Traditionally, there have been two types of twin studies used to estimate heritability. The first is the classical twin study. In this, you take the phenotype correlation of MZ twins raised together and compare it to the correlation of DZ twins together. Since both types of twins shared the same home and same womb, the greater phenotypic similarity of MZ twins must be caused by their greater genetic similarity. And since MZ twins share twice as many segregating genes as DZ twins, we double the difference between the correlations to estimate heritability.
One criticism of this method is that even though both MZs and DZs share the same womb and home, the former are still more environmentally similar because of the unique experience of being an identical twin. If so, heritability will be overestimated.
The second type of study is taking the phenotypic correlation between MZ twins raised apart and using this as a proxy for heritability. The problem with this is even MZ twins raised apart shared the same womb and are often not raised far apart enough to prove much.
It occurred to me though that the perfect study would combine both methods and compare MZ twins raised apart with DZ twins raised apart. Now if the MZ twins are more alike, you can’t say it’s because of the unique experience of being an identical twin, because they don’t know their identical twin. And you can’t say it’s because they shared the same womb or were not raised far enough apart because the same applies to the DZ control group.
It’s absolutely BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!!!
To brilliant for me to be the first person to have thought of this.
Indeed I vaguely recalled the famous Minnesota study of twins reared apart (MISTRA) also having data on DZ twins raised apart. I recalled that MZ twins raised apart correlated about 0.75 on IQ and thus IQ had a heritability of 0.75. Well, I’ll just subtract the correlation of DZ twins raised apart from 0.75 and double the result (since MZ have twice as many common segregating genes) and I’d have myself a revised heritability estimate that was beyond reproach.
Sadly, I could not find the data anywhere.
And then I found this article by Jay Jospeph:
Bouchard and colleagues never published their full-sample DZA IQ correlations, even though they published full-sample DZA correlations for personality, “special mental abilities,” and most other MISTRA-studied psychological characteristics. To this day, they have prohibited independent researchers from inspecting the closely guarded MISTRA raw data. I show in my new article that the likely reason that they did not publish, share, or make available their full-sample DZA control group IQ data was that—based on the near full-sample DZA IQ correlations that were published in 2007 and 2012—the results would have revealed their failure to find a significantly higher MZA group versus DZA group mean correlation for any of the three IQ measures they used. An “important first step” requirement in the process of determining whether genetic factors influence IQ scores is finding that the MZA correlation is higher than the corresponding DZA correlation at a statistically significant level. The researchers bypassed this required step in their 1990 Science study, most likely because the hidden results failed to confirm their pre-existing belief that IQ was (strongly) influenced by genetic factors.9 Their strong genetic biases, it seems, led them to omit, bypass, and suppress their DZA IQ correlations in order to obtain the desired results.10
So it seems this excellent study was actually done, we’re just not allowed to see the results.
Pumpkin Person 
rr’s more bizarre nonsense may be motivated by his INTENSE/BIZARRE/GIRL fear of hereditism.
rr fears the phrase “behavioral modernity” applied to humans or humanoids.
why?
hereditism is stupid because:
1. human behavior is uniquely plastic. but what about that eskimo who built an igloo in saudi arabia? yeah. that never happened.
2. humans are uniquely homogen(e)ous at genetic level.
Uniquely doesnt mean totally
Hereditarianism is not “uniquely inflexible” because innate or intrinsic doesnt mean “always inflexible”.
The main explanation for this lack of fossil record is that transitional stages on evolutionary processes tend to happen quickly so there is less chance to survive or to be fossilized.
Pumpkin where are my goddamned comments to you i will leave your blog in tatters and let it burn. i will crucify your ass like Pontius lil bitch.
but in general…darwinism may be wrong for NON-anal reasons…i’m NOT darwinist…
for one thing…with a few exceptions…it has very little application to medicine…
so if your doctor tells you he doesn’t “believe in evolution”…this per se will make ZERO difference to how good a doctor he is…it’s just you might judge him to be stupid…
HAART, anti-biotic resistant infections, cancer…the math is interesting but not important.
the cocktail poster boy was an asian american…david ho!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ho
afaik the idea of treating an infection with 3 different drugs simultaneously forever…
OBVIOUS to us moderns…NOT obvious until david ho supposedly…
if you study ACTUAL philosophy…you’ll find aristotle said shit which for us is just DUH!, but it wasn’t in aristotle’s time.
jerry fodor is NOT aristotle…he’s just a critic from the culture of critique…
“Darwinism maybe wrong because is not swuitable to medicine praxis”= phelacy of false condition.
Swisstable…
Mug i thought we was cool but you want me to die homie-50 Cent
so if rr weren’t a clown troll he would read tom wolfe’s…
fodor was inspired by gould’s spandrels maybe. wolfe by what darwin really did get wrong: Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin[7] is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
he takes down chomsky too which is great considering chomsky gave a positive review to fodor’s retarded book.///
P1. rr referred to LOADED as a manlet. this is racist if rr is not LOADED.
P2. rr is anti-racist.
C. rr is LOADED.
Extremely offensive but calling a little black [strange term for black child redacted by pp, 2023-02-23] seems CRIMINAL for him. Shorter people is as if not more discriminated than precious his blacks and jews ( and jews are most privileged group specially today and not only in “America” / and jewish role on translatantic african slave trade but only the whitey who is to blame, right rr??)
Am i drunk? PP, please, exclude this comment. I will rewrite it.
Extremely offensive but calling a little black [strange term for black child redacted by pp, 2023-02-23] is CRIMINAL for him.
Shorter people are as discriminated if not more than his precious blacks and jews (jews are the most privileged group today and not only in “America”/ also the proeminent jewish role on translatantic african slave trade but only the whitey who is to blame and condemned right rr??)
You’re talking as if Jews aren’t white—they are.
Reparations should be paid to black Americans since they are descendants of slaves, and on the basis that the US government and other state governments have paid reparations to groups that were harmed in the last like: those of forced (and secret) sterilizations; the Japanese who were rounded up in concentration camps during WW2 since they thought they would be spies; and to Native Americans. Here’s the argument:
(P1) The US government has a history of giving reparations to people who have suffered injustices (like the Japanese and Natives).
(P2) Black Americans have suffered injustices (slavery, Jim Crow, segregation).
(C) So black Americans deserve reparations from the US government.
Guy can’t stick to just arguing about things, always has to try to bring other irrelevant things into it. Sad. That says a lot about you.
You’re talking as if Jews aren’t white—they are.
^^^TRUE COLORS^^^
RR needs to get a BA before he needs to worry about the GRE. But it would be interesting to compare his GRE with his SATs to see if 4 years of university did anything to improve his scholastic skills.
“it would be interesting to compare his GRE with his SATs to see if 4 years of university did anything to improve his scholastic skills.”
I’m sure it did, at least for his writing skills. Repetitiveness and many citations seem to be the standard for writing in college.
I had to massively dumb down my papers before my English professor would give me an A.
“You’re talking as if Jews aren’t white—they are.”
Jews dont seeing themselves as generic whites. And i never see people out of far right circles talking about jewish role on african slave trade. In academia and media it is completely forbidden to be discussed. During black history month or in “critic” education this historical fact is never mentioned. But i know your comments are all dishonest. You know that and you dont care. So why you still try??
How much american government (white american people) should give to black americans?? For how time??
Do you think it will solve it??
And for italian people who were raped or killed by black anerican soldiers. Do you think black americans should give reparations too?? Do you think black criminals who kill white people or individuals from other racial and ethnic groups by sheer cruelty should give reparations to their relative’s victims?? And about muslims who enslaved subsaharian africans as much as europeans?? And europeans who are descendent from working classes??
The list for historical reparations is extremely long.
Where and how much were these reparations for japamericans and native americans?? Native americans keep very poor..
But do you think japam has been succesful in US just by this reparation??
“Guy can’t stick to just arguing about things, always has to try to bring other irrelevant things into it. Sad. That says a lot about you”
Now repeat it looking at the mirror. It’s all about you, seriously. Most people here know.
Where’s the error in my reasoning?
“In academia…[the Jewish role in the slave trade] is completely forbidden to be discussed.”
What references do you have? If Jews don’t see themselves “as generic whites”, then what race are they? How many races are there? There are 5 races, so where do Jews fall? They obviously fall in the Caucasian race.
And your claim that it’s “completely forbidden” to discuss is wrong, of course. Blanket statements are rarely if ever correct.
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/17716/summary
Caucasoid != white
Black skinned south Asians are caucasoid too
Jews are definitely white. Most self-identify as white and, per a socialrace criteria, they would be designated as white too.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/race-ethnicity-heritage-and-immigration-among-u-s-jews/
No white means European. Half their DNA is Middle East.
Maternally it’s like 80 percent Italian. Paternally it’s ME. Again, they self-identify as white and are seen as white. So on a socialrace model they are white.
Social race model is irrelevant. The science says they’re not white.
The socialrace model is definitely relevant. The science doesn’t “say” anything, since the results need to be interpreted. What science says Jews aren’t white? If Jews self-identify as white and are seen as white societally, what’s the argument that they’re NOT white?
The argument is they don’t cluster genetically with whites.
Have you seen this?
View at Medium.com
I don’t agree with all of it, since there are arguments about PCA, structure and clusters, but it is thought provoking.
Cool! Such an approach should be applied to all taxonomy, not race only.
It’s an interesting paper. I don’t see how it would defeat the Hardimonian/Spencerian arguments though.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-14395-4
Nevertheless, Europeans are white and whites are Caucasian. Jews, socially, are white and identify as white and Jews also are Caucasian.
And I identify as 6’6″ so I guess I’m socially 6’6″
Horrible analogy.
To quote you, where’s the error in my argument?
Just because you identify as 6 6 doesn’t mean you are 6 6. Race is a social construct of a biological reality. Jews self-identifying as, and being seen as, white is enough for them to be white.
Two words:
Rachel Dolezal
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324233181_In_Black_and_White_A_Hermeneutic_Argument_against_Transracialism”
So is Rachel black? Yes or No? Why or Why not?
“is Rachel Dolezal black? Yes or No? Why or Why not?”
It depends which race concept you use, since pluralism about race is true. I would say “it’s context-dependent.”
On the Spencerian OMB race theory, she wouldn’t be black since the theory holds that race is a social construct of a biological reality.
On the Hardimonian socialrace concept, it would depend on one’s perception of her race due to her appearance and how she presents herself if she is black. She has talked about how she has gotten traffic tickets where her race was marked “black”, and so there are some contexts where, societally, she is viewed as black. On the Hardimonian Populationist Race Concept, she wouldn’t be black as she lacks the ancestry requirement. Rather, to take the Spencerian/Hardimonian bio-genomic/cluster concept, she would not be black.
On a personal identity/performative view of race, she would be black as she presents herself as it, and I wouldn’t doubt that some people would state she is black, sans the controversy around her in 2015.
On a “one-drop rule” view of race, if it is found that she has “one drop” of “black blood”, then she is black.
In a Hochmanian view of race, there are no races, only racialized groups. So if she is racialized is black, then she is black. If she is not racialized as black, then she is not black.
If “black” refers to a socially constructed property, then it is possible that she could be black.
On Haslanger’s concept of race, she would be black in some contexts but not others.
Its a clearly, given the plurality of race concepts, a tough question to answer and is therefore context-dependent.
“Schizophrenia is caused by socioenvironmental factors not by genetics or biology” bullshit” (RR 2023)
1 example of which would be these factors: being raise in city…
What i said in another comment, if it was true so why great majority of people who lives in cities don’t develop psychosis???
