Tags
There seems to be a belief among some in the comment section that genetic effects are not (primarily) additive. By additive, we mean that by adding the gene, we will add to your phenotype; for example Steve Hsu estimates that replacing 100 negative height variants in your genome with 100 positive ones will add a few inches of height. That’s not to say that everyone with a given genotype will have the same phenotype regardless of environment, but rather it’s to say that good environments combine with good genes in an additive way; like a rising tide that lifts all boats without changing their relative heights.
However some are obsessed with Gene X environment interactions. That is gene A might add 1 inch if you’re in China but it will subtract 1 inch if you’re in Brazil. I don’t deny that such interactions exist. For example the Tarahumara of the Mexican highlands had very little exposure to agriculture and thus never evolved an ability to process refined carbs. So in their native lands, their genetics adds very little fat compared to whites reared in the same environment, but when they live in the United States, it adds hundreds of pounds of fat compared to American whites. So it’s not a case of a rising tide lifting all boats without changing their relative heights. In this case the rising tide (U.S. diet) lifts Tarahumara weight several times more than it lifts white weight. Tarahumara go from equal or maybe even leaner than whites when both races are raised in the wild, to several times fatter when both races are raised in a modern industrial society.
There are also gene X gene interactions (epistasis) where the effect of a given gene depends on other genes it its nexus. An obvious example is eye colour where having an allele for blue eyes only causes blue eyes when combined with another allele for blue eyes, but results in brown eyes when combined with a brown eyed allele.
These examples notwithstanding, many human traits, especially complex polygenic traits, are overwhelmingly additive. An obvious example is black people have darker skin and kinkier hair than white people, regardless of whether the two races are raised in America, Europe, Africa, China, or even Mars! There is no genes X environment interactions that alters that ranking.
People with Y chromosomes (on average) grow up to be much taller, stronger, faster, and hairier than women, regardless of whether they’re raised in India or Britain, so no gene X environment interaction. And regardless of whether they’re South Asian, white, Bantu, Pygmy, Dutch or Downs syndrome, so no gene X gene interaction either.

During the 20th century, the heights of both men and women increased dramatically all over the developed World, but that man > woman height gap remained similar. Again, the Y chromosome is an additive constant independent of what the environment adds. Similarly, ethnic differences in IQ have held constant in the United States over the 20th century, even though the average IQ of all races has increased quite a bit (see the Flynn effect).
People with a third chromosome on the 21st pair tend to be 50 IQ points lower and many inches shorter than their normal peers, regardless of race or continent, so again no interactions. Only additive independent effects.
In fact so independent are the effects of certain genes that they have similar effects on genomes and environments as disparate as humans living in the city and mice running through the grass. The FOXP2 gene is associated with language in humans. Humans with impaired FOXP2 genes struggle with words, syllables and sounds.
So what happens when you put the human version of FOXP2 in mice?
“There seems to be a change in vocalization — they squeak in a different way,” observed Nobel Prize winning geneticist Svante Paabo.
If the same gene can add vocalization skills to creatures separated by 65 million years of evolution, don’t tell me genes don’t have additive effects.
In similar experiments, scientists took the glowing gene from a species of jellyfish living in the ocean.

They found it had the same independent effect on everything from sheeps and rabbits living in fields to monkeys swinging from trees. Can’t wait for the first glowing person!

If genes can add the same effects across wildly different genomes in completely different environments, then surely they can be additive across different kinds of people living in our increasingly homogeneous global village.
I did a rank order of the personalities on the blog.
It is based on cognitive maturity – who I think is more adult.
It is not necessarily accurate. only from my perspective.
How can a person with the mind of a 7 year old assess adult maturity??
With all my interactions with these people this “7-year-old” understand autism better than the schizo pill. – I’m one smart cookie.
Your autism is so bad you don’t even understand you have autism. Frankly, I don’t think you know what it would look like outside of someone like Rain Man.
your delusions are so bad you do not realize you are delusional just like my brother. you have no conception of anyone more delusional than outside of Alex jones.
You and your brother share the genes for autism. I had a friend growing up who had aspergers and his brother was a full on autistic retardate.
You remember the philosopher’s stupid “smart cookie” comment.You do have good memorization abilities, Illuminaticat, which is in accord with your information scores on the WAIS. As for your list, on the assumption that mental maturity is a strange euphemism for intellect, I agree with the rank order Bruno, the smart cookie, Ganzir. Putting Gondwanaman in fifth place is absurd. Gondwanaman is a retarded version of Mugabe in terms of cognitive phenotype. They are both university admission test savants, but Mugabe has achieved more than one standard deviation higher scores on every single university admission test that theyve both taken.
Lion of jewdasphere is respected by pumpkin and ian is not, if you cannot see the reason for this perhaps I am at fault but I don’t think so. University degrees don’t even begin to play into what I have seen the personalities do on this and other blogs.
jesus isn’t jewish to me and shouldn’t be to pill. he is to santo. so…in order to “capiche” you have to be STUPID + EVIL = SAD.
the eskimos (sorry pc term “inuit”) weren’t in greenland when the normen settled there for 500 years until it got too COLD.
jesus isn’t jewish to me and shouldn’t be to pill. he is to santo. so…in order to “capiche” you have to be STUPID + EVIL = SAD.
VS
^^^the emperor penguin^^^
If Europeans are more cold adapted than arctic people, why do the latter have bigger heads and stumpier bodies? Are you saying the Arctic/Northern Siberia were warmer than West Eurasia where Europeans evolved?
hahaha…ha…ha…ha…
why do the latter have bigger heads
EASY!
THEY DON’T!
