There’s a stereotype that IQ tests just measure book smarts and yet intelligence itself evolved because of it’s practical real World survival value. Thus I’m always fascinated when a bookish high IQ nerd decides to compete in a decidedly non-nerdy field like politics. Will their lack of charisma make them look like a dork, or will their intelligence allow them to adapt to even the most unlikely of situations.
Ramaswamy has a lot going against him. He is dark skinned, foreign named and Hindu in a party that is Evangelical Christian and anti-immigration. He’ll never be able to compete with Trump when it comes to charisma and ability to connect with working class whites, however by becoming Trump’s most vocal and articulate supporter and vowing to pardon Trump of everything if he ever becomes President, he is gradually emerging as the most popular non-Trump candidate and inoculating himself from attacks from Trump himself.
He also took the disadvantage of being a perceived foreigner in a nativist movement and cleverly turned it to his advantage by putting a brown face on Trump’s fan base thus making them feel less racist.
By skillfully and shamelessly sucking up to Trump and calling him the greatest President of the century, he was able to get the crowd screaming so hysterically on his side that anti-Trump Chris Christie was nearly booed off the stage.
But Governor Nikki Haley was having none of it. Before this arrogant young Brahman came along, she was the top Indian American in the GOP.
Just as Ramaswarmy had turned the crowd against Chris Christie for being anti-Trump, Haley turned the crowd against Ramaswarmy for being insufficiently pro-Israel, scolding him for thinking Israel needs America; arguing it’s America that needs Israel! The Israel loving crowd went wild.
So what is his IQ?
In 2016 Forbes ranked Ramaswarmy as one of the 40 richest U.S. entrepreneurs under 40. Virtually everyone on the list was born between 1977 and 1993 and all but two were men. Assuming there are 32 million American men born in those years, Ramaswarmy’s 24th place ranking puts his self-made wealth around the one in 1.3 million level for American men in his age range. If there were a perfect correlation between IQ and life-time earnings, this would equate to an IQ 72 points above the U.S. mean, but because the correlation between IQ and permanent income in men is 0.48, his expected IQ is 72(0.48) = 35 points above the U.S. mean or 135 (U.S. norms).
However even this is likely an underestimate because Ramaswarmy is much more educated than the average young gazillionaire. While about 15% of the young and self-made super rich attended Harvard, Ramaswarmy not only graduated, but did so in STEM, and then on top of that, got a JD from Yale Law giving him the most impressive credentials of anyone on the 40 person list (though one other guy went to Caltech).
If there were a perfect correlation between IQ and education, we’d expect the most educated person among the 40 under 40 to be 30 IQ points above the group mean, but since the correlation between IQ and education among same age peers is 0.7, and slips to 0.4 when we look at people of similar income levels, his expected IQ would be 30(0.4) = 12 points above the mean of a group which is already 35 points above the U.S. mean.
In other words the expected IQ of a U.S. under-40 near-billionaire with two Ivy League degrees is 147 (U.S. norms) or 146 (white norms) and until we get some actual psychometric data, this is a good guess for Ramaswarmy.
This is one in a 1000 level intellect.
Pumpkin Person 
My income is 40 points below expected for my IQ.
But I do not think anyone knows for sure what is wrong with me.
Doctor Uses Brain Scans in Diagnoses of Mental Illness
Just enjoy your life. Watch movies. Eat good food, get plenty of fresh air
But don’t let anyone exploit you. Don’t let anyone use you.
If you get lonely you always have us
50% of your problems are autism and not being able to communicate with people. 50% is from psychiatric issues.
I think that is a very balanced and fair assessment.
Sitting in front of a computer wont solve your issues. Visit a therapist, and take medication if prescribed, take morning walks , eat fruits.
Yale law school is a big thing. Someone said that it’s the single most selective institution in the country! Average lsat is 175 there. Triple nine society uses 173 as a cutoff, so that is where they would click 1/1000 level. He probably falls somewhere above that, especially since Asians usually need to score higher than comparable whites. I bet he’s 1/2000 iq level or better.
Wiki:
‘He is a vegetarian.[25][61] Ramaswamy has called himself an animal rights activist, writing that it is “wrong to kill sentient animals for culinary pleasure.” ‘
I mean, then why aren’t you vegan? The dairy and egg industries torture and kill sentient beings. OK, I know, it’s because you’re vegetarian because of your religion and you can’t think beyond that. Anyway, still, it’s positive that he said that. I doubt redneck Republicans appreciate it.
Because vegan is very left wing charged while vegetarian primarily by religious reason is right wingly.
what makes you think he eats eggs? brahmins usually dont eat eggs even if they are vegetarian. they are mostly lacto-vegetarian kind of vegetarian.
Hard to believe he’s straight. He might have married a woman for his image.
Hahaha. He does kind of give off a gay vibe alright. But many americans have that. THey are very social people compared to europeans.
I mean, Indians are often not very masculine but he goes beyond that. Also, his eyebrows.
put indian on an american diet and they can be more masculine than americans.