There is a list of these factors, most of them sound, smell, taste and look correlative.
But there is a really good example of predominant environmental causation (predominant, not absolute): myopia/using glasses and living in some big city is east asia (maybe being east asian is also important). So before urbanization, majority of east asians didn’t use glasses or have sight issues. Now, most of those who live in cities use glasses/have sight issues…
where’s the error in my reasoning that you are LOADED?
LOL, Jews are white because they look white. That’s literally all there is to it.
Remember how dumb it was when the British-descended Americans acted like their Irish and Italian counterparts weren’t white? Yeah, that’s how dumb it sounds saying Jews aren’t white.
Pure breed jews tend to look very ethnically jewish (seems mostly dinarid + armenid). Even if they have lots of racial similarities with southern europeans they are more like turkish people in look and genetics, a cline between Europe and Middle Eastern. But even if they were more blonde than native swedes. The worse about them is that they are even more dishonest and hypocrite than other peoples/groups included europeans and now they are in front of great plan to exterminate whites inducing these toxic lies about human differences and also imposing extremistic policies like em masse immigration. They are behaving like Stalin and his comrads after russhan revolution not just betraying their allies but also using them against their “enemies” to conquer the world.
Sheer bullshit as usual for humans..
who is LOADED? indeed i am LOADED. only LOADED. i am the great LOADED!
Remember how dumb it was when…you believed stories made up by jews?
South Park can say, and did, “the nba is controlled by white people.”
BUT it could NOT say and DENIED that “hollywood is controlled by jews.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupid_Ye
why?
ban rr.
rr and melo should have a star of david tattooed on their foreheads.
100% correct.
“During black history month or in “critic” education this historical fact is never mentioned”
Why rretard didn’t pick this part of my comment??
Sheer dishonesty.
Now every time he comment my comments i will answer (((my trophy black baby))).
700,000 dead white boys in the civil war wasn’t enough for rr.
all reparations have been paid to LIVING victims. NONE to descendants.
should germany pay reparations to the descendants of holocaust survivors FOREVER?
should affirmative action be subtracted from the reparations?
what do non-black poor people get?
RR IS EVIL! NOT JUST STUPID! peepee denies this because sexual relationship with rr.
recall that peepee and rr think slavery in the US different from slavery everywhere else and everywhen else.
go back far enough and most western european wypipo will have slave ancestors. and eastern europeans will have serf ancestors.
WHY IS PEEPEE ASHAMED OF LETTING RR FUCK HER?
BECAUSE IT PROVES SHE’S A DESPERATE HO?
Many species when once formed never undergo any further change but become extinct without leaving modified descendants; and the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they have retained the same form. — Origin of Species
I mean pure breed ashkenazi jews.
Gradualism is not about speed but the nature of the process (step by step).
As a non-American, how do you know what goes on in American schools?
It’s so forbidden to talk about Jews and slavery that i found this document from the National Museum of Jewish American History talking about it Jewish involvement in slavery/support for the Confederacy.
Click to access Civil%20War_Web.pdf
This paper “suggest little direct involvement” of Jews in the slave trade.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02619288.1993.9974809?journalCode=fimm20
You’re making nothing but baseless comments with no references, only what “the alt right” say about it. Then again, you probably have no actual references for your claim, so my providing references won’t do a thing to stop you from spewing outright false bullshit.
You’re just a scumbag talking about an innocent baby like that.
It depends which race concept you use, since pluralism about race is true. I would say “it’s context-dependent.”
^^^anal philosophy^^^
…baseless comments with no references, only what “the alt right” say about it.
“baseless” = HAHAHAHA! = CLOWN TROLL
because there’s no way “references” are biased because autism.
this is EXACTLY WHY wikipedia is BIASED BY ITS OWN STANDARDS! not to mention the BIASED EDITORS/CONTROLLERS.
RR: ARE YOU SAYING THE MSM IS BIASED? ARE YOU SAYING SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNALS ARE LIKE WAPO AND NYTs?
MUGABE: ARE YOU SAYING YOU’RE LITERALLY AN 11 YEAR OLD GIRL AND PROOF OF DYSGENICS?
“As a non-American, how do you know what goes on in American schools?
It’s so forbidden to talk about Jews and slavery that i found this document from the National Museum of Jewish American History talking about it Jewish involvement in slavery/support for the Confederacy.
There’s a difference between “forbidden” and effectively forbidden.
“This paper “suggest little direct involvement” of Jews in the slave trade.”
Lol.
“You’re making nothing but baseless comments with no references, only what “the alt right” say about it. Then again, you probably have no actual references for your claim, so my providing references won’t do a thing to stop you from spewing outright false bullshit.”
You’re the BS artist, and actually a bit evil, as Mugabe says, not because you are sadistic but because you seem to lack empathy but think you have it.
You realize that “It’s OK to be white” is considered hate speech in a lot of places while “Black Pride” isn’t?
You realize people have insulted “whites” for decades and never face repercussions (including Kanye) and yet the second they go after Jews, they get canceled?
You don’t understand this because you don’t have nuance, because you behave like a robot and are unaware of how much you get manipulated daily or how much you don’t pay attention to because it doesn’t fit your “apriori” argument.
If I remember the meme right, this information I will paste below is from a meme circulated by aut-righters:
“Did Jews really own slaves?
Yes. Jacob Rader Marcus, a historian and Reform rabbi, wrote in his four-volume history of Americans Jews that over 75 percent of Jewish families in Charleston, South Carolina; Richmond, Virginia; and Savannah, Georgia, owned slaves, and nearly 40 percent of Jewish households across the country did. The Jewish population in these cities was quite small, however, so the total number of slaves they owned represented just a small fraction of the total slave population; Eli Faber, a historian at New York City’s John Jay College reported that in 1790, Charleston’s Jews owned a total of 93 slaves, and that “perhaps six Jewish families” lived in Savannah in 1771.
A number of wealthy Jews were also involved in the slave trade in the Americas, some as shipowners who imported slaves and others as agents who resold them. In the United States, Isaac Da Costa of Charleston, David Franks of Philadelphia and Aaron Lopez of Newport, Rhode Island, are among the early American Jews who were prominent in the importation and sale of African slaves. In addition, some Jews were involved in the trade in various European Caribbean colonies. Alexandre Lindo, a French-born Jew who became a wealthy merchant in Jamaica in the late 18th century, was a major seller of slaves on the island.”
Remember, you claimed a PROMINENT ROLE in the slave trade. It’s quite clear that they did NOT have a prominent role in the slave trade. Note that I am NOT denying they had a role, only that it wasn’t as large as you claim.
You can admit that you’re wrong now.
Abraham had so many descendants I would not be surprised if 20% lived in Europe 15% in Africa over 50% in the middle east.
Genes just flow in populations like water into the sea.
Just because there are no records does not mean mixing does not happen ALOT. The Israelites have not been isolated they spread everywhere.
Even being 5% Abrahamic makes you Abrahamic. Even 1% even 0.1% All it takes is to have kids with a descendant of Abraham.
Jews that did not become official Jews merged with the Europeans. And Africans and in India.
We will not know until 2033 when all are tested.
Genetically Jews are just a sub-ethnicity in Europe.
More than 50% European. Jews outside Europe are different.
But this is the same difference between the french and Irish.
within group vs outside group subpopulations.
So Jews in Europe count as white Jews outside Europe don’t.
Both my maternal line and my paternal line are from Europe going back 10,000 years. But That is just mitochondria and the Y chromosome.
People in my family have come from different ethnicities and races but that is the cause of mixing that does not upset the 10,000-year markers.
WOW!
RR ISN’T EVEN TRYING!
when wikipedia says such a thing this makes it 200% credible!
Most Portuguese contractors who obtained the asiento between 1580 and 1640 were conversos.
Most Portuguese contractors who obtained the asiento between 1580 and 1640 were conversos.
Most Portuguese contractors who obtained the asiento between 1580 and 1640 were conversos.
.
.
.
rr LOOKS NOT white. therefore, rr is NOT white.
vivek ramaswamy can’t speak english. he misused “decimate”.
“we need to decimate affirmative action”, he said.
i think this is the anal definition of “cause” and “mechanism” on which rr hangs his yarmulke.
In his 1973 paper “Causation,” David Lewis proposed the following definition of the notion of causal dependence:[24]
An event E causally depends on C if, and only if, (i) if C had occurred, then E would have occurred, and (ii) if C had not occurred, then E would not have occurred.
Causation is then defined as a chain of causal dependence. That is, C causes E if and only if there exists a sequence of events C, D1, D2, … Dk, E such that each event in the sequence depends on the previous. This chain may be called a mechanism.
notice this is totally irrelevant to ToNS unless you’re a dumbass anal philosopher.
also notice that all of fodor’s inferences are also wrong.
even using his totally irrelevant anal definitions his argument is invalid.
“There’s a difference between “forbidden” and effectively forbidden.”
So forbidden that they talk about it themselves.
““This paper “suggest little direct involvement” of Jews in the slave trade.”
Lol.”
“Lol”, you’re obviously allergic to the truth.
“You’re the BS artist, and actually a bit evil, as Mugabe says, not because you are sadistic but because you seem to lack empathy but think you have it.”
“Lol”
“You realize people have insulted “whites” for decades and never face repercussions (including Kanye) and yet the second they go after Jews, they get canceled?”
Does this mean that Jews aren’t white? Laughable. They’re clearly white. Kanye is a gay fish.
“You realize that “It’s OK to be white” is considered hate speech in a lot of places while “Black Pride” isn’t?”
You realize I never made any claim to that effect?
“You don’t understand this because you don’t have nuance, because you behave like a robot and are unaware of how much you get manipulated daily or how much you don’t pay attention to because it doesn’t fit your “apriori” argument.”
Who has manipulated me and how? Back your claim with evidence.
“Most” – I can’t find the book it references and I can’t find any exact numbers on New Christians. Do you have any data on that? In the mean time, that doesn’t mean they has a “prominent role”, and other historians note that as well. One historian noted that in over 200 voyages to Africa from one Spaniard Jew, a mere 14 went to Africa to get slaves. And weren’t most New Christians Sephardic Jews? In any case, it’s just a bullshit NoI talking point. Their book has been refuted by many. Aut-righters talk about Ashkenazi. Nevertheless, they played a small role.
“Considering the number of African captives who passed into and through the hands of captors and dealers from capture in Africa until sale in America, it is unlikely that more than a fraction of 1 percent of the twelve million enslaved and relayed Africans were purchased or sold by Jewish merchants even once. If one expands the classes of participants to include all those in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas who produced goods for the trade or who processed goods produced by the slaves, and all those who ultimately produced goods with slave labor and consumed slave-produced commodities, the conclusion remains the same. At no point along the continuum of the slave trade were Jews numerous enough, rich enough, and powerful enough to affect significantly the structure and flow of the slave trade or to diminish the suffering of its African victims.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297455934_Jews_and_New_Christians_in_the_Atlantic_Slave_Trade
https://www.utimes.pitt.edu/archives/?p=4321
“Much of the historical evidence regarding alleged Jewish or New Christian involvement in the slave system was biased by deliberate Spanish efforts to blame Jewish refugees for fostering Dutch commercial expansion at the expense of Spain. Given this long history of conspiratorial fantasy and collective scapegoating, a selective search for Jewish slave traders becomes inherently anti-Semitic unless one keeps in view the larger context and the very marginal place of Jews in the history of the overall system. It is easy enough to point to a few Jewish slave traders in Amsterdam, Bordeaux, or Newport, Rhode Island. But far from suggesting that Jews constituted a major force behind the exploitation of Africa, closer investigation shows that these were highly exceptional merchants, far outnumbered by thousands of Catholics and Protestants who flocked to share in the great bonanza.” – Davis, in the NYRB
RR, if you think that one can find more peer-reviewed citations that go along with your ideas than my view, you are already admitting that your ideas are favored by the psychological community or economics community or whatever we are arguing about at the time so it makes no sense to “cite evidence” when you can simply cite some cuck/Jew/Affirmative Action Case-penned paper that says “Blacks should get reparations and all other papers are wrong you white male bigot”. It also proves that anti-HBD views and pro-Jew views are more accepted within academia. (By the way you know how you can show how rappers, BBall stars, and Oprah are examples of how there is no racism? You can do the same by showing how letting some HBD-adjacent thought and Jew/Israel-criticism that gets into the mainstream shows that there is no bias against HBD or for Jews… but neither are convincing to those who do not believe it already.)