If Richard Lynn can be trusted, the Arctic people in the Smith & Beals database average brain size of 1443 cc and Europeans average 1369 cc. Of course the data is very old and because of better nutrition, it’s certain Europeans have increased. Of course Arctic people may have improved too but if many were hunter/gatherers, they may have already been close to their genetic potential.
Jewsus…
The most interesting about this unsolicited list is that we dont know if he placed himself at the top or at the bott on it. Both seems very innacurate even thought and what you means with “being more adult”?
It is just how I’ve seen people react to each other and to pumpkin.
What do we think of each other and our emotional responses to this.
Like pumpkin said what do we know about others and best make use of this.
Intelligence – Social and quant.
it is also based on who is able to challenge pumpkin.
who has been successful and who hasn’t.
people think they have but only a few did.
Nope.
“Intelligence – Social and quant”
Qual is where?? Rational or reasoning skills?? Creativity??
Social skills are very dependent on the adaptation or concordance between environment and personality. Many times is more a matter of luck than being really “socially” skilled.
It is relative too. Why do you think being socially smart must be the same for every people??
For some or many people avoid too much social interaction is smarter than over expose to it
Maturity as an abstract concept has more than one perspective and you used “cognitive maturity”. It’s not related with being “succesfull” specially in idiocracy like 100% of human societies.
Cognitive maturity look a very vague term.
Many socially succesfull people who are very imature in emotional and or intellectual ways (if not the majority of them).
Essence is always truer than apparence.
I do not know the people behind the blog personalities in real life. so I only have the quality they show on the blog.
I cannot define quality for you because my own quality colors my perspective.
my subjective criteria cannot be put in words without me describing all interactions everyone has had with everyone else.
ian is very creative but immature emotionally and only has had a few successful interactions with pumpkin on the subjects in pumpkins blogs. He is top-notch at idioms but rationally he makes sense only a little. But he has been more successful than I have at challenging pumpkin. I contribute very little other than data analysis and anecdotes. most of what Pumpkin says I learn alot but not enough to mention anything significant most of the time.
Sorry but even just looking at the people behaviors here your list doesnt reflect this reality starting from a poorly defined concept/criteria to evaluate us and secondly by your deficit to transcend binnary thinking mode and reach the multiple perspectives mode. So it’s basically your unreflected biases and personal common sense views.
When making a linear regression you have to take shortcuts. I already did a nonlinear analysis so I am not sure what else I need to do.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2021/06/27/guest-post-by-illuminaticatblog-2/
Yes, I did base the linear rank on my personal common sense viewpoint.
It’s only your biases and nothing more. You probably think i’m less “matured” than you because i’m an atheist which should be ridiculous if it is your true thinking line to create this unnecessary noise.
Nobody asked, nobody cared even because most people here dont think you are good on it so why?
“You probably think i’m less “matured” than you because i’m an atheist”
youtuber genetically modified skeptic is an atheist I watch all the time and he is more mature than I am.
I also watch apologia and prophet of zod
No atheism does not make people mature or immature.
Ok. I’m surprised you watch a atheist youtuber.
About atheism it is a very obvious but specific maturity. It really doesnt mean all atheists are overall matured because they are atheists but specifically it does.
I used to watch him but i stop because he is boring and has different views about atheism and religion than i, for example, he thinks like “atheism has absolutely nothing to do with Intelligence” such a bold claim but very efficient to a wider audience he is seeking to attrack. Actually, believing in extraordinary claims without any minimal evidence is a reflection of lower rational capacity = totally related with intelligence through reasoning skills. Believing in one set of extraordinary claims is at priori a reflection of specific lower rational capacity.
pill does not, cannot understand the difference between true neurological developmental autism and emotional damage / trauma.
regression does not eliminate social intelligence it just makes people more emotionally vulnerable.
pill is so full of himself that he has no vulnerabilities. but he is also delusional because of his schizoid schizophrenia. thinks he is right about everything and thus lacks metacognition.
I’m not schizoid stop saying that. Im schizotypal.
We should do a poll and see how many of the regulars have the basic basic social awareness to tell you have autism.
“Im schizotypal.”
google:
People with schizotypal personality disorder are often described as odd or eccentric and usually have few, if any, close relationships. They generally don’t understand how relationships form or the impact of their behavior on others.
–
wow pill, you don’t even realize this is a form of autism and you call me autistic. wow.
Once again you dont know what autism is. You can’t even tell it apart from its opposite based on a description from wiki.
big heads up!
cats as avatar = you will be ignored by dog people = most people.
“ignored by dog people”
so you saying there is a chance? -Jim Carrey
“Once again you dont know what autism is. You can’t even tell it apart from its opposite based on a description from wiki.”
Autism according to you is a lack of social intelligence pill which clearly you don’t have as stated by the wiki.
If you don’t understand human relationships how can you be the social genius you claim you are?
You are not and as I have said time and time again: “real”
autism is neurological, it is in the quality of the plastic in the brain. Studies have shown that autistic brains have too many connections. It is not caused by vaccines or emotional trauma.
Admit you lack social intelligence pill and that it is a form of social autism by your own standards. You don’t have the genes for social understanding caused by the thinning of your neural connections.
“Lion of jewdasphere is respected by pumpkin and ian is not, if you cannot see the reason for this perhaps I am at fault but I don’t think so. University degrees don’t even begin to play into what I have seen the personalities do on this and other blogs.”
You are the one who mentioned university degrees not I. I mentioned university admission test scores. According to pumpkin person’s own formulae :
Gondwanaman’s post recentering GRE score equates to a 144(SD 15) IQ. Mugabe’s precrecentering GRE score equates to a 164(SD 15) IQ. Gondwanaman’s GMAT score equates to a 121(SD 15) IQ but he didn’t prepare enough, with an average amount of preparation it would have equated to 128(SD 15) IQ. Mugabes’s GMAT score equates to a 150(SD 15) IQ. They both underperformed on official IQ tests.