” Arrogant young brahmin’?
So much hatred for this guy peeps? I will understand if you hate him if he is pro abortion and anti-climate. Hate people for their principles and what they do not what they are.
Another note: You westerners accused Indians of being casteist but it is you who bring a person’s caste into the discussion if that person is indian.
huh? I don’t have any hatred for him. But from the perspective of Hali and others he may come across as an arrogant young usurper.
Firstly…. I made an error…I wanted to say hate him if he is anti-abortion not wanted to say pro.
How he is a usurper.? And what does his caste got to do with anything. Nothing right? Then don’t call him by his caste. And who is hali?
PP was writing a dramatic version of how he imagines Nikki Haley feels about Vivek, not recording his own views. From her perspective, Vivek is an obnoxious self-promoter who hasn’t put time in like she has.
So apparently he is Peter Thiel’s man. He would definitely be more libertarian than the others. The only good thing that means is that hes against Israel’s lebensraum wars and maybe will change thew drug war policies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivek_Ramaswamy
Ouch, he thinks Martin Skreli was a legit businessman hahaha. He might be on the psychopathic spectrum actually. I’m talking about both Skreli and Vivek.
If youre a libertarian you are either full on autistic or psychopathic like the Koch Brothers and you ‘believe’ in it because its pragmatic for your bank account.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/aug/28/study-casts-doubt-on-neanderthal-flower-burial-theory
LOL neaderthals were more civilised than blacks hahahaha. They buried their dead with rituals and organised burials. Although this article disproves the theory they used flowers with their burials, they did did use sticks.
African tribes bury their dead with rituals and organized burials.
This information is easily verifiable.
As are the symptoms of Autism.
Philo is dumb.
No they don’t. They bascially dump the carcasses into the wilderness.
Were you bullied as a child, lol? Why do you just live in perpetual denial?
I feel like I could post an article refuting your dumb claims, and you’d just be like, “No, that’s not a real ritual burial, even though they literally dug a 10-foot hole, dumped the body in there, and performed a ceremonial prayer.”
Its common knowledge that blacks value life so little that basically they even eat the bodies.
Phil, It is common knowledge they bury their dead like other humans too. They are able to run countries/businesses on their own and you think they are primitive than neanderthals?
Neanderthals were not primitive.
Even thought i find Pill exagerating things, he is totally wrong. Yes, they are capable to run countries but most of countries being governed by them are very dysfunctional.
He IS NOT totally. Irc
“He IS NOT totally.”
He totally fucking is. Having a dysfunctional government doesn’t mean you don’t know how to bury people.
Philly is a moron.
Santo, most carribean countries are run by blacks and they are very functional despite drugs going into them from other countries.
And Neanderthals were primitive than their contemporaries…the anatomically modern humans who were our ancestors. That is why I implied they were primitive.
Very tiny caribbean countries. They are exception to the rule. But very good rulers are rare.
Erichtonius:
“He totally fucking is. Having a dysfunctional government doesn’t mean you don’t know how to bury people”
Yes. That’s why i think he is exagerating here but not totally about the rarity of good 100% black governments if good non-black rulers are not the rule too.
Santo, I posted a reply to your comment down below by mistake. Pls rake a look.
“There’s a stereotype that IQ tests just measure book smarts and yet intelligence itself evolved because of it’s practical real World survival value. Thus I’m always fascinated when a bookish high IQ nerd decides to compete in a decidedly non-nerdy field like politics. Will their lack of charisma make them look like a dork, or will their intelligence allow them to adapt to even the most unlikely of situations.”
Always deliver simplistic and IQistic explanations. Sad.
Doesnt learn. Doesnt adapt and actualize from new (and not so new) legitimate evidence.
It’s not a “stereotype”.
Politics is not “decidedly non-nerdy”, it’s more nerdy than sports.
Always deliver simplistic and IQistic explanations. Sad.
Because the blog is about IQ so that will always be the focus.
Politics is not “decidedly non-nerdy”, it’s more nerdy than sports.
But Trump was very non-nerdy and anti-intellectual so it’s interesting to see a high IQ nerd try to figure out how to take his place.
This blog is pretending to be about human intelligence and psychology, not just IQ. That’s why you’ve talked about mental disorders, evolution…
But on left wing side nerd types are way more common. Anti intelectualism is really a thing among some large subgroups of far right but pseudo intelectualism is also common and even more in left wing side. Remember that nerds dont need to fit into the classical stereotype (Bill Gates typo).
Anti intelectualism = appeal for emotion, instincts, subjectivity
Pseudo intelectualism = pretend not appealing for emotion, instincts, subjectivity
Generally speaking presidents have been well above average in IQ. Trump is an anomaly in that regard but he makes up for it with a stratospheric social IQ.
Biden has a higher social IQ than Trump.
That’s why he’s president, and Trump isn’t.
peeps, what makes you think vivek is a nerd?
Shutup Melo. You are so dumb its unbelievable.