On the other hand if the ideas are actually under contention there is no reason to cite paper after paper since neither one would prove the case. That’s why your style of “debate” is retarded. It makes more sense to simply do a blog like PP because you either agree that what he cites is correct or you don’t, but citing other papers that disagree to show how something is “definitely false” doesn’t make sense if the topic has no proven solution either way.
“is Rachel Dolezal black? Yes or No? Why or Why not?”
It depends which race concept you use, since pluralism about race is true. I would say “it’s context-dependent.”
Why do you make us lost time with this shit pp???
I know. It’s because you want to use this clown to feel smarter. It’s all about you.
Maybe this shit dont remember about dolezal. My negrophile pseudo marxist bro has not a good long term memory.
RRetarded: “how do you know what’s happening in American schools”
Zombiegoy, there is something called internet and also something called logics. The same brainwashing happening in US is happening here and in every western corner even in South Korea. It’s all about globalism but of course… I just need to read a single didactic school book to know what is the type of indoctrination rather than real education children and teens are being subjected and targeting specially the whitey youth.
Indoctrination like:
White evil socialrace people enslaved innocent black africans. Racism! It need reparation!! White need to go!! Races doesnt exist!! Racial differences are socialcauses!
Rather than real education about this specific historical facts sound:
Before white europeans (primarily portuguese and spanish) come to Africa, african tribes enslaved themselves. Also muslims from North Africa and Middle Eastern enslaved subsaharian africans as the same proportion of white europeans if not more. And finally many sephardic jews participated actively on translatantic slave trade.
Is slavery ok?? No. It’s irrational: extremistic, pointless, unfair. A group or a people can submited other people without any extreme or generalized level of cruelty. Generally the most effective way to control a people is cutting of their rebels and leaders but in a hypothetical systematic rationally designed subjugation, is not even necessary the use of force. (What’s happening now but not by good reasons).
Lurker,
I mean, I don’t need to cite any papers to argue the claim that black Americans deserve reparations. P1 is common knowledge. Regarding P2, it follows that since P1 is true, then blacks deserve reparations so C follows.
Im very critical of Israel and what they’re doing to the Palestinians. It’s outright wrong.
“It also proves that anti-HBD views and pro-Jew views are more accepted within academia”
Which anti-HBD views did you have in mind? John Jackson and Andrew Winston showed there is no “taboo” on race and IQ research. It’s a very well-researched and argued paper.
https://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/UC8HG8URH2WQWVIWN5AG/full
Santo,
“Why do you make us lost time with this shit pp???
I know. It’s because you want to use this clown to feel smarter. It’s all about you.
Maybe this shit dont remember about dolezal. My negrophile pseudo marxist bro has not a good long term memory.”
It’s funny, because you choose to read my comments. You didn’t have to read my comment on whether or not Dolezal is black.
“Indoctrination like:
White evil socialrace people enslaved innocent black africans. Racism! It need reparation!! White need to go!! Races doesnt exist!! Racial differences are socialcauses!”
First and second and third are true. Fourth is irrational. Regarding the fourth, when people say “Races doesn’t exist!!” they mean biological races; social constructivists about race are realists about race. And the fifth, depends which racial differences you have in mind.
“Before white europeans (primarily portuguese and spanish) come to Africa, african tribes enslaved themselves. Also muslims from North Africa and Middle Eastern enslaved subsaharian africans as the same proportion of white europeans if not more. And finally many sephardic jews participated actively on translatantic slave trade.”
Who denies this? The only thing questionable is your claim of “many sephardic news participating in the transatlantic slave trade”—so much participation that put of over 200 voyages, a mere 14 went to Africa for slaves. I never claimed they had NO ROLE, only that it’s not as large as a it-fighters claim it is.
Let me quote this again for the people in the back:
““Considering the number of African captives who passed into and through the hands of captors and dealers from capture in Africa until sale in America, it is unlikely that MORE THAN A FRACTION OF 1 PERCENT of the TWELVE MILLION enslaved and relayed Africans WERE PURCHASED OR SOLD BY JEWISH MERCHANTS EVEN ONCE. IF ONE EXPANDS THE CLASSES OF PARTICIPANTS to include all those in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas who produced goods for the trade or who processed goods produced by the slaves, and all those who ultimately produced goods with slave labor and consumed slave-produced commodities, THE CONCLUSION REMAINS THE SAME. AT NO POINT along the continuum of the slave trade WERE JEWS NUMEROUS ENOUGH, RICH ENOUGH, AND POWERFUL ENOUGH to affect significantly the structure and flow of the slave trade or to diminish the suffering of its African victims.”
The only phase in which Jews could be said to have had more than a minimal role in the trade was in the second phase. Though overall—as I have already established—the role of Jews in the trade was minimal.
“The economic, social, legal, and racial pattern of the Atlantic Slave trade was in place before Jews made their way back to the Atlantic ports of northwestern Europe, to the coasts and islands of Africa, or to European colonies in the Americas. They were marginal collective actors in most places and during most periods of the Atlantic system: its political and legal foundations; its capital formation; its maritime organization; and its distribution of coerced migrants from Europe and Africa. Only in the Americas—momentarily in Brazil, more durably in the Caribbean—can the role of Jewish traders be described as significant. If we consider the whole complex of major class actors in the transatlantic slave trade, the share of Jews in this vast network is extremely modest.” – Drescher, Jews and New Christians in the Atlantic Slave Trade
https://ibb.co/V3717xX
“It was at the first western margin of the Dutch transatlantic trade that Jews played their largest role. Around 1640, the Dutch briefly became Europe’s principal slave traders. They welcomed Jews as colonizers and as onshore middlemen in newly conquered Brazil. During the eight years between 1637 and 1644, Jewish merchants accounted for between 8 and 63 percent of first onshore purchasers of the twenty-five thousand slaves landed by the West India Company in Dutch-held Brazil. Perhaps a third of these captives must have reached planters through Jewish traders.”
So Santo’s claim about a PROMINENT ROLE in the slave trade by Jews is definitively false. Stop spearing NoI propaganda.
I dont even know why i’m still trying to argue with you in honest or debate-like way. It’s pointless since ever. My main problem with you is not because you have different point of views. I already said this and it’s unfixable. I actually like to debate or trying with non fanatical oeople with different mindset than mine. Not with you because you dont know what a dialogue is. It’s always a monoilogical debate. It’s you talking to yourself. And i still dont know why you try to convince people here or in Unz platform. Great majority of times is worthless. It’s not just because you have different point of views but also because they are mostly wrong from the basis. Someone claiming that human behavior has nothing or little to do with biology or organism itself is showing he is mostly or if completely off on this subject. Earth flaters and blank slated people are in the same boat of losers. The big difference is that the second group has been overempowered mostly and primarily by jews in academia because it fits perfectly with their plans: eliminate white people replacing them with non white and mixed unrooted and obedient people (like you) and creating the basis for a global neoliberal and identitarian Empire. Just by sophistry you can deny that: suicidal fertility rates + continuous mass immigration + systematic brainwashing by self hate and racism related fallacies from the kindergarden to the high education, all the time in controlled media. Only with lies you cant deny what everyone is seeing. And all of these will not eliminate racism it is being used by far right to legitimate it. But again why i’m still losting 2 to 5, sometimes more minutes writing this to you use your extremely dishonest tactics?? Vanity?? But i dont need waste my time and patience to feed my self esteem.
Blah blah blah. Just admit you were wrong about Jews and the slave trade and move along.
I tried.
I tried—and succeeded—to show you that you’re WRONG about Jews and the slave trade, yet you have NOTHING TO SAY. This discussion isn’t like other discussions on this blog, you’re outright wrong in your convictions. Will you admit it?
Jewishness is a political ethnorreligion. There are ethiopian, arabic, indian, caucasian and sino jews. It’s very obvious that they are pushing white genocide partly because holocaust. But kalergian plan is a bit older and not just related with whites. Jews has been always or culturally isolated, politically antagonistic and or divisive to white europeans.
Defending them “because anti semitism and or holocaust” as if they are not extremely privileged, influential and also responsible for many bad policies and actions as any other “elite” groups has nothing to do with fairness or justice. It’s only correct state that they also have done good things just like any other groups, period. So why treat them as a sacred crow group??
About jewish role on translatantic african slave trade, yes, there are very few corageous (not you) individuals that have published academic works about it. But the exception prove the rule. The censorship for any direct criticism towards jews are way more stronger in education, including in academia, of course, and in government and media, i mean, in every socially crucial place from US to Australia, in every corner of western world.
“It’s very obvious that they are pushing white genocide partly because holocaust. But kalergian plan is a bit older”
Delusional.
“there are very few individuals that have published academic works about it”
We go from “completely forbidden to be discussed” to “some courageous people publishing about it” – were those goalposts heavy when you shifted them?
That paper and book were censored. I guess the evil Jewish cabal missed it?
too many stubborn users on this site who dont want constructive criticism. no truth in their lies and no truth to be sought after either.
ALL of you are braindead. i am the only high functioning dude on this blog but hey thats because i made it.
No matter if i said totally rather than mostly. The result is the same. The big fact is we don’t want you here anymore. Too much time tolerating a evil crap like you.
When your comments are not endless citations they are opinions with no more than two or three words but i don’t care because we don’t want TRY to stablish something resemble a normal debate with you.
Those goalposts must have been tough to move, eh?
“When your comments are not endless citations they are opinions with no more than two or three words but i don’t care because we don’t want TRY to stablish something resemble a normal debate with you.”
🤡
(((my trophy black baby)))
Yea you’re a clown. A Brazilian racist clown. How did you move your goalposts? With a trailer? A hook? Did you push them? How long did it take for you to move them so the ball wouldn’t go through the goalposts? You won’t admit you’re wrong.
In any case, stop getting information from aut-right memes and read actual books.
RR fear if hereditism become widespread again but he thinks the best way to deal with it is pushing pseudo philosophy and science and en masse immigration while it is basically feeding radicalization i mean through already radical and extremistic policies…
About biology word its primary concept is “the study of life” right? So biology word here is being used as synonymous for nature or organism. So when RR says “something from an organism is not or cannot be biological” he is basically saying “something from an organism cannot be and organic cause or effect or relatable”??
here is rr’s “argument” from 2018 so we can call him retarded again.
>>>
In 2010, philosopher Jerry Fodor and cognitive scientist Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, wrote a book titled “What Darwin Got Wrong“, which argued that NS is not a causal mechanism in regard to the formation of new species. Their argument is (pg 114):
1. Selection-for is a causal process.
2. Actual causal relations aren’t sensitive to counterfactual states of affairs: if it wasn’t the case that A, then the fact that it’s being A would have caused its being B doesn’t explain its being the case that B.