If I were basing things on IQ I already knew Mugabe was 160+
But pumpkin is only 135 yet should I assume this makes pumpkin less rational ian?
I don’t know?
pumpkin runs his blog in a professional way.
I just don’t see that from ian.
Because iluminatikitty extreme deficit to think in really correctly divergent way he felt totally to IQist level. Here he is showing he thinks IQ and rationality are not just (moderately) correlated but causative…
Often IQists like him are surprisingly ignorant about not “just” intelligence field but also about IQ itself and what has been found. I already mentioned the most famous study ever done by now, Terman studies and its findings which don’t corroborate for most of what IQist think about IQ, but for EVERY ideologically fanatic or zombified people, no matter their ideologies, is mentally impossible to overthrow their internalized myths. It’s really works like a religion, the primordial ideology.
“correctly divergent way”
as if convergent is the wrong way to think?
I included both.
“It’s really works like a religion”
Do you ignore everything people say or just me?
You don’t remember this:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2021/06/27/guest-post-by-illuminaticatblog-2/
what you think about me has no effect on whether I place you at the bottom or the top (you would be at the bottom in that case along with others) but your clowness in response to others like ian/pill. mocking people score low imo. because mockery is what you do when you have no valid reasoning. worse than rr religion.
Why do you care so much about what a retard thinks of you? LOL. Maybe you are immature.
What about the case where a gene causes multiple phenotypes. E.g genes for autism cause high IQ and also terrible social awareness etc etc. Whats that called? Pleiotropy?
What happens in autism is that the frontal lobes that detect motion in the self and others are clogged. But the parts of the brain that detect objects in space are not clogged so the autistic person uses them more and social awareness never develops and object recognition overdevelops.
Autism does not cause high IQ it creates an unbalanced system where quant happens to be the parts of the brain that the autistic person only uses.
The point of having genes that don’t cause autism and do create high IQ is a metabolism that clogs nothing but is fast enough to receive the signals from the outside world to create representations of both things and people.
There is an interesting correlation between autistic traits, having autistic siblings, having an uneleven cognitive profile and being a prodigious talent.
Obviously these guys like Steve Sch want to create jocks with high IQs. Not nerds or aspies with high IQ. I think that will take them a long time to work out.
Steve specifically said that if he sees some high IQ variants that cause autism or that lower muscle mass, he doesn’t need to use those. There are enough variants in the genome that he can just use these other high IQ variants that don’t have “negative” side effects. Keep in mind that IQ is controlled by over 10,000 variants and all he needs are a 100 to raise it about 15 points, 200 to raise it about 30 points etc.
He says he only needs 100. Good looking finding 100 ‘clean’ additive genes. Chinese government will back this guy to the hilt. All they have to do is look at their own people and see high IQ is the genetic counterpart to nerdiness.
“Keep in mind that IQ is controlled by over 10,000 variants and all he needs are a 100 to raise it about 15 points, 200 to raise it about 30 points etc.”
Based on what? What’s the source for the claim that “IQ is controlled by over 10,000 variants”, and how do you know that “all he needs” are X variants to raise it Y points?
Just ban RR from this discussion.
With your data, 100 seems a bit to low even in the best case.
In a purely additive context, imagine you can have 600 IQ points. You get 10 000 genes that can go from -0,02 to +0,04 (that’s from -200 to +400). The average with half of each sort is 100. The most gain you can have is 0,06 by transforming a – locus in a + one.
Even in this extreme favorable potential gain scenario ,you would need to change 250 genes (15/0,06) to gain 15 points. 100 switches give you 6 points I a world were you could get 600 !
The real figure, halving the gain to 300 potential, is probably around 500 for each 15 IQ points I guess.
Besides, with pleiottopy, I wouldn’t want those changes in 5 % of the IQ genes for my son for those 15 points (who is already too bright for his own good). I think however it’s a good think to try to find out if there are unpaid voluntary people.
Interesting.
The 100 switches = 15 IQ points is based on Hsu’s claim that IQ is controlled by just over 10,000 variants and the square root of 10,000 is 100.
I assume the logic here is that the SD is the square root of the variance.
I agree editing the genome is risky, but choosing the embryo with the highest polygenic score seems wise.
RR you literally sound like a Jehovahs Witness preaching your beliefs to people!
i think its important to know that despite what you believe in others have their own view and its important to have mature discussions on these topics!
Loaded, shut up. PP made a pretty wild claim, and then Bruno doubled down on it, with absolutely no data for their assumptions. Hsu’s claim is based on absolutely nothing, and he of course had to increase his magic sample size to “find the genes” “for” IQ. The genome isn’t additive, it’s interactive. The genome isn’t like adding up positive and negative charges. Fisher’s assumption is false.
And the larger the dataset, the more spurious correlations will be found, which I’m sure “HBDers” would champion.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10699-016-9489-4
“(…) PP made a pretty wild claim, and then Bruno doubled down on it, with absolutely no data for their assumptions.”
RR I just tested the logical consistency – in a discrete simplified model – of those assumptions regardless of their being true (wich is impossible with such a simplistic model) nor their containing anything worthy.
So you are probably right except I didn’t attribute any truth value to those assumptions. Maybe Pumpkin neither as he was just quoting Hsu and making some social inferences in the case those were true.
Claims of additivity imply NO interaction, as Fisher assumed. This is outright false—independent genetic effects don’t exist since all phenotypes are the result of interaction. The false assumption of heritability being additive drives these ideas.
