but to say there is nothing we can do to compare relative problem-solving ability also seems false. And they are simply having fun with statistics.
“i wonder if a high iq moron like greg cochran would be able to understand this. the reason your family is so good at SATs, greg, isn’t because you’re all genetically superior, it’s because you’re vain people who value test scores over wisdom.”
Probably.
“also it’s patently clear that the most intelligent and wise regular PP commenter always has and always will be Illuminaticat.”
Intelligent and wise specifically about intelligence and sometimes about philosophy, yes.
But not mentally stable or socially aware, which matters in this reality apparently. Sad.
I appreciate reading your ideas and summary of our discussion (which you framed as your own thoughts). However, you are a bit hypocritical calling other people as being conceited about their own ideas.
Jesus Christ. I can’t believe I used to do this shit back and forth with RR all day for five years straight.
Fucking retarded.
True.
rr is bad for the economy.
Reading a few of the recent comments, I was spurred to post something somewhat relevant, and perhaps, mildly interesting.
Without intention, it seems I’d been working toward resolving the “hard problem” of consciousness for more than forty years. By that, I mean that much of the work I’ve done, however intuitively unrelatable – the infinitude of points of a line, for instance – seems to have manifested a degree of utility in that connection. I’ve learned this over the last few years, having directed my attention to the noted problem of renown. That attention has rendered quite unexpected and gratifying results. I won’t say that I’ve arrived at an elegant solution, nor will I say otherwise. I will note, however, that the “problem of consciousness”, within the context… the totality of what I have learned, now seems almost trivial, subsumed by something vastly greater. I have, sporadically, been writing a summation of the work with the intent of producing a book, but there’s been a bit of vacillation of late regarding the wisdom of doing so. I’m not an accomplished academic; I pressed the university “EJECT” button years too soon. And although I did make a discovery in a branch of Physics that garnered considerable attention from within and outside of that community, I have no illusions that such will engender anything more than a modicum of credibility in Philosophical circles. Thus, for me, the “hard problem” has become the question “Who would even care/be willing to hear from one who resides in the exurbs of academia on a question of such profundity?”. Nevertheless, I’m nearing the conviction that to apply the brakes at this stage would border on unconscionable.
Well, that helps. Thanks for reading.
…the extent to which admissions type tests can be gamed is limited. the reason why some kids do better on the gaokao isn’t because they studied more.
finland and estonia score similarly to ne asian countries on the PISA.
peepee: because muh genes n sheeeit.
mugabe: teachers are very well paid in finland. teacher is a high status occupation in finland. estonia may be the same. idk. the education system all duh chirren are a part of will affect their performance. true. but the difference between chirren in the same system will not be because some studied more. not on super-cumulative exams like the PISA.
We’ve known since the 60s that teacher & school quality has little effect. You’ve never heard of the Coleman study?
Then the study is wrong and they did it incorrectly.
Huh? The study found that school funding levels didn’t really affect achievement but student background and teacher effectiveness did. It found that blacks performed better in mixed classrooms, which led to the bussing that led to desegregation. That’s what Jensen fought so hard over. But unfortunately for him, just as the Coleman study found, in Children of the Dream: Why School Integration Works, the authors successfully argued that kids who attended mixed schools had better life outcomes than those that didn’t.
indeed. canada does well in the PISA and canadians are famous for being stupid eh. there were candians in my school. i’ve met canadians. pamela anderson and tom greene are canadians. canada is like if west virginia was a country but with an even more annoying accent.
peepee: because so many smart immigrants.
mugabe: then why so much better than australia and new zealand? maybe the PISA is full of shit.
nobody considers canadians stupid. Americans love Canadians but the feeling’s NOT mutual except among proles. Outside North America Canadians are considered Americans but with intelligence & morals.
Maybe because just like Canada is America-lite, all the countries outside of America are beholden to the economic interests of “America” (and/or global capitalists and crony-capitalists).
So of course they find Canada more endearing and similar than the US.
Just like kindergarteners in India might have more in common with kindergarteners in Mexico than they do to their own adults.
Here, in Brasil, the educated class loves Canada. The love for US is often by right wing bolsonaro’s supporters, divided by: people with money but not with real intelligence (only to make money and/or steal others) and people who are working class evangelical conservatives (those who vote for capitalistic political parties that creates economically exploitative policies against them). My impression is that Canada is far more civilized than the US, even for its own well being… Canada, as a whole, is comparable to the most progressive american states like the New England troop.
Lol Canada is not like W Virginia. Its more like Maine or Vermont. Scotland is probably W Virginia. How can Mugabe get this so wrong despite living in the states all his life?
He thinks he has a very high social IQ, but in truth he has a very low one.
Canada is not like Terrence and Phillips South Park stereotype.
Mugabe: RR must be Southern Italian not Northern Italian. Canadians are stupid just like West Virginians. Sad.
Philosopher: Americans are retarded and have no general knowledge.
Neandercel: It all started with the betrayal of the French Revolution…
PumpkinPerson: Everyone loves Canadians in the other small European nations I’ve been to. Americans are proles.
Lurker: Can we fix our economy and halt immigration instead of debating which European country has an IQ of 103 and which has an IQ of 98? The people in charge of our borders are like RR and don’t even believe there is such thing as “problem-solving ability”.
rr isn’t southern italian either.
he’s mystery meat.