3. But the distinction between traits that are selected-for and their free-riders turns on the truth (or falsity) of relevant counterfactuals.
4. So if T and T’ are coextensive, selection cannot distinguish the case in which T free-rides on T’ from the case that T’ free-rides on T.
5. So the claim that selection is the mechanism of evolution cannot be true.
This argument is incredibly strong. If it is true, then NS cannot be the mechanism by which evolution occurs; NS is not—nor can it be—the mechanism of evolution. So, regarding the case of two traits that are coextensive with each other, it’s not possible to ascertain which trait was selected-for and which trait was the free-rider. NS cannot distinguish between two locally coextensive traits, so, therefore, it is not an explanatory mechanism and does not explain the evolution of species, contra Darwin. It cannot be the mechanism that connects phenotypic variation with fitness variation. <<<
every premise is both false and irrelevant.
rr needs to pay reparations.
I posted this quote from Fodor to showcase how it contradicts RR’s statement. I probably should have made that more clear.
I believe most analytical philosophy is sophistry. I, more than anyone, get irritated at RR, thinking he can uncover the secrets of reality by arguing over definitions.
But at the very least, I try to understand his position, which is more than can be said for you.
I’ve read your old comments. You used to have a brain; what happened? You’re like me if I decided to stay an alcoholic.
I think you and to a lesser extent PP are the only ones who get my position. I agree that I could have worded myself better and more carefully there. But context clues show what I meant when I wrote “So, regarding the case of two traits that are coextensive with each other, it’s not possible to ascertain which trait was selected-for and which trait was the free-rider.”
It’s because I described in my last reply, you’re suggesting something that completely erases the possibility of physical laws being causal in evolution. It’s almost so ridiculous that it gives normal people aneurysms trying to figure out why Fodor’s argument doesn’t make sense.
I guess that is the problem with analytical philosophy in general, it tries to make sweeping metaphysical statements using word games by making it sound like it is simply doing reasonable philosophy. They put you in a linguistic box by being incredibly hard to defeat linguistically even though you understand outside of that linguistic box that the argument is incorrect or flawed.
That’s the problem I have with your dualism, this NS can’t be a causal mechanism, etc. You try to frame things that have serious metaphysical implications in simplistic linguistic terms… and that’s why people call these arguments “Jewish”. They’re well-formed linguistic traps by those who believe more in their own ability to convince themselves than to actually find out what is true.
Of course it is helpful to concretize things into specific words. It helps clarity of thought… but when used to make false conclusions that have serious metaphysical consequences, it is basically evil.
“I guess that is the problem with analytical philosophy in general, it tries to make sweeping metaphysical statements using word games…They put you in a linguistic box by being incredibly hard to defeat linguistically even though you understand outside of that linguistic box that the argument is incorrect or flawed.”
Yup. Most analytical philosophy serves no purpose. The best thing to ever come out of it was the scientific method.
“I JuSt dOn’t uNdErStAnD HoW AnYoNe cOuLd nOt uNdErStAnD WhAt i mEaN?!?! ”
–Fodor after using complex language in the most obscure way possible to convey a very simple argument.
as you can see from the most cursory scan of this…
1. it’s BEYOND retarded.
2. it has nothing to do with anything.
3. rr and fodor are retarded in an OBSCENE way.
btw, the great ronald fisher was a sincere anglican…he was infinitely more important to evolutionary theory than richard dawkins for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher
check out the maoism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher#Reappraisal_of_his_contentious_views_on_race_and_eugenics
the novel vs the “that’s less novel for some than others” jive talk.
in this fake brazilian tan is:
get a gaggle of 5 year old chirren.
teach them how to play chess.
hold a tournament for the 5 year olds.
the winner vs the next capablanca
what is the correlation?
small…BUT positive.
the problem with novel tests is “twofold”.
1. they may be more or less novel for the test taker…
(or the testies as melo would have it…he’s proud of his balls.)
2. the initial performance is a very rough indication of future performance OR no indication at all.
“he’s proud of his balls”
I am!
They’re all I have in this life. I would bow to no man even if it cost me my life. Some would say that’s stupid, but I’m just reminding people that their artificial hierarchies are absolutely meaningless, and if more people thought like me, the powers that be wouldn’t get away with what they do.
Yo, in a hundred years from now, everyone who’s living on this planet will be dead. So it’s inconsequential, really, all the shit that you talk, all the bullshit that you stand for. It’s more important what you’re ready to build. What you’re ready to pass down to your children, what you’re ready to create. You better fucking remember that when you challenge a mother fucker like me. Remember, I’m the dominant species
RR wrote an article defending giving money to blacks. Even after all the welfare, aid to Africa, and letting them leech off of whites and murder us in record numbers, and importing their African brethren to our modern countries.
It’s clear RR is biased because of his personal life. He is also Southern Italian and is another swarthy immigrant claiming they’re white while defending anti-white policies. Like Jews. Disgusting. Send RR back.
AND!
he did NOT write an article AGAINST giving money to blacks…
BECAUSE…
HE IS DISHONEST.
“rr needs to be banned. everyone agrees except peepee, because rr is the father of her child.”
Lol.
“he did NOT write an article AGAINST giving money to blacks…
BECAUSE…
HE IS DISHONEST.”
Exactly. He thinks he can write some sort of syllogism that supports AA. Little does he know that reality is already full of evidence that show why giving reparations to one racial group is a bad idea.
Reperations for blacks the single dumbest idea in the world.
My personal life is irrelevant. Where’s the error in my reasoning, Lurker?
“He is also Souther Italian and is another swarthy immigrant claiming they’re white”
Its obvious I’m white. Jews are white. You’re just ignorant to race concepts and you appeal to motive too. I wonder if Lurker is “swarthy” like Santo who claims to be white.
It’s funny how the people who talk about others’ appearance don’t show what they look like. Very strange.
RRs motivation isn’t that hes southern european. In fact most southern europeans are pretty racist. Actually its because hes banging a black girl and has a black baby. Pretty obvious.
Just ignore the fact that I’ve been critical of hereditarianism for the last 6 years. Where’s the error in my argument?
The error in your reasoning is that reparations didn’t majorly change the fate of Japanese Americans, Japanese, or Native Americans.
The other error is that blacks did not face more injustices than whites have historically, especially compared to what they gained. Every race and group comes from injustices. Countless whites have sacrificed their lives directly to end slavery, if not all the other sacrifice they have made to make the world better (including all the technology and aid that Africa receives, but also Western culture).
There is also no reason to assume that inherited wealth is the only reason any group does well, because it is both unempirical and apriori false given that culture, choices, and ability all matter.
It’s just ironic when people who are the least white white people begin to attack whites while claiming they are white… because if you want to start drawing lines historically, NW Europeans can be separated from southern Europeans and Jews, even in American history. Every group has different historical experiences. (That’s another reason reparations are pointless).
Which premise in my argument is false? What does your claim “blacks did not face more injustices than whites have historically” have to do with my argument? By the way, an “error in reasoning” is a fallacy, but the argument form is a modus ponens so you need to reject a premise.
“Which premise in my argument is false? What does your claim “blacks did not face more injustices than whites have historically” have to do with my argument?”
It’s an error in your argument because saying one race faced injustice assumes that it faced more injustice than another group who is doing the reparations. That is the implication, or we could just as easily argue that everyone in the world faces injustices since life is not perfect which would lead to no one to give reparations.
“By the way, an “error in reasoning” is a fallacy, but the argument form is a modus ponens so you need to reject a premise.”
The error in your reasoning comes from you reasoning erroneously about reality, which is why you have a false premise leading to a false conclusion. You also employ false reasoning by stating that because the US did something in the past, it should continue to do it… because then we could say that blacks should still be slaves.
No one says “error in reasoning” meaning a specific fallacy, stop being a fag.
The same sophistic tactic: answer a question with a question.
Lurker,
“It’s an error in your argument because saying one race faced injustice assumes that it faced more injustice than another group who is doing the reparations. That is the implication, or we could just as easily argue that everyone in the world faces injustices since life is not perfect which would lead to no one to give reparations.”
“The error in your reasoning comes from you reasoning erroneously about reality, which is why you have a false premise leading to a false conclusion. You also employ false reasoning by stating that because the US did something in the past, it should continue to do it… because then we could say that blacks should still be slaves.”
Why is P2 false? P1 shows that other groups have received reparations from the US government due to historical wrongs. P2 states blacks have been historically wronged. So it follows that the US government should pay reparations. It’s that simple. So unless you can explain which premise is false and why, it’s irrational for you to not accept the conclusion of my argument.
HEAR! HEAR!
BUT RR ISN’T EVEN SOUTHERN ITALIAN, SADLY!
i actually have an Italian ancestor who fought in the Crusades and then settled in Lebanon. apparently he was one of my forebearers. im a direct descendant of his.
i have no clue whether thats on my mom or my father side.
« Thanks for the translation, Bruno. I appreciate it as a mere human who doesn’t speak in propositional logic. »
—> you are welcome, my pleasure.
Besides in human (social, life sciences) all rules are false. So all logical inferences are true in a meaningless, void sense. But it can help to check small steps of valid reasoning.
If I reword it without sounding like Captain Data,
Let’s take the rule (which is false btw) « all Swans are white »
1) first mistake : it’s a white bird, then it’s a swan. It could be a dove.
2) second mistake : it’s not a swan, then it’s not a white bird. Same reason.
Differences one is an inference from the consequence and the other one from the hypothesis.
3) first right inference : it’s a swan, then it’s a white bird (we know it’s false but it’s because the rule is false)
4) second right inference : it’s not a white bird, then it’s not a swan (same reason)
I think this could be used as a way to educate 11 yo children to analyzing propositions and for memorizing those 4 important rules of reasoning.
“I think this could be used as a way to educate 11 yo children to analyzing propositions and for memorizing those 4 important rules of reasoning.”
Logic should be taught in school. There would be fewer republicans.
the shape of chinapipo crania is consistent with their inhabiting colder areas than western europeans according to allen’s rule. their body size is inconsistent with this by bergmann’s rule.
how long do these things take to evolve? peking is colder than london today but during the last glacial maximum may have been warmer. london may’ve been under ice too. it is still warmer than so many eastern european capitals. and eastern europeans have round/chinapipo heads.
a large fraction of european ancestry comes from people who did not live in europe during the last glacial maximum. but a large fraction did. supposedly.
but maybe chinapipo also came from southern china just like europeans came from anatolia. why assume not? what’s the archeological evidence?
during the last glacial maximum the difference in temperatures from today’s was greater in europe. how much greater?
Brachycephaly is more common among chinese and Korean (seems less on japanese) but also more common on europeans from alpine subrace: France pre great replacement, central and eastern Europe (mountainous and colder areas). Mostly dolicho and mesocephalic nordics are the exception in colder places.
well bergmann’s rule is followed among chinapipo and native americans with the exception of the inuit.
that is going from hong kong to harbin the people taller and bulkier. mongolians have dominated sumo for 20 years.
same as going from the dakotas to guatemala or tierra del fuego to the amazon.
when and why is bergmann’s rule violated?
rr: shut up! just so story!
It’s incredibly sad but still funny just how many “task forces” and “peer-reviewed studies” there are to try to show how we can feed, clothe, employ, and educate blacks to get them to normal white levels of functioning (who apparently do all of this automatically no matter where they are raised… but that isn’t genetic).
Its because jews control millions of people like RR.
All of Africa would literally break down if foreign aid and foreign loans (which they never repay) were to stop. Think about it.