RR, when we say that genes are mostly additive, we certainly don’t mean to imply that genes don’t interact. We are stating that the genetic variance (insofar as it affects phenotype) is mostly breeding value variance. Since a breeding value is defined as the sum of average effects, it is necessarily additive.
If you want to understand quantitative genetics, then Introduction to Quantitative Genetics by Falconer and Mackay is a good start, so long as you do the exercises. It is rather math heavy.
RR should be banned from this thread. He doesn’t even believe in genes.
What does it mean to “believe in genes”? Genes are slaves—followers—that do nothing on their own. The DST view has refuted the hereditarian genetic reductionist/determinist view of traits.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2023/01/25/the-answer-to-hereditarianism-is-developmental-systems-theory/
Genes are slaves—followers—that do nothing on their own.
If genes are slaves, who is the master?
Genes are slaves but brains cannot think…
Well well well
RR, what is the name of fallacy??
“If genes are slaves, who is the master?”
The physiological system.
Genes are slaves, followers, since they do nothing on their own until activated by and for the physiological system. They do nothing until they react to developmental triggerings, and internal and external cues.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060581/
But the physiological system activates everyone’s genes otherwise we wouldn’t be here. To the extent it activated my DNA differently from yours, it counts as environmental variance since it’s affecting the embryo’s environment.
Genes are inert molecules and do nothing on their own.
Why do you hold such determinist/reductionist views when we now know that determinist/reductionist/additive claims are false?
Are you operating under the assumption that there are genes “for” traits? Systems biology, developmental genetics, and DST views have upended the hereditarian behavioral genetic paradigm for a long time.
Are you still on the false additive assumption? That was Fisher’s assumption, and it’s false. We know so much more than we did 100 years ago when he articulated his position. The additive assumption then followed to behavioral genetic analysis of twins, families, and adoptees. It then followed to GWAS. Heritability estimates are attempts at dichotomizing what is not able to be dichotomized. Bio-systems are complex, non-linear and non-additive. GxG, GxE, and epigenetic effects are missed by having such false assumptions.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24161664/
You’re aware that GxG interactions create phantom heritability right?
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1119675109
Genes are inert molecules and do nothing on their own.
A recipe is an inert piece of paper that does nothing on its own.
Why do you hold such determinist/reductionist views when we now know that determinist/reductionist/additive claims are false?
All additive claims are false? Genetic variants have no additive effects on any trait ever?
Are you operating under the assumption that there are genes “for” traits?
There are genomic variants that add and subtract from traits as I just proved a dozen times in my article.
Systems biology, developmental genetics, and DST views have upended the hereditarian behavioral genetic paradigm for a long time.
Then why do hereditarian theories continue to get published in peer reviewed academic journals?
Are you still on the false additive assumption?
I believe additive genomic variants exist, yes, and are responsible for over 50% of the variation in most complex polygenic traits. Now I’m more than happy to be proven wrong, but you’re just providing dogma, not actual data.
You’re aware that GxG interactions create phantom heritability right?
No, because GxG is part of broad sense heritability.
“A recipe is an inert piece of paper that does nothing on its own.”
You’re almost there PP. Though genes aren’t recipes, blueprints, or plans.
Claims of additivity imply NO interaction, as Fisher assumed. This is outright false—independent genetic effects don’t exist since all phenotypes are the result of interaction. The false assumption of heritability being additive drives these ideas.
“why do hereditarian theories continue to get published in peer reviewed academic journals?”
Which journals? Which theories? It’s because the false belief of genes being additive and causes are still held.
“responsible for over 50% of the variation in most conorkxt polygenic traits”
Bold claim. Do you have a reference or is merely an assumption of yours?
“GxG is part of the broad sense heritability”
What’s the argument that Zuk et al are wrong? What’s the argument that heritability estimates have any use for humans?
Though genes aren’t recipes, blueprints, or plans.
I think the recipe analogy works well, actually. And as you know, Plomin named his book BLUEPRINT.
Claims of additivity imply NO interaction, as Fisher assumed. This is outright false—independent genetic effects don’t exist since all phenotypes are the result of interaction. The false assumption of heritability being additive drives these ideas.
Jensen has long acknowledged gene X gene interactions and he acknowledged gene X environment interactions as early as the 1960s. So the assumption has never been 100% additivity or 100% independent effects. Indeed if he thought heritability were 100% additive, the term narrow sense heritability would be redundant yet he used it.
“responsible for over 50% of the variation in most conorkxt polygenic traits”
Bold claim. Do you have a reference
Well the fact that Hsu, has explained 40% of the variation in height by looking at just COMMON additive variants. There’s likely another 10% among rare additive variants. Of course they’re not all INDEPENDENT additive variants (some are GENE X Environment) but they’re additive nonetheless.
What’s the argument that Zuk et al are wrong?
Well if I understood them correctly, they seem to be saying twin studies assume additive heritability and thus underestimate heritability if it’s interactive. The classical twin study method assumes that if you share twice as many segregating genes, the correlation is twice as high. That sounds like an additive assumption but might be also be true for a lot of interactions. For example, eye color is genetically interactive. Are the odds of MZ twins being concordant for eye colour twice the odds of DZ twins being so? If so, it means the classical twin model is robust enough to accommodate interactions.
https://poetryarchive.org/glossary/pathetic-fallacy/
Genes, unite!!
Nope, there’s no fallacy there, that’s how we should look at the genome. The claim “Genes do nothing on their own until activated by the physiological system” entails that they are slaves and do nothing on their own until told to. Richardson, West-Eberhard and Lerner all have argued for that claim.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23876611/
I actually burst out laughing reading RRs response.