P1. italians are cool.
P2. rr is not cool.
C. rr is not italian.
P1, italians are yuge racists.
P2. rr is an anti-racist.
C. rr is not italian.
problems are relative but yes some can solve more generally.
we specialize and so we become out of our element when approaching novelty.
some approach novelty better than others do.
but then we just call that creativity and not intellect arbitrarily.
Gonna be interesting to see Gab’s attempt at creating an AI bot. Even if the training data and amount is only a fraction of the ChatGPT3 and other common AI chatbots, it will still probably be a lot more fun to use.
the marxist explanation for anal pseudophilosophy.
1. it’s not a threat to master.
2. actual philosophy is too hard for the sort of people who get degrees in philosophy and a fortiori for those who become professors. so to keep the scam going it has to be dumbed down.
a famous anal pseudophilosopher displaying how dunning kruger as fuck all anal pseudophilosopher are.
Philosophy is not really intellectually hard for anyone, only for grown kids passing as intellectual and emotionally grown adults who think philosophy is like a game words.
What’s make philosophy unpopular is not what makes physics unpopular. It’s not the difficulty to understand but to accept. Look how unbearable is for many people in the world accept that the god existence hypothesis is very likely to be wrong or false. As well is for many people accept that those evil nazis were/are not wrong about every fucking thing…
“john searle chinese room”
anal beans
Excellent vid but genes doesn’t matter, right?? …
Canada is probably more like a european country than america. America is an aberration. I can’t understand how america has a higher GNP per head than canada or europe when I never hear stories of mass homelessness or poverty in canada or europe.
I would love to live in America for a while and see if Americans really are richer than europeans. Seriously doubt the stats.
Americans are fucking dumb. Anytime they talk to americans on the street or tv they’re really dumb and have very low general knowledge. Americans are also infantile whereas similarily dumb people in Ireland or the UK look more aged and mature.
This is true, but to our credit, we have a lot more free thinkers per capita than the rest of the developed world. Compared to America, the fraction of Brits with your views is probably vanishingly small. And probably even smaller in Germany, Norway, Sweden, etc.
If Israel is our greatest ally, and “we” (white people/countries) are the biggest exploiters and racists according to the same group who says Israel is our greatest ally, doesn’t that mean Israelis are the biggest racists and exploiters?
If diversity is a strength, why doesn’t it work in Israel? Hmmm.
Here’s another one – Jews are white too.
^^autism
Actually jews are as exploiters as whites but because they have a lot of money to make this kind of systemic exploitation. Jews and whites i mean their so called “elites”. But non white and non jewish “elites” as a exploitative as western ones.
They prefer racially diverse society & racially diverse media because it allows them to dupe autistic people like pill that they are one of the white natives. The more blacks in society and at the Oscars, the more white they look in comparison. Despite obsessing about them for 20 years, pill failed to grasp this simple concept that you and I grasp so easily.
Steve Sailer has commented on this, but American “intellectuals” have definitely lost their capacity for nuanced thinking over the past few generations. Individual principles that are reasonable in many cases (e.g. discrimination is bad) must be strictly adhered to in every possible situation, even when doing so leads to sub-optimal outcomes. They’re concerned more with the elevation of a specific ideology than with achieving the optimal result for society as a whole. I’d imagine many of them have yet to even consider this distinction.
This heightened philosophical rigidity is probably the main reason why “skeptics” are so unwilling to take hereditarianism seriously.
I’m worried how intellectuals ignore or distort the truth because the truth is too tawdry or ‘evil’. I believe in telling the truth and that is my mission. Sometimes the truth makes jews look good. Sometimes bad.
One of the major forces to push self declared skepticals to anti hereditarianism is the left wing ideological belief and not atheism itself. I believe there are some specific factors correlated with it, generally self projections, like the correlation between anti hereditarianism and working as a teacher. We can infer that it’s happens because more the teachers push the blank slatism narrative more they value their own profession, supposedly. But i think it’s llittle more deep because on avg teachers are a group of above avg IQ and balanced cognitive profile. So when they think all or most their pupiles can develop their capacities just by studying they are self projecting their own psychological intrinsical motivation and cognitive facility to study (they like to study and think it’s easier to “learn’) . And associated with my hypothesis of Impostor Syndrome and left wing we have a perfect scenario for it, another self projection of lack of confidence to think freely and then becoming dependent on academic research specially in related fields like education, where blank slatism is dominant. But even in the case of teachers who are more specialized…
Another possible factor is the current lack of empirical “evidence” to support hereditarianism, totally understandable if just with the development of genetics and neuroscience to start to look for correlations and causations. But it’s recommended when lacks an empirical evidence it needed to look at we have. In this case, lots of indirect evidences like patterns found in heredity within and among families, groups and populations as well at individual levels like the demographically predominant stability of personality and cognition development throughout the life span.
Basically everyone agrees the truth is a Good Thing but immediately sideline it.
you know nothing about the truth. the truth that i think best encapsulates the state of the world is that the pertinence of relating things back to the individual level is beyond necessary.
saying things are this or that on a grand scale are true but believing them to be always true in every circumstance is very problematic. arriving at a conclusion requires you to see things as contextual.
context brings truth out more than anything. that is the greatest conditional representation of how to describe truth otherwise fallacies begin to emerge!