Every other comment from you is “Jews this, Jews that.” They clearly got into your head, that’s all you talk about. Sad.
I wonder if Lurker can explain how these problems are “genetic.”
ouch! burn!
PP if you don’t ban this shit we will rebel against you and stop to feed your comment section. I would like to know why tolerating this zombie here?? For what??
All the time is the same old sophistry. He add nothing to this blog and i’m sure for no really relevant debate.
I’m not even talking about genetics. I’m talking about basic economics now.
yeah you think its basic? why do people struggle with being able to upkeep economies if it that theory is so basic?
do you think people are being incompetent on purpose? well yes youre a perfect example of this.
Honestly Pakistan is not that much better than Africa. I mean they could even be worse on some measures.
“PP if you don’t ban this shit we will rebel against you and stop to feed your comment section. I would like to know why tolerating this zombie here?? For what??
All the time is the same old sophistry. He add nothing to this blog and i’m sure for no really relevant debate.”
You want an echo chamber of nonsensical, anti-semetic comments and “HBD” with no criticism. Clown.
You want an echo chamber of nonsensical, anti-semetic comments and “HBD” with no criticism. Clown.
1. mispronunciation spelling of “semitic”.
2. OBSCENE incognizance of his own LOW IQ.
it’s got NOTHING to do with your so-called “views” per se rr. it’s 100% that you have a LOW IQ.
SANTO HAS YOU PEGGED!
Now 80% of the comment section is debating the troll RR. Good job Puppy.
all of you guys are so small minded that it hurts.
most of the prevalent concepts in these posts mean nothing. there are countless incidents of bragging and just trying to display intellectual dominance.
none of you actually have the intelligence to solve world problems Pill may be the only one who is practical enough to do it but even then he is an incapable fool who only sees himself.
the commenters are selfish. leave heathens! you awoke the demon that lurks!
Animals are mindless’, said mindless RR
“pP, bAn Rr” *makes new comments to talk about me*
haha yes these guys are full of it. all they want is to trash others so desperately theyll keep someone they dont like around so that they can hate on them even more.
sign of the fucking times man.
“pP, bAn Rr”
is that some albanian gangsta camel case argot?
explain it to me peepee.
*makes new comments to talk about me*
which will end when you’re BANNED!
joe rogan weighs 200 lbs and he’s only 5’0″.
imagine how short rr is.
sad.
i challenge rr to a sumo match!
ronnie coleman vs hakuho.
ronnie is way stronger.
hakuho is way bigger AND smarter.
who wins?
rr rushes forward.
mugabe moves out of the way.
rr falls out of bounds.
mugabe wins.
PP, ban loaded too. He is retarded
PP: i like stupid people making money to me. It is like Oprah so i.
mug chill out bro you get inconceivably frustrated as the years go on.
i empathize with you man ive been through a lot of the same and im only 27 enough for five lifetimes of yours. but you need to practice self restraint.
yes like Pumpkin said many moons ago your grit is off the charts but your overall lack of carefulness is very unappealing.
While you stay here and bring us with your outstanding intellect…
and you have better topics to talk about?
He just wants an echo chamber obviously.
yeah most of these idiots want that no doubt.
Why did blacks never become civilised? Why do they have cartoonish sexual organs? Why do they score so low on IQ tests?
Hmmm.
I guess they just identify as barbarians.
okay yes black people are terrible in every way but theyre so entertaining who tf cares?
black people are only the ones who keep this world actually worth living for myself.
i hope this song inspires people to do the right thing which is…know when your time is up and pass the torch to the next. instead being an old grumpy prick who folds under the pressure of not having the limelight any more!
whoa!
Youre a dimwitted pakistani illegal immigrant so who you look up to is bound to be a joke.
i dont disagree but that is basically all you can say about me.
look man im literally the smartest dude on a blog full of intellectuals. if you doubt im intelligent i hope you get the reality check you need in life because hating on me isnt going to fix anything in this world.
i am so multifacetedly talented and gracious that its incomparable.
Yes blacks are very entertaining until they rob your parents’ little corner store.
yeah my parents did own a 7/11 when my mom first moved to America and they hated blacks. now they feel a lot differently.
and theyre the most educated people youll probably ever meet my mom has a PhD in chemistry and an MBA and my dad was a radiologist.
blacks are cool man stop hating. youre just an ignorant dude imo.
They feel differently after decades of brainwashing, being told they are on the same side because of skin color, and probably because of distance.
If you like blacks go to Africa.
Pseudo progressivists
“Gang like black behavior is ok. It’s wrong that black people who want to behave like white (it mean behave like normal civilized people)”
With these “allies” you dont need enemies.
wheres my comment Pumpkin what the fuck! i am the single person who adds value to your blog and you do me like this?
what the fuck.
fuck Lurker fuck Santo and his cocksucking ass.
and why will they lay down with anything? including mentally retarded albanian bodybuilding manlets with ridiculous hair?
i strongly encourage rr and peepee to get married in a roman catholic ceremony immediately…or after easter…marriage during lent is verboten.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/24/texas-students-retired-school-janitor-rent-increase
This doesnt happen in Europe. Even Britain. America is atrocious.
When I was in singapore I saw really old people working because asian countries have no welfare state. It was very sad. They gave some made up job to a really old guy to cut the grass near our housing with a scissors. These people need socialism hard.
Didnt know starbucks founder was an ashkenazim. He wants to destroy unions. Fuck this guy.
A → B + ~A / ∴ nothing
^^^ALL rr meant if he weren’t so ‘tarded as to be unable to look up html codes^^^
or closer to rr’s retard talk:
~((B + A → B) → A)
if A implies B and ~A, then nothing.
OR
~((A → B) ↔ (B → A))
if A, then B does not mean if B, then A.
NB: the wiki quote will be deleted today or tomorrow by rr himself or by someone rr informs at (((centcom))).
Most Portuguese contractors who obtained the asiento between 1580 and 1640 were conversos.[57]
Israel, Jonathan (2002). Diasporas within the Diaspora. Jews, Crypto-Jews and the World Maritime Empires (1510–1740). Brill.
fodor responds to his critics.
Honestly Pakistan is not that much better than Africa. I mean they could even be worse on some measures.
once again this bizarre over-the-top antipathy for pakistanis…
i conclude pill is at least half indian, like this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Varadkar.
roman empire: full of slaves
ancient greece: full of slaves
ancient israel: full of slaves
vikings: lots of slaves
none of them were black!
where does the world “slave” come from? where does the word “slav” come from?
what is a serf? not much different from a slave.
1. Selection-for is a causal process. FALSE.
2. Actual causal relations aren’t sensitive to counterfactual states of affairs: if it wasn’t the case that A, then the fact that it’s being A would have caused its being B doesn’t explain its being the case that B. FALSE.
3. But the distinction between traits that are selected-for and their free-riders turns on the truth (or falsity) of relevant counterfactuals. FALSE.
4. So DOES NOT FOLLOW. if T and T’ are coextensive, selection cannot distinguish the case in which T free-rides on T’ from the case that T’ free-rides on T.have caused its being B doesn’t explain its being the case that B. FALSE.
3. But the distinction between traits that are selected-for and their free-riders turns on the truth (or falsity) of relevant counterfactuals. FALSE.
4. So DOES NOT FOLLOW. if T and T’ are coextensive, selection cannot distinguish the case in which T free-rides on T’ from the case that T’ free-rides on T. FALSE.
The argument I gave on the other page is from Against Darwinism and I think it’s easier to understand. I also defended (2) in thsg comment.
all of fodor’s premises are false. and all of his inferences are incorrect.
1. there is no need to distinguish T and T’. none. he said so himself. he said T’ was neutral. it may persist forever.
2. there is no trait T. the trait is T + T’. the trait is whatever changes in the phenotype from a change in the genotype.
3. no one claims every trait is an adaptation. no one ever did.
4. why are there such traits as T + T’? fodor says so himself. because natural selection is constrained. like maybe it can’t do just T. it can’t do anything and everything. there is no organism which can shoot lasers out of its mouth, for example.
except:
It was a critique of a straw man version of evolutionary theory characterized by a brand of adaptationism so narrow that (if it were at all true) biologists could be charged with just making things up as they went along. But Fodor was not so much concerned with science as the extension of evolutionary ideas outside of biology. Motivated by his irritation with evolutionary psychology, a subdiscipline he believed was “Darwinism” at its worst, Fodor crowed that natural selection should be exiled from evolutionary theory altogether.
Fodor’s entire argument hinges upon a broad caricature of evolutionary theory which only seems to exist in his imagination.
Fodor’s response belies the fact that he is responding to a form of evolutionary theory that does not actually exist.
By refraining from engaging scientists over actual research he is free to ask absurd questions that only impress those who know as little about evolutionary theory as he does.
Here Fodor makes a few points that are already well-known and draws entirely the wrong conclusion.
“there is no need to distinguish T and T’. none. he said so himself. he said T’ was neutral. it may persist forever.”
T’ is “neutral” in considerations of the fitness of the organism. There IS a need to distinguish the fit from the correlated trait, and WE can do so, but we can’t use the ToNS to do so, since there is no way for it to distinguish between correlated traits.
“there is no trait T. the trait is T + T’. the trait is whatever changes in the phenotype from a change in the genotype.”
T is the fitness trait while T’ is the free rider trait that doesn’t contribute to fitness. The overall claim is that when traits are correlated, there is no way to break the correlation prior to performing an experiment.
“no one claims every trait is an adaptation. no one ever did.”
It’s implies by hyper-adaptationists. Have you read any recent EP papers?
“why are there such traits as T + T’? fodor says so himself. because natural selection is constrained. like maybe it can’t do just T. it can’t do anything and everything. there is no organism which can shoot lasers out of its mouth, for example.”
Natural selection doesn’t originate traits, as I’m sure you know. it’s merely posited as the mechanism that explains the fixation of traits in organisms.
“Fodor’s entire argument hinges upon a broad caricature of evolutionary theory which only seems to exist in his imagination.
Fodor’s response belies the fact that he is responding to a form of evolutionary theory that does not actually exist.”
This is wrong. His argument has considerations for anyone who claims that natural selection is a mechanism, and many have made that claim. See eg Michael Ruse:
” Philosopher Michael Ruse writes in his book The Philosophy of Human Evolution (pg 16) “More precisely, Darwin tried to make reasonable or common sensical the very fact of evolution — all organisms have a common descent by natural processes from one or just a few simple forms — and at the same time provide a mechanism of change that speaks to final cause this mechanism being something Darwin called “natural selection.”
“… we know that he became an evolutionist and discovered the mechanism for which he is famous, natural selection, in the late 1830s… (Ruse, 2012: 16)
“… Darwin introduced his main mechanism of natural selection.” (Ruse, 2012: 18)”
No need for experiment. The fitness trait will have shown more selection than the spandrel unless perfectly correlated which is rare
… And how would we show which trait was under more selection? That’s where humans come and and humans can make that determination, using experimentation to break the correlation. The question is this:
Prior to performing the manipulation of traits (experimenting), how does the ToNS predict which trait is fitness-enhancing when the traits are correlated? The same story would justify both traits, so we can’t use the ToNS to predict which trait would love to fixation prior to breaking the correlation.