Bricks are slaves of walls???
If genes have no intentions so why “they” can be enslaved??
To be a slave you must be enslaved first.
Tell me you didn’t read the paper without telling me you didn’t read the paper.
Genes are caused to construct new information through suites of interacting with numerous developmental resources. That is, they’re used by and for the system. They’re merely templates, and information is constructed dialectically through numerous interactions. The fact of the matter is, the locution “gene for” has fostered numerous misunderstandings in the population at large about what genes really do. But thankfully, due to our better understanding of systems biology, slowly but surely the tides are turning. But I don’t expect you hereditarians to “get it” because it up ends your whole ideology.
https://nautil.us/its-the-end-of-the-gene-as-we-know-it-237288/
https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/so-what-gene
It’s all part of RR’s retarded social constructivist worldview. Certain things are associated with intentionality and ethereal mental activity, while anything else he wants to he deems as purely physical. Apparently the “physiological system” is another one of those intentional ethereal substances like the mind.
RR suffers from the zeal of the convert. When people suddenly switch their views, they overcompensate by going to extremes. So it’s not enough for him to just reject HBD, he must reject all of behavioral genetics, twin studies, Darwinism and even women of his own race.
I didn’t “suddenly switch my views”—it was a gradual process as a started learning new information on development. Rejecting “HBD” entails rejecting behavioral genetics and twin studies, since those are the main “tools” for HBD. I admit my views against Darwinism are fringe, but neo-Darwinian views are also held by HBDers and those views too are false.
“even women of his own race” what does this mean? I don’t “reject women” of any race.
I never claimed the system has intentions. The resulting phenotype of organisms is constructed by a self-organizing process, due to numerous irreducible interactions between developmental resources. Go ahead and keep talking about what you’re quite clearly ignorant about.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3148307/
PP I’ll write something exclusively for your blog on the self-organizing developmental system. I’ll keep it under 2000 words.
First of all you are not a geneticist so why you behave as you are???
Secondly most of my comments about human behavior are based on my understanding and genetics is not a field i’m good on. But it doesnt mean i cant understand human behavior and even infer possible causes or influences to it specially if based on objective and impartial observations of patterns of human behavior and most of sane people can see universal patterns of specific groups regardless the place they are, racial ones, for example, and also of specific subgroups within and across specific groups, in intersectional ways, like gay men being similar in behavior because their sexual orientation (hormonal, psychological, etc, typical characteristics) in all human racial or ethnic racial groups and at the same time reflecting on avg behaviors related to their respective racial or ethnic (or cognitive, or cultural) groups.
They are not exactly “claims” as yours. They are at priori perceivable statistical facts.
By a few i know about genes they are exactly or works exactly like bricks and the DNA as a wall they build on. Saying “genes are slaves” YES is fallacious at least based on what you said.
Again, so what????
It’s absolutely senseless trying to debate with you because your rampant dishonesty and indoctrination, even more evident knowing you have a mixed race bb and think mixed race people cannot being against kalergian master plan or against en masse mixing race. More and more revealing but i dont care about you, i already have too much retarded like you in my life to deal.
PP dont ban you because you create this endless and useless debates in this blog and make each post more popular.
My last try by now with you
Do you agree black african descent people show on avg the same behavior whatever the place in the globe they are?? Sexual impulsivity, higher crime rates, academic underperformance??
Yes or no?
To may start a real conversation.
“why you behave as you are”
Saying “genes are slaves” or “servants” isn’t fallacious at all, if you know how genes work in relation to the system and other developmental resources.
“kalergian master plan”
lmao
I would hope PP doesn’t ban me, since I’m one of the few that actually discusses his articles and I don’t drone on about irrelevant bullshit like philosopher does.
The end of your comment is a blanket statement—the case of Bermuda, as Mugabe has shown, and the case of Britain, shows that they aren’t “the same whatever the place in the globe they are.”
I’m interested in why you hold your beliefs, especially about race and behavior and the “Kalergian plan.”
PP why do you think your blog attracts so many racists and anti-semites?
”PP I’ll write something exclusively for your blog on the self-organizing developmental system. I’ll keep it under 2000 words.”
sadly…

Dont let this fucker write anything for the blog.
“PP why do you think your blog attracts so many racists and anti-semites?”
Contrary to your BS citation that HBD is not controversial and frowned upon by most people it actually is. And so controversial topics attract people with controversial views.
And the Kalergi Plan is clearly happening some way or another. In 50 years the US population has gone from 90 percent white to 60 percent, at exactly the same timing as the finance economy shot up while the rest of the economy has been relatively stagnant.
Which one? This one? This directly refutes the claims of whining hereditarians like Cofnas who claim that its taboo to talk about their “research.”
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1089268020953622
“the Kalergi plan is clearly happening some way or another.”
Uh-huh. What is this “plan”? Just because he wrote in a book 100 years ago that the man of the future will be mixed race means since today whites aren’t having as many babies that this “plan” is coming to fruition? Next you’ll tell me that The Protocols are real too.
“PP no, don’t post alternate views.”
“alternate views”
I doubt my clone will result in a horse.
I have human DNA.
but believe what you wish.
I never said that but OK.
Why don’t you read some DST literature so you can grasp the points?
PP why do you think your blog attracts so many racists and anti-semites? = single most evil thing ever said on this blog by anyone.