We would know which trait was under more selection by which trait changed more. If the population increased 2 SD in height but only 1 SD in weight, height was likely the fitness trait (or a better proxy for it) while weight was the spandrel
We see this in professional sports. NBA players & nfl players are both tall & heavy but it’s totally obvious basketball is selecting more for height while football is selecting more for weight
Good analogy, but I don’t see how that answers the question. There could be a third trait correlated, and we wouldn’t know which enhances fitness sans an experiment. Causal claims require a mechanism. Fodor’s argument is levied at adaptationist claims—one needs to name a property that an adaptation would have and a byproduct wouldn’t. If NS were explanatory, as would be able to, using the theory, distinguish the fit trait from the trait correlated with the fit trait
Good analogy, but I don’t see how that answers the question. There could be a third trait correlated, and we wouldn’t know which enhances fitness sans an experiment.
But you could say that about any scientific theory. How do you know lifting weights made you strong? Maybe something correlated with lifting weights made you strong. Maybe you were getting strong anyway and that’s what made you want to lift weights.
Causal claims require a mechanism. Fodor’s argument is levied at adaptationist claims—one needs to name a property that an adaptation would have and a byproduct wouldn’t.
In the case of height contributing more to basketball “fitness” than its byproduct weight, the properties would be reach & vertical jump.
If NS were explanatory, as would be able to, using the theory, distinguish the fit trait from the trait correlated with the fit trait
As I said the fitness trait will show more selection (greater change in standard deviation units over time) than the byproduct. Of course you can always posit a third trait we haven’t thought of which shows even more selection than what we thought was the fitness trait and if that trait is discovered, we just revise the theory like we do in any scientific theory when a better model is found.
Look Fodor is basically a con artist who has built a career pretending he has some profound insight when in reality he’s talking gibberish. Ever heard the saying “bullshit baffles brains”? That should be the title of his biography.
“How do you lifting weights made you strong?”
Lifting weights in conjunction with progressive overload (adding more weight when a specific rep range is hit) along with eating the right macro/kcal split made me strong.
Can you name any hallmarks of adaptation? That is, what observation would confirm that a trait moved to fixation due to its contribution to fitness and not its being a byproduct of the trait?
How would we know that the fitness trait showed more selection? Remember, the question was “PRIOR to performing the manipulation of traits (experimenting), how does the ToNS predict which trait is fitness-enhancing when the traits are correlated?
Although I found one instance of a hint of Fodor’s argument in a 1990 paper A Theory of Content (see quote below), he didn’t actually begin to mount and formulate the argument until 2007 with Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings, and in 2008 with Against Darwinism, finally culminating with What Darwin Got Wrong with Piattelli-Palmarini.
“The Moral, to repeat, is that (within certain broad limits , presently to be defined) Darwin doesn’t care how you describe the intentional objects of frog snaps. All that matters for selection is how many flies the frog manages to ingest in consequence of its snapping, and this number comes out exactly the same whether one describes the function of the snap-guidance mechanisms with respect to a world that is populated by flies that are, de facto, ambient black dots, or with respect to a world that is populated by ambient black dots that are, de facto, flies.19 “Erst kommt das Fressen, denn kommt die Morale.” Darwin cares how many flies you eat, but not what description you eat them under.(Similarly, by the way, flies may be assumed to be indifferent to the descriptions under which frogs eat them.) So it’s no use looking to Darwin to get you out of the disjunction problem.”
Fodor then reformed this argument in WDGW, talking of “ambient black nuances” (ABNs). Fodor DID have a profound insight. He never said we can’t figure out the fit trait, only that we can’t use ToNS to do so since it can’t explain the trait it therefore doesn’t predict the trait. That quote obviously hit people the wrong way, and most critics don’t even understand the argument and it shows.
Can you name any hallmarks of adaptation? That is, what observation would confirm that a trait moved to fixation due to its contribution to fitness and not its being a byproduct of the trait?
The observation that the trait showed greater change than other traits over the same period of time.
How would we know that the fitness trait showed more selection?
Because it would have displayed more change.
Remember, the question was “PRIOR to performing the manipulation of traits (experimenting),
Observing the amount of change is not an experiment.
how does the ToNS predict which trait is fitness-enhancing when the traits are correlated?
By assigning fitness to the trait that showed the most change and by having a plausible just-so story.
There are no properties which are distinctive of adaptations, adaptation hypotheses are just-so stories. You need to specify an observation that’s expected on an account that T is an adaptation which isn’t expected on the assumption that it’s not a byproduct, fixed by drift, etc. It needs to be unexpected on a byproduct hypothesis. There are no observations expected in an adaptation assumption that aren’t expected under a byproduct assumption. Byproducts can show the same. They can be currently beneficial too. So there are NO observations expected on an adaptation account that aren’t expected on a byproduct account.
“it would have displayed more change”
How would this have been observed?
The fact of the matter is, you’re not arguing against the claim that NS isn’t sensitive to anything more than the correlation; if it doesn’t explain which of the two correlated traits move to fixation, then it doesn’t predict it.
it would have displayed more change”
How would this have been observed?
By measuring the average value of the traits before and after selection. If weight increased by 1 SD but height increased by 2 SD, then the former is likely the byproduct of selection for the latter.
The fact of the matter is, you’re not arguing against the claim that NS isn’t sensitive to anything more than the correlation; if it doesn’t explain which of the two correlated traits move to fixation, then it doesn’t predict it.
Where is this selection happening? If it’s human-led, then that doesn’t address the contention. Again, what you’re writing isn’t evidence for adaptation or that using NS a trait is selected-for over another trait.
Where is this selection happening?
In nature. For example we may observe that dolphins were selected for higher intelligence, but was intelligence the fitness trait for was it just a byproduct of a bigger brain being needed to provide warmth (thermoregulation). If it’s the latter, we’d expect brain size increase > intelligence increase; if it’s the former, then vice versa.
Again, what you’re writing isn’t evidence for adaptation
Yes it is because the average byproduct phenotype only changes as a function of its correlation with the fitness variable so unless that correlation is perfect, change in the fitness trait > change in the byproduct.
Any hallmark you think you can think of can be said about a byproduct. Only minds are sensitive to the distinction between counterfactuals. ANY claim that T was selected-for in virtue of its contribution to fitness runs into that fact. Counterfactuals can take into account the distinction between correlated traits, though counterfactuals only have their effects on the world through the mediation of minds. Evolution is insensitive to the distinction between counterfactuals and correlated traits.
Any hallmark you think you can think of can be said about a byproduct.
False. Fitness traits show more change in response to selection pressures than their byproducts. This is the simple consequence of the mathematics of correlation. If X has been selected to increase by 2 SD, and X (the fitness trait) correlates 0.5 with Y (the byproduct), then Y can be expected to increase by 0.5(2 SD) = 1 SD because the correlation equals the slope of the standardized regression line. So greater change (in response to selection) helps us distinguish fitness traits from their byproducts.
Only minds are sensitive to the distinction between counterfactuals. ANY claim that T was selected-for in virtue of its contribution to fitness runs into that fact. Counterfactuals can take into account the distinction between correlated traits, though counterfactuals only have their effects on the world through the mediation of minds. Evolution is insensitive to the distinction between counterfactuals and correlated traits.
I’ve given you a way of making such distinctions but since it doesn’t fit Fodor’s narrative, you don’t know what to do with it so you’re reverting to your talking points.
You’re merely saying that (1) we can know what is selected-for (this was never under contention) and (2) (where I take issue) that functional effect combined with selection means T was selected-for and thusly an adaptation. But this in no way shape or form shows that selection acted on the trait in question; it could have acted on a/the byproduct. Just because a creature was selected and they have T, it doesn’t follow that for instance there are niches for a creature with a specific phenotype. A correlation with fitness isn’t evidence that a trait is adaptive. The claim that T is an adaptation is verified independently iff it generates a prediction that DISCONFIRMS the hypothesis that T is a byproduct. Byproduct hypotheses generate the same predictions. All selectionist hypotheses are just-so stories.
You’ve merely given me a way for humans to discern, which isn’t and never has been under contention. The contention is that natural selection isn’t a mechanism since it’s not sensitive to counterfactual outcomes. Humans are sensitive to the distinction, but so-called natural selection isn’t.
“there is no need to distinguish T and T’. none. he said so himself. he said T’ was neutral. it may persist forever.”
T’ is “neutral” in considerations of the fitness of the organism. There IS FALSE! a need to distinguish the fit from the correlated trait, and WE can do so, but we can’t use the ToNS to do so, since there is no way for it to distinguish between correlated traits.
“there is no trait T. the trait is T + T’. the trait is whatever changes in the phenotype from a change in the genotype.”
T is the fitness trait while T’ FALSE! is the free rider trait that doesn’t contribute to fitness. The overall claim is that when traits are correlated, there is no way to break the correlation prior to performing an experiment. THEY DON’T NEED TO BE!
“no one claims every trait is an adaptation. no one ever did.”
It’s implies by hyper-adaptationists. AND IT DOESN’T EXIST. Have you read any recent EP papers EP IS PSEUDOSCIENCE. NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING.?
“why are there such traits as T + T’? fodor says so himself. because natural selection is constrained. like maybe it can’t do just T. it can’t do anything and everything. there is no organism which can shoot lasers out of its mouth, for example.”
Natural selection doesn’t originate traits, as I’m sure you know. it’s merely posited as the FALSE! mechanism that explains the fixation of traits in organisms.
“Fodor’s entire argument hinges upon a broad caricature of evolutionary theory which only seems to exist in his imagination.
Fodor’s response belies the fact that he is responding to a form of evolutionary theory that does not actually exist.”
This is wrong. YOU’RE WRONG. YOU’RE DISHONEST. YOU’RE EVIL. YOU’RE A CLOWN. His argument has considerations for anyone who claims that natural selection is a mechanism FALSE!, and many have made that claim. See eg Michael Ruse:
” Philosopher HE’S AN ANAL “PHSILOSOPHER” AND THEREFORE A MORON NO ONE CARE ABOUT. Michael Ruse writes in his book The Philosophy of Human Evolution (pg 16) “More precisely, Darwin tried to make reasonable or common sensical the very fact of evolution — all organisms have a common descent by natural processes from one or just a few simple forms — and at the same time provide a mechanism of change that speaks to final cause this mechanism being something Darwin called “natural selection.”
“… we know that he became an evolutionist and discovered the mechanism for which he is famous, natural selection, in the late 1830s… (Ruse, 2012: 16) IRRELEVANT
“… Darwin introduced his main mechanism of natural selection.” (Ruse, 2012: 18)” IRRELEVANT
We would know which trait was under more selection
“WE” DON’T NEED TO KNOW. GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD.
RR IS TOO STUPID TO COMMENT HERE IN ADDITION TO BEING DISHONEST AND EVIL.
BAN HIM!
STRAW MAN! STRAW MAN! STRAW MAN!
EXCUSE ME. THERE IS NO NEED FOR NATURAL SELECTION TO DISTINGUISH. NOT JUST NO NEED FOR “US” TO DISTINGUISH.
RR KEEPS REPEATING THIS LIKE A FUCKING RETARD.
HE HAS LIED AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN REGARDING HIS MOTIVATIONS.
HE HAS CLAIMED TO BE ACCEPTED TO PT SCHOOL. THIS REQUIRES THE GRE.
WHAT WERE HIS GRE SCORES?
LET ME PARAPHRASE. MAYBE THIS TIME YOU’RE GET IT. JUST KIDDING.
NO ONE HAS EVER CLAIMED THAT ANY NON SELF CONTRADICTORY SET OF TRAITS CAN BE PRODUCED VIA THE EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHM THAT IS LIFE.
NO ONE.
AGAIN. RR’S TOTAL INABILITY TO APPRECIATE HIS OWN LOW IQ IS OBSCENE. THE ONLY EXPLANATION IS PATHOLOGICAL NARCISSISM AS MENTIONED BY SANTO. THIS EXPLAINS HIS HAIR AND BODYBUILDING ALSO.