Identity politics and diversity allow liberals to wallow in a cloying moral superiority as they castigate, censor and deplatform those who do not linguistically conform to politically correct speech. They are the new Jacobins. This game disguises their passivity in the face of corporate abuse, neoliberalism, permanent war and the curtailment of civil liberties. They do not confront the institutions that orchestrate social and economic injustice. They seek to make the ruling class more palatable. With the support of the Democratic Party, the liberal media, academia and social media platforms in Silicon Valley, demonize the victims of the corporate coup d’etat and deindustrialization. They make their primary political alliances with those who embrace identity politics, whether they are on Wall Street or in the Pentagon. They are the useful idiots of the billionaire class, moral crusaders who widen the divisions within society that the ruling oligarchs foster to maintain control. — chris hedges
Because nonwhites are being imported massively to all Western European heritage countries in massive numbers at the behest of global governmental organizations and funded by global monetary organizations.
It’s clearly happening and it’s not “natural” unless you assume everything about global finance and politics is “natural” because it is part of the natural world. (By that logic, China’s one-child policy is natural and because the humans who planned and enforced it are part of the natural world and specific organizations/people having extremely disproportionate power is natural).
Everything about human behavior is natural and involves no intentional abuse of power until it comes to intelligence which is mysteriously put in the “physically irreducible” realm. Makes sense!
So this means that this 100 year old quote in an old and obscure book is coming to fruition? White genocide is a mere myth that racists like you buy into. Whites aren’t having children, talk to the people who are foregoing kids for their careers. That doesn’t mean there is some insidious plan to genocide whites through immigration which some guy in a random book said 100 years ago.
You have here all freedom most “hereditarianists” dont have in actually wokeformed mainstream scientific and philosophical spaces. Enjoy real free of speech you machiavelically want to eliminate. But i bet most people of this blog dont want other pseudo intelectual article made by you. You already have your cretine blog. If you dont attrack many or more views than PP blog is may because no just your texts are full blown intelectually dishonest and then ideological but also your writing style is basically not good. Not because people is dumber and cant understand you but because you are incapable to write a whole text without making numerous rethorical malabarisms to say your views.
“PP, please don’t post alternate views. It might make me think. I won’t read it and understand it anyway and I’ll immediately say he’s wrong and I won’t bring receipts for my claims since I can’t because I don’t read anyway.”
“The end of your comment is a blanket statement—the case of Bermuda, as Mugabe has shown, and the case of Britain, shows that they aren’t “the same whatever the place in the globe they are.”
And in the case of Britain”
………
Should i refresh him that UK doesnt have only hyper selected igbos among its recently imported black populations??? And that black British are overrepresent in poverty and crime rates?? Should it??
Mugabe shown nothing… He basically stated that blacks can increase their avg IQ if they are raised in that island and didnt explain how this fantastic mechanism happen..
And i bet Bermuda and most other Caribbean islands, especially the micro, mostly populated by blacks, are not that peaceful as it looks.
About the most populated island there half of Hispaniola hell called Haiti and Jamaica show higher criminality rates.
“PP why do you think your blog attracts so many racists and anti-semites?'”
Remember one thing, pathological narcisist, racism is a convenient lie not an inconvenient true.
About being anti semite. What i particularly said about jews which from your extremely biased perspective qualiified me as anti semite??
Saying “jews are extremely overrepresent in power places like media and government in US, Brazil, Europe” is being anti semite??? It’s not true??
Saying “no people, included jews, has been historically and currently always innocent or victimized” is being anti semite???
Why do you think eliminating a specific race will eliminate racism??
Believing Black Africans are equallly capable to raise an industrialized nation like East Asian and European has been and leave them try even all facts against this possibility is being “empathetic” with this people??
Do you think a demographic explosion in Africa will not cause a humanitarian and ecological tragedy??
So many interesting questions i raised here but you will use the same pseudo intelectual tactics to avoid the stablishment of real debates between people with different point of views. And no, i wont expect you answer them.
Should I refresh you of Lynn’s claim?
If a multiracial society is found where these race differences in intelligence are absent, the evolutionary and genetic theory of these differences would be falsified
https://www.unz.com/article/a-troublesome-intelligence/
So… Per Lynn, it has been falsified. (Though we didn’t need that to know that the evolutionary and genetic theory would be falsified. That’s just the icing on the cake. And Kevin Bird falsified it too.)
Remember that Cernovsky and Littman paper from the other day? It showed opposite findings from Rushton because Rushton cherry-picked data that fit his prior beliefs.
You brought up the “Kalergi plan”—the MO of anti-semites for a few years. And from random comments of yours. Ironic that you seem to be a product of this “plan” you believe in. That must make you feel horrible.
“Why do you think eliminating a specific race will eliminate racism?”
What the hell? I never said that and since racism is borne, what do you think that means for what we need to do to eliminate racism? Hint: We don’t need imaginary racist genocide theories.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/sce.21506
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666247721000397#bib36
You don’t seem to understand anything about how colonialism throttled down the development of Africa and its economy.
https://journals.openedition.org/poldev/78#tocto1n10
There were some positives to colonialism, but it was overall negative and has negatively influenced Africa today.
https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1182&context=utk_chanhonoproj
“Do you think a demographic explosion in Africa will not cause a humanitarian and ecological tragedy?”
This is a favorite line from racists, like Steve Sailer. Fortunately, when people are well fed and child mortality is low, they want fewer children. So aid to Africa will decrease, not increase, their population. This has been noted in many other countries, including some in Africa.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2023/01/03/will-aid-to-africa-increase-the-african-population/
How that??? You pollute this blog with hundred of senseless comments every month. Do you want more??
I have a lot of “alternative” or different point of views of most people here which could be debated. You already shown your point of views since a very long time in this blog and they barely changed. They basically became a non alternative views because your over presence here. Now they are part of this virtual scenario. Everyone is familiarized not just by daily indoctrination throught media but also because of you.