Are you OK?
EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHMS ARE UBIQUITOUS IN OPTIMIZATION.
NOTICE THE “ALGORITHM”.
BUT MUH INTENSIONAL (WITH AN “S”) CONTEXT AND THE ONLY THING THAT CAN DECIDE IS MUH INTENTION (WITH A “T”).
STFU YOU FAT [DELETED BY PEEPEE] MORON!
FODOR WAS A FRAUD.
RR IS A FRAUD.
ALL ANAL PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENTS NEED TO BE SHUT DOWN.
IF THEIR RESIDENT MORONS CAN DO MATHEMATICAL LOGIC, THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE, OR LINGUISTICS THEY CAN FIND EMPLOYMENT IN THOSE FIELDS.
RR IS NOT OKAY! GRE SCORE?
DARWIN SAYS: LIFE IS AN EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHM. IT IS LITERALLY A MATHEMATICAL OBJECT WITH CONSTRAINTS. BUT HE SAYS IT IN A LOT OF WORDS RATHER THAN IN MATHS.
RR/FODOR: EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHMS ARE IMPOSSIBLE.
MUGABE: UNTERMENSCH CUNT!
i apologize for using bold all caps…in 12 pt type!
if it were up to me it would’ve been:
1. 24 pt ALL CAPS!
2. FLASHING MULTICOLORED NEON!
but i don’t know how to do that in html.
RR is asking NS to act like a physical law, which is to distinguish between any number of future states and show why that state must have occur from the current state, and vice versa. By definition, if any organism can pass on its traits and is restricted by physical laws, it must behave in a (probabilistically) deterministic way in passing on its traits, and NS is the only way traits could do that and evolution could happen. Adaptation of physical organisms to the physical world can only happen through NS.
If he wants to posit that something besides nonphysical laws are the primary drivers of evolution, like intelligent design, or “situationism”, he is free but he must realize he will be positing that physical laws are not what organisms are adapting to, but some other thing completely out of the realm of empiricism (up to now)… and even then he would have to show how physical laws factor in his worldview and are less important than whatever else is driving evolution.
This is nonsense. Situationism has absolutely nothing to do with natural selection or evolution. Physical laws aren’t the type of laws (laws of selection) needed for NS to be able to distinguish correlation from cause.
*besides physical laws
“This is nonsense. Situationism has absolutely nothing to do with natural selection or evolution.”
I guess not. I can’t keep track of your buzzwords because your worldview is that reality is fundamentally unknowable, and hence you aren’t required to have a coherent worldview. Shame on me for trying to make sense of it.
“Physical laws aren’t the type of laws (laws of selection) needed for NS to be able to distinguish correlation from cause.”
Learn how to read. NS is a consequence of physical laws. That’s literally the point of it. It shows how agent-less physical laws leads to something that looks “designed”.
Hahaha
“NS is a consequence of physical laws” – so what’s the answer to the question:
Prior to performing the manipulation of traits (experimenting), how does the ToNS predict which trait is fitness-enhancing when the traits are correlated?
“and that’s why people call these arguments “Jewish”. They’re well-formed linguistic traps by those who believe more in their own ability to convince themselves than to actually find out what is true.
Of course it is helpful to concretize things into specific words. It helps clarity of thought… but when used to make false conclusions that have serious metaphysical consequences, it is basically evil.”
” RR you argue on a blog on the corner of the internet about fringe things, you’re evil, and Jews too”
Haha. Lol, lmao, even.
“Prior to performing the manipulation of traits (experimenting), how does the ToNS predict which trait is fitness-enhancing when the traits are correlated?”
The ToNS doesn’t “predict” because it isn’t an agent, it is the consequence of physical laws.
The predictions that come from applying it would be for example… if an organism doesn’t have a mouth to eat or any other aperture to abosrb nutrients, it would die.
“” RR you argue on a blog on the corner of the internet about fringe things, you’re evil, and Jews too”
Haha. Lol, lmao, even.”
It’s evil to not challenge your own assumptions but try to bludgeon people over the head constantly with false ideas. I’ve repeatedly shown you how intelligence has a measurable aspect, how dualism leads to all sorts of weird and incoherent conclusions, and now that NS is implied by physical laws, but you don’t listen.
But yes, you don’t have the huge platform that others do so I wouldn’t say it’s a problem compared to other people. But clearly you believe in your false ideas and are somewhat obsessed with promoting them and live them out, which is not good. It’s more the bludgeoning and obsessive part that worries me. Ideas do have consequences or else we’d be arguing for nothing.
It doesn’t generate testable predictions about the expected evolution of organisms or populations. It’s posited as an explanatory mechanism, but that claim fails.
Ive challenged my own assumptions for years which is how I came to the views I have today. Psychological traits have no “measurable aspects” because they’re immaterial. But we’re not discussing that now.
If you think I’m “evil” for arguing on a blog on the corner of the internet, hahaha.
IQ tests are nothing like thermometers, which were actually verified independently of the instrument first used to measure it. “IQ” is nothing like that, since they’re “validated” by other, non-valid tests. You said IQ points are a unit of measurement, that’s ridiculous. No psychological trait is like a stick that has a specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit.
“It doesn’t generate testable predictions about the expected evolution of organisms or populations. It’s posited as an explanatory mechanism, but that claim fails.”
It does generate predictions however. Do you see any dogs surviving in the wild with no eyes? All the organisms that are incapable of surviving for obvious reasons are generally dead very quickly.
It doesn’t need to generate predictions about the expected evolution of organisms because that would be tantamount to a complete theory of biological evolution.
“If you think I’m “evil” for arguing on a blog on the corner of the internet, hahaha.”
I’m saying it’s evil to repeatedly disregard other people’s valid arguments against your claims.
Anyway, again, there is no such thing as a purely physical object, and all physical objects measurements are made relative to other measurements and through the lens of subjective minds. So all measurements are validated by other subjective observations. Your only arguments that can’t be made for any measurement is that intelligence is that we don’t have agreed upon best way to measure it, because that would require every person to be equally exposed to an IQ question, and we don’t have an agreed upon weight for specific questions. We have a specified measured object, but not an agreed upon measurement unit, but we do agree that there are valid relative measurements.
We know from everyday life that mental ability differs depending on our mood, and that mental ability changes with age. Furthermore, we know from a lot of empirical evidence that organisms with smaller encephalization quotients exhibit less intelligence. We can assume that large brains that are huge resource drains and are very vulnerable would be culled by nature if they did not have any benefit. We can also apriori imagine what it is to know everything we know, plus more things, which could be viewed as almost synonymous with intelligence (though this would probably be closer to crystallized intelligence). We also know that there is consistency to the universe, and hence one can understand more or less about the universe and hence be viewed as more or less intelligent. We also all apriori believe that reality has knowable aspects, and hence it stands to reason that one can know more about reality than others. To say otherwise is basically nihilism (your beliefs apparently).
Along with other experiences and knowledge, all of this indicates that intelligence has a measurable aspect.
It needs to generate predictions of which trait is selected. Fodor showed it can’t.
The arguments don’t defeat mine.
You didn’t say anything that invalidates the theory of measurement needed for psychological traits. You’re assuming that questionnaires/tests are measured, and you’re assuming that what’s immaterial can be measured, when it doesn’t have a physical basis. What’s the specified measured object and how is like the stick?
P1. rr has ridiculous (HEAVY METAL SATAN WORSHIP) hair.
P2. rr is a manlet.
P3. rr is a bodybuilder.
C. rr is a closet homosexual.
SE. rr has had sex with a negress many times.
SE = Supporting Evidence.
Haha I’m not a manlet.
“It needs to generate predictions of which trait is selected. Fodor showed it can’t.”
yes it does insofar as that which is bad for survival gets weeded out.
“The arguments don’t defeat mine.”
Yes they do. You think saying “mental is irreducible to the physical” is still a good argument when I show you that all physical measurements and percepts are literally through subjective observations?
“You didn’t say anything that invalidates the theory of measurement needed for psychological traits. ”
Yes I did, I showed many accepted aspects of reality that would lead to problem-solving ability being measurable.
“You’re assuming that questionnaires/tests are measured,”
Obviously they are…
“and you’re assuming that what’s immaterial can be measured, when it doesn’t have a physical basis. ”
That was the point of showing you that nothing is purely physical or absolute in the sense you believe. Therefore your idea that the immaterial cannot be measured is proven false on its face because everything about any measurement – object, measurer, and operation of measurement – is abstract. If one abstract thing can be measured, like a stick, other abstract things are possibly measurable.
“What’s the specified measured object and how is like the stick?”
A hexagon has more sides than a pentagon. The difference is number of sides. How is that like a stick if neither have a larger area? Because we’ve decided “sides” was a useful unit of measurement in geometry, and it clearly has an objective basis in mathematics.
That’s also intensional just like selection for so it doesn’t work.
You haven’t shown anything.
They’re not measured—none of the necessary tenets for metrication are met.
Questionnaires aren’t measures… Scales in the psychometric sense aren’t measures. I don’t even need irreducibility arguments to reject psychometry.
Sticks are in physical space, I’ve already articulated why a stick can be measured.
Wellwjays the specified measured object?
“That’s also intensional just like selection for so it doesn’t work.
You haven’t shown anything.”
False. You literally don’t see anything out in the world that couldn’t survive out in the world, and physical laws are deterministic so insofar as organisms are physical they must survive in a deterministic manner and NS is the only way anything could survive physically.
“They’re not measured—none of the necessary tenets for metrication are met.”
I’ve already shown that by the same standards of measurement we use for sides, space, etc. intelligence is measurable, except that we do not have a unit of measurement that corresponds one-to-one with some fundamental physical particle.
“Questionnaires aren’t measures… Scales in the psychometric sense aren’t measures. I don’t even need irreducibility arguments to reject psychometry.”
Yes they are measured, that’s the whole point of tests. They are relative measurements, but still measured.
“Sticks are in physical space, I’ve already articulated why a stick can be measured.”
Sides exist in physical space and are countable and hence measurable, but they don’t actually have a larger physical extension. So your idea that something has to be on a specific physical spatial axis that human bodies exist on to be measured is false (even though physical spatial axes are abstract anyway)
“Wellwjays the specified measured object?”
Your mother
None of that answers the question that needs to be answered.
What’s the specified measured object and object of measurement? Even IF I were to concede that those two tenets hold, how can there be a unitless measure?
Tests and questionnaires can obtain numerical values therefore something is being measured—that’s the general argument from psychometricians. The test was destined first AND THEN it was decided to see what it “measures” by correlating it with other tests. If the correlation is high, the test is kept and if it’s low it’s thrown out. Again, thermometers/temperature are the best example I know of in which a tool was constructed for a purpose and then validated independently of the tool to measure in the first place. The same IS NOT true for psychometrics.
There are measurement units for physical things. There aren’t measument units for extraphysical things. There is a specified measured object for physical things. There is no specified measured object for extraphysical things. Therefore extraphysical things can’t be measured.
At the basic level I would guess intelligence could simply be being able to process information which would basically be noting distinctions within a certain syntax or system. Basically a computer that can do more operations is faster, or a computer that can read through more data and do more calculations.
Intelligence can be processing, or generative (creative). A computer would simply be processing, while an agent with free will might be both. Processing assumes that the processor is not effecting the outcome and is simply deterministically receiving input. Generation would involve affecting the outcome, and possibly creating a new system that would change the type of processing fundamentally. (As in, processing 1s and 0s is a different type of processing than separate letters like ABCs)
But information distinctions always exist regardless of the system/form/syntax, and assuming there is any sort of consistency and predictability in the system of reality, we could assume that a larger/faster processor would be more “intelligent” because it would be capable of making more important, useful distinctions.