Repeating
Your main problem is not even the fact you believe in bullshit by suspicious reasons but the way you comment or present them, Pure juice of intelectual dishonesty+ extreme ideological bias, at the point you think you are just like some of the authors of “rationalpedia”. I’m not a psychiatrist. I dont need to deal with such level of ideological psychosis. I already have to deal with ir having a self declared marxist brother.
Again saying “no have such thing white genocide”. I bet everyone know about”your” views and most people here dont care, really. You became a persona non grata for PP blog.
I actually find very exciting debating with people with different point of views even thought it tend to be stressful too. Many of ideas, thoughts materialized in short articles and even some of my poetry were inspired by confronting different perspectives. But you?? First i need to guess what you mean most of time…
“Everyone is familiarized not just by daily media indoctrination throught media but also because of you.”
What a joke. Which of my views are pushed by the media? I’m not intellectually dishonest nor extremely biased—that’s the hereditarian camp like Lynn, Rushton, and Jensen whose views have been falsified to hell and back for decades, both empirically and theoretically.
If I’m “persona non grata” then just stop talking to me. People here obviously respond to my comments. Or do you want anime kitty’s and philosophers nonsensical ranting all the time? I comment here because I enjoy it.
And all of my comments are coherent. Can’t say the same for others that post here. You’re just not a well read person and it shows.
“Your main problem is not even the fact you believe in bullshit by suspicious reasons but the way you comment or present them”
Go ahead and quote me and explain my “suspicious reasons.” You’re acting like it’s impossible that one can change their views on a matter years previously, and that it had to have been “suspicious reasons” that caused the change in my vires. You can’t even tell me what changed my vires.
NO, NO and NO
Go to hell you and you jewishmeisterwitz.
You’re not welcoming here anymore. For me, you can be ban anytime.
“And all of my comments are coherent. Can’t say the same for others that post here. You’re just not a well read person and it shows.”
You say things like “babies’ brains grow because they acquire nutrition from the outside world”.
You can’t define “object of measurement” and show how it is fundamentally more objective or non-subjective than IQ without being circular. You can’t define any “physical measurement” in terms that are not completely subjective/abstract/mental. Since those are basically related to the basis of your whole dualistic philosophy, you can’t say you have a “coherent” position.
If a babe didn’t have good nutrition then the brain wouldn’t grow as well.
An object of measurement is a thing that’s measured. You’re just ignorant to the Berka measurement argument even though I’ve explained it a few times.
Object of measurement is the property to be measured (eg the length of a stick) while the specified measured object is the stick and the measurement units are cm, in, etc. That’s why physical things can be measured and immaterial things (psychological traits) can’t. This is why psychometrics fails, and there are many more reasons why it fails other than this. I won’t repeat myself anymore so take the last word.
Anyone afflicted with some mental disorder & disease but aware of it is way more sane than people like you. You are, very frankly speaking, psychotic or very delusional about the world, based on your completely fragmented and very contradictory point of views. And this delusion is worsened by your avg IQ 110’s (oaradoxically or not). You are the kind of people who participated of en massed revolutionary movements like the “cultural revolution” in China. Actually it’s what you are going, a cultural revolution based on lies and fanaticism.
Since 2017 i knew you was hopeless and now again i acknowledge exactly the same thing. I just need to stop writing comments like that for you manipulate in the most cynical ways.
But why do you want to continuously expose (((your))) thoughts here if you are not really open to debate???
You are all the time filling the comment section with citations. You really dont know how a real debate works but i wont try again. It makes me waste five to ten minutes writing these comments for you and for nothing. Never improve.
Arguments are never superior to facts or evidences and we have a lot of evidences corroborating positively to our hereditarian side, quite similar to atheism.
Arguments only matter more or equallly to evidence when the conversation reach a moral dimension.
I hope not waste my time with you. Really. And it is not my fault.
Arguments are evidence. When you make a claim, you need an argument. “I’ve known you were hopeless for 6 years but I’ve still commented to you.” Makes sense man.
“If a babe didn’t have good nutrition then the brain wouldn’t grow as well.”
That’s a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition to explain brain growth.
“An object of measurement is a thing that’s measured.”
Explain that non-circularly that shows how temperature, length, mass, etc. is not simply based on other objects we compare them to purely through our subjective lenses, using abstract frameworks of mathematics, logic, and geometry.
The real difference between typical physical measurements and intelligence is that we cannot directly measure intelligence, because depending on the person’s prior experience and culturally learned ways of thinking, the test question may be more or less novel.
But saying intelligence is immeasurable is like saying quality of life is immeasurable because some people can train themselves or be tortured into being satisfied as a slave, or propagandized into working 10 hours a day 6 days a week for 40 years and living around the poverty level due to some sort of masochistic personality trait.
Test questions being more or less novel does not imply cultural relativism, just like a distorted worldview does not prove that being a slave is just as good as being free.
You might state that though because of your nihilistic worldview, stemming from or leading to your mental-physical dualism.
“You’re just ignorant to the Berka measurement argument even though I’ve explained it a few times.”
No I already rebutted it.
The right macros are sufficient.
Thermometers measuring temperature was independently verified, not using the tool used to first infer it. Thus it’s a non-circular measure.
You’re merely assuming that intelligence can be measured, sans a specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit. IQ tests lack construct validity.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/04/07/the-lack-of-iq-construct-validity-and-neuroreductionism/
Test questions being more or less novel is a function of life experience. IQ tests are experience-dependent, knowledge is experience-dependent, so IQ tests are mere knowledge tests.
I’ve seeing an interesting correlative concordance between phenotype and personality/behavior of biological parents and siblings. Do you have seeing this too??