If I think of a car, and you think of a car, we might have different levels of knowledge about it, and different associations, and the car mechanic probably has a lot more separate distinctive properties associated with the cars then the average person does.
I used to define intelligence as how EFFICIENTLY you process information. So even though a computer can beat us at chess, it has to process a lot more data to do so which is inefficient.
There were studies in humans showing that intelligent people metabolize less glucose when thinking, meaning their brains work less hard.
But ultimately I prefer to define intelligence as behavioral efficiency rather than processing efficiency though I assume the two are related.
Probably the most basic behavioral efficiency is taking a straight line to reach a destination
“None of that answers the question that needs to be answered.”
working memory is the calculator of the brain.
but understanding is the causal model we have of reality.
we can predict what will happen but to affect the outcome we must manipulate data in our heads to know options.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branching_factor
“None of that answers the question that needs to be answered.”
The number of (useful, logical) distinctions a mind could make/apprehend would be what G was measuring. Since people have different models of reality and somewhat different ways of ascertaining “distinct qualities” in real life due to environment and nature, we would test them on the most culturally-fair items (so basically, something most akin to barebones logical reasoning without any cultural assumptions), which would also be most equally novel to the test taker. In case of flukes or practice effects, we would use as many questions as possible and continue to change them (but still use only the least culturally loaded and close to logical reasoning, which could probably lead to an infinite amount of questions).
Of course this is generally what is already tried in psychometrics but it could certainly be improved.
“I used to define intelligence as how EFFICIENTLY you process information. So even though a computer can beat us at chess, it has to process a lot more data to do so which is inefficient.
There were studies in humans showing that intelligent people metabolize less glucose when thinking, meaning their brains work less hard.
But ultimately I prefer to define intelligence as behavioral efficiency rather than processing efficiency though I assume the two are related.
Probably the most basic behavioral efficiency is taking a straight line to reach a destination”
I would assume efficiency is a product of having the right algorithms for a specific problem. It also seems more of a biologically emergent property than the most basic way of factoring intelligence. I would still include a brain capable of more complex thought that required more nutrients like glucose to be more intelligent of course.
What’s the specified measured object, the object of measurement and the measurement unit?
“The number of (useful, logical) distinctions a mind could make/apprehend would be what G was measuring.”
Two assumptions here you have yet to substantiate.
“Of course this is generally what is already tried in psychometrics but it could certainly be improved.”
Another assumption here you have yet to substantiate, even in the face of lethal objections (that psychometrics isn’t measurement; Uher, Michell, Trendler).
“I would still include a brain capable of more complex thought that required more nutrients like glucose to be more intelligent of course.”
Mereological fallacy. Reductionist fMRI claim about localization in the brain.
“There were studies in humans showing that intelligent people metabolize less glucose when thinking, meaning their brains work less hard.”
Conflicting results, showing increased and decreased brain metabolism in people with high RAPM scores. Nevertheless, such changes are small and hardly matter. It’s merely a neuroreductionist Haier take; neuroreduction fails.
“What’s the specified measured object, the object of measurement and the measurement unit?”
Again, I just said, the amount of logically valid distinctions held by the mind.
“Two assumptions here you have yet to substantiate.”
How the fuck am I supposed to substantiate something that complex when the average mind holds millions or more distinctions overall?
“Another assumption here you have yet to substantiate, even in the face of lethal objections (that psychometrics isn’t measurement; Uher, Michell, Trendler).”
Again I just gave you something to measure. Number of distinctions is valid, certainly exists, and can be counted.
Whether you believe it is up to you, as it is a very abstract notion and we don’t really understand exactly how minds form/learn distinct qualities. But you certainly can’t dismiss it out of hand.
“I would still include a brain capable of more complex thought that required more nutrients like glucose to be more intelligent of course.”
“Mereological fallacy. Reductionist fMRI claim about localization in the brain.”
I never said the mind was reducible to the brain, but given that the brain is required for the mind, it stands to reason that more brain or better structured brain makes a more intelligent mind. Everything we know about the relative brain size/efficiency compared to the relative knowledge, learning, thinking, problem-solving, etc. indicates that.
Answer each one like: Object of measurement is X, specified measured object is X, measurement unit is X.
The assumptions you have substantiated are (1) g as a brain property and (2) The specified measured object, object of measurement and the measurement unit for g.
How does that defeat the arguments they levy? I’ll formalize one of them later.
The last quote was for PP. And there is conflicting evidence for the claim in question.
“you want to stay in an echo chamber listening to the same thoughts and views”
Say the zombie clown who stays 10000% of his time brainwashing himself following, reading and writing or replying only the mostly nonsensical material of his specific ideological sect …
I’ve provided here some examples about how diverse many of my views are. In political terms, i combine views from an extreme side to another. Even about my views about behavior, i posted a good example of possible mostly (not totally) environmental causation showing how open i’m to detect environmental factors and accept them as a variably relevant influences depending the trait or behavior.
But again
I’m writing to a living brain dead and now a proud daddy. And i cant because i know exactly what he will say.
PP: hahahahaha i love it. I want more, more. Next post i will be how my blog became one of the most popular among hbdears.
I cant because i dont want anymore. Is a sterile attempt debate
“Say the zombie clown who stays 10000% of his time brainwashing himself following, reading and writing or replying only the mostly nonsensical material of his specific ideological sect …”
You say I brainwash myself because there are some things we disagree on. How irrational. I enjoy commenting here and discussing things.
“I cant because i dont want anymore. Is a sterile attempt debate”
Why do you keep making new comments to talk about me?
the zombie clown is a PATHOLOGICAL NARCISSIST + MENTALLY RETARDED.
STARVE OR GAS?
You say I brainwash myself because there are some things we disagree on FALSE!. How irrational. I enjoy commenting here and discussing things. TED BUNDY ENJOYED KILLING PIPO.
“I cant because i dont want anymore. Is a sterile attempt debate”
Why do you keep making new comments to talk about me? IN THE HOPE THAT YOU WILL BE BANNED LIKE JIMMY AND AFRO. BUT PEEPEE NEVER HAD SEX WITH THEM.
the answer is GAS. because starving him takes too much self-control and cruelty on the part the other commenters.
Fucking cringe.
the story i’ve heard is that IQ comes from the notion that mental age and age in years may be different…and thus that “mental age” is a thing.
this has been criticized and silenced by the people rr quotes…but the term IQ remains.
actually interesting because…
i myself went through a phase where i was like rr in terms of metaheuristic…
arguments and definitions…
i was 13.
rr is 34 or 35 if rr88 is true.
i thought wittgenstein was the bomb.
pill/peepee: well then how can you believe in the catholic blah blah blah…
mugabe: i don’t. i don’t believe in your version of catholicism. and my God is NOT a jealous God…he used to be…but he isn’t any more…i don’t dis-believe in islam…i don’t dis-believe in orthodox judaism…
anal philosopher: i’m cool because i’m an atheist like fodor.
mugabe: esoteric and exoteric are a thing. and it has NOTHINGA to do with the “occult” or alistair crowley. occultists need to be GASSED.
it’s even one of the 613!
thou shalt not allow a witch to live.
I said: there is a huge censorship against any direct criticism towards jews. For example, 99% of the talk about subsaharian african slave trade (and only about it despising all other groups’s victims throughout human history) is about how white europeans did this, barely or never mentioning: african tribes themselves, muslims and jewish participation (very likely in muslim side too). Of course, white europeans had a central role on this own side. I mean, not white europeans as a group, neither jews or muslims or african black themselves (i need to say that because people tend to think we are talking about every individual from a specified group).
But most of the time, whites AND current whites are being blamed for things some of their vague ancestrals did and it’s just like blaming the son for his father’s crimes.
Like, while some few white europeans were enslaving and shopping humans in and from Africa to Americas or killing and enslaving native americans, majority of whites were been practically enslaved by their own “elites”, like salaried slaves.
Retard: blablabla you wrong.
I tried hard but nobody can’t win this level of insanity.
“For example, 99% of the talk about subsaharian african slave trade (and only about it despising all other groups’s victims throughout human history) is about how white europeans did this, barely or never mentioning: african tribes themselves, muslims and jewish participation (very likely in muslim side too). Of course, white europeans had a central role on this own side. I mean, not white europeans as a group, neither jews or muslims or african black themselves (i need to say that because people tend to think we are talking about every individual from a specified group). ”
Just shut the fuck up and admit you’re wrong. You said a PROMINENT ROLE in the slave trade. There are volumes written on Jews and the Civil War and the African slave trade. People mention those others ALL THE TIME—if you’re just that racist and ignorant to what’s being discussed, then just do some damn reading.
You’re just a mixed-race racist Brazilian with an identity crisis.
completely retarded
and
EVIL
Exactly what I thought.
PP laughed hard reading this. I sent a photo to him/her one time.
But EVEN if it was true, i doesn’t mean what i said is a lie.
Hypothetically
1. Santocool is a self hating mixed race
2. He believes in jewish conspiracy
3. So jewish conspiracy is wrong.
Yes, Mugabe maybe is right.
You are PP
Or PP is the mother of your baby trophy
Has no other reason to keep this ridiculous theatre.
Or PP is being benefited with it, if she is a capitalistic bitch like Oprah.
Just as I thought.
Why this censorship??
1. There is an enormous disproportion of jews on media, academia and government and especially in the most important places in each hierarchy.
2. Ah priori it’s not a problem per se but has been extremely common when a group reach the power in disproportional ways start to attack any criticism towards them.
3. Because they are fewer they need numerous “allies’ from other groups to help them to reach the power. They did that with catholic groups in the US like irish and italian.
4. Jews no doubt in disproportional ways are disloyal to their host countries because they keep having a double nationality and tend to be more loyal to their ethno religious group. So they pretend to be an inside group who just want the best of the country but in reality they behave like a double national group who have with their numerous gentile allies apply some very radical policies to change the racial makeup of western nations.
They not only support but also work actively to impose these policies even though NO NATION has any real obligation to have a receptive immigration policy.
None of these changes are natural or spontaneous.
4. When people talk #hollywoodtoowhite none on mainstream media talk about how enormously disproportional white ashkenazi jews are in this industry. When people criticize capitalism most of the time they don’t talk how prominent is the jewish involvement in it, thriving in their more natural place, the market. It’s all about “white”. When people criticize western colonialism and or economic exploitation today in developing countries and also inside so-called rich countries they most of the time talk about “white”, while jewish role in all of it is never shy and today even more prominent.
Sacred cow group strategy will not work forever. Actually, fighting against all these lies, exposing them, could help non-involved jews not being targeted or accused or even genocided again.
If we continue in this suicidal path, fascism will take the power again. Because things are becoming quickly insustainable.
But
You
Don’t
Care
PP please
Exactly. Shut the fuck up and ramble on and on about things I’ve never said anything about. You’re WRONG about Jews and slavery.
You’re wrong about Whites, Blacks, Jews, and historical injustices. Clearly your ideas are not making the world better since we’ve been giving aid and welfare and making amends for years just to get shot by “systemically aggrieved socially constructed black people”.
Hahaha
IF YOU “UNDERSTAND FODOR’S ARGUMENT” YOU HAVE A LOW IQ.
\
why are you guys so political? its 2023 the world is ending enjoy yourselves while you can instead of fighting about politics.