Like a daughter who is phenotypical (facially and or bodily) similar to her mother and also in personality…
Yes aesthetics don’t lie. I coined that term.
I have an adopted mixed race female cousin in her 40’s who have three kids from different men. Her younger daughter has a white father and looks mostly like him just her skin which is more like a mix between her parents. And she is behaviorally more like her white father than her mulato mother. Quite different personalities. My cousin is a screamingly typical black or mixed race female but very sympathetic with me. I like her a lot too. But her younger daughter is more quite just like her father. Detail: she lives most of the time with her mother.
But rr cant explain this, sad.
Objective observations can be evidences too.
you sound like the ugliest motherfucker you irish travelling bitch.
people see patterns where there are none and swear they see them. it’s what people do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia
this blog is beyond corrupted. there are only two personalities on here with any sense its me and Mug.
Idiot.
You, RR and the autistic clowns should be deported to Mexico.
common sense is so lacking. the funny thing is many people think that having any sort of intelligence is important when the only thing anyone would need is common sense!
if you dont have that all other traits will be a burden not an additive.
what are conorkxt polygenic traits…
i suppose this is some typo, but what…my g is too high!
ahhhh!
“conorkxt” is NOT something peepee wrote.
i did NOT read what peepee wrote.
but rr put it in quotes…
aha!
peepee: what kind of fucking dumbass with an IQ no higher than bill gates’s wouldn’t know that “conorkxt” = “complex” what a HIGH G PERSON
mugabe: EXACTLY!
the very idea of the polygene has full blown AIDS.
intelligence isnt as important as some other cognition features. you can still develop cognitive loss (that means global cognition) even with a very high IQ.
its better to have a solid memory and exercise patience and have basic social perception.
anyways i gave them all so many chances that they failed me if i had to testify against humanity i would i hope there are no other intelligent species out there in the Universe simply because theyre probably as pathetic if not more than humans!
it’s not just that peepee hates wypipo and loves flushton…
everyone wants to believe there is a super race.
to which he himself belongs or which he can emulate and be happy with its domination.
national socialism was a very deep phenomenon. much deeper than any political phenomenon which come after it. the world has still yet to come to terms with it. but it must eventually.
even more sadly…
Some scholars have reported on the study of cranial capacity, but different research results vary. Kim et al5 found that the mean cranial capacity of Korean males and females were 1594 cm3 and 1425 cm3, respectively.De Jong et al4 showed that the cranial capacity of modern American men and women is 1619 cm3 and 1422 cm3. Eboh et al1 demonstrate that the cranial capacity of modern Nigerian males and females is 1460 cm3 and 1129 cm3. In our cohort, the cranial capacity was 1497 cm3 for males and 1326 cm3 for females, which is more than that in Nigeria and smaller compared to that recorded in Korea and America. These differences may be caused by the geographical regions, descent, genetic profile, and even different sample sizes of the different studies.14,15 This finding provide data for establishing the reference value of normal Chinese adult cranial capacity.
Click to access 277.full.pdf
you have to be careful comparing studies that measure cranial capacity in different ways. Modern studies using computers seem to give very different results from filling a skull with mustard seed or estimating based on external head measures.
^^^LAME!^^^
they used THE SAME method and are the most recent data i can find.
try again.
if peepee weren’t lazy she would’ve looked up the study the chinese authors claim was on americans. apparently they misunderstood because NOT genetically superior. the data they cite is actually for elderly icelanders, average age 75.
peepee: aha! so supposedly the biggest crania in europe compared to south chinese crania!
mugabe: not so fast. the article the chinese cite also has data for americans (between 55 and 90 years of age), and their average cranial capacity was even larger (= 1530+ men and women average) AND they were NOT all white afaict.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alzheimer's_Disease_Neuroimaging_Initiative
what’s even worse for flushtonism is the composition of the ADNI’s population.
One group has dementia due to AD, another group has mild memory problems known as mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and the final control group consists of healthy elderly participants. ADNI-1 initially enrolled 200 healthy elderly, 400 participants with MCI, and 200 participants with AD.[6]
dementia and a fortiori alzheimer’s is negatively associated with cranial capacity.
so this study likely UNDER-estimated americans’ cranial capacity.
Anyone notice the way there are no famous women artists. All of them are men even though the difference in drawing ability between men and women is basically nil. Whats going on? (Also its not really related to IQ)
Men tend to be over-represented at the extremes (good and bad).
what kind of art? visual art? NOT true.
grandma moses and georgia o’keefe come to mind immediately.
trying to make a living as an artist is very IMPRACTICAL. women are more practical than men. less stupid risk taking.
Thinking about doing an MBA but its a massive gamble. Fees for Cambridge or LBS are £100k. If I do an MBA and these consulting firms still make me do aptitude testing it will be a waste of money.
Thinking about doing an MBA
And I’m think of climbing Mount Everest.
the MBA is a scam. sometimes crime pays.
climbing everest is pretty easy nowadays.
“People with a third chromosome on the 21st pair tend to be 50 IQ points lower and many inches shorter than their normal peers, regardless of race or continent, so again no interactions. Only additive independent effects.”
Intersting. So if a down syndrom person has most the genetic makeup of someone who would have an IQ 160 if he didn’t have an extra chromosome, does it mean we could have down syndrom person with IQ 110 ?
My guess is that whatever rank they would have had as a normal person, they’d maintain as a Down person, so if they would have been top one in 30,000 level (+4 SD) among normies, they’d be top one in 30,000 level among Down syndrome, but because the Down SD is likely smaller, a 16O IQ normie might be around 90 with Downs.