I’m right, though.
Biden has dementia. Even in his prime his social IQ was good, but nowhere near trump.
Biden does not have dementia. That’s fake news garbage.
Trump is not a social genius. He only convinces retards. The rest just see him as a means to an end.
Santo, Botswana, South Africa etc are some.big countries too run by them. And they also run hundreds of thousands of businesses in those countries.
Dont tell me neanderthals can do all this.
Name,
You can’t draw any conclusive thing about neanderthals not being capable to behave like us.
Exceptions exist.
Botswana is not demographically bigger and South África, despising all of its infrastructure thanks for white colonists there, is a nightmare. And i said 100% black governments.
I mean “we can’t…”
Santo, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Botswana are all geographically bigger and demographically bigger than the Caribbean countries. And it not conclusive enough for you that Neanderthals would not have been able to run modern countries and businesses? And neanderthal primitivity compared to modern blacks is not conclusive to you but modern blacks primitivity compared to neanderthals is conclusive to you?
Name, you are such an idiot. All those countries you mentioned are failed states propped up by western loans and grants. Most of Africa would descend into barbarianism without western money. The caribbean too. Just because white people bribe blacks not to butcher each other isn’t an achievment.
You are comparing Barbados, a tiny island with less than 1 million inhabitants with countries with populations no bigger than 50 million people. What’s matter here is demographic difference, number of people to be governed, controlled, organized.
You are saying something seems impossible, comparing a population who existed thousand of years ago with a modern human population, said, among the least cognitively evolved of all today… and placing this extinct and pre historical population in completely incompatible scenarios. It’s just dumb. Of course, it would look more primitive, but they existed thousand years ago while subsaharian blacks are existing now and in an objective comparison, it’s what i already said above, what everyone who is not zombified can see.
Botswana has 2 million people and Zambia and Zimbabwe 15 million ~
Their socioeconomic indicators are good IF compared with other subsaharian african countries.
Pill, you are the only id*ot on this site. Do you have any evidence of what you said or are you just speaking out of your *ss ?
Well you named half of africa as a success story which proves you don’t know anything. You don’t need evidence for a logical statement dumbass.
Zimbabwe, zambia, botswana are half of Africa? That is your logic?
Those countries are failed states. Hahaha you are delusional.
Who told you that you buff*on? Just because some country is not a first world country doesn’t mean it is failed.
Even when they are extremely poor, corrupted and violent?? Blame the whitey??
They literally can’t even clean their own water, maintain law and order, have a functioning government [redacted by pp, 2023-09-06]
Santo, not black countries are extremely poor and violent which I gave examples.of. And Phil the countries I mentioned can do that.
No they can’t. Not without billions of western money. Half their society is run by white women working in NGOs.
You are wrong. If they cannot run….you will say see they are primitive. If they can run…you will say whiteys run it.
”Santo, not black countries are extremely poor and violent which I gave examples.of”
This is one of the most ignorant comments I’ve ever seen here.
Where are you dislearning basic geography???
Santo, it was a typo. I meant not “all” black countries are violent.
“Santo, not black countries are extremely poor and violent which I gave examples”
And great examples??
santo, what?
Are you going to let me state that [redacted by pp, 2023-04-28]
No I think that’s incredibly inappropriate.
Why is it? Tucker asked him the same thing in the interview last week.
You’re not Tucker.
I actually don’t know anyone who watched that interview. I think more people were interested in the debates, which is why Trump took a dip in the polls.
PP is specialist analysing political psychopathy.
Vivek is a scammer so you can revise his IQ downward.
He reminds me a bit of George Santos.
Exactly.
Santo what do you think of Santos? You are both brazilian. Have you heard stories about Santos being gay?
Most of politicians who are bolsonaro supporters are pathological liars like him. No surprises to me.
His sexuality is completely irrelevant here.
Well if you are a bolsonaro and Trump supporter and a pretend conservative, being a guy the dresses up for drag shows is very controversial.
Lots of them have double lives.
Not so controversial if you embrace individual liberalism ideology.
99% of hard right supporters will think youre degenerate if you do drag shows. Its about tolerance, not philosophical beliefs.
You are referring to a subset of the extreme right.
What do you think Nick Bostrom’s IQ is?
Don’t know enough about him to say but my guess is at least 150. Not only is he a World class scholar but his head is huge.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/nick-bostrom-oxford-philosopher-admits-writing-racist-n-word-email
What a thought crime!! He is a criminal!!!
Do immigrants like Ramaswamy make america better or worse?
They make it better but for themselves.
Wealthier the individual, more he contribute for himself than for society as a whole.
Phil, It depends on to whom they are making it better or worse. Did whites who were/are actually immigrants to america make it better for native americans?
You should probably email mugabe and tell him your blog is back
He must know by now. And if he doesn’t know it’s because something is keeping him offline.
why do u want his comments so badly here? dont you have a life outside? that you want to spend your life reading his ridiculous comments?
I prefer his comments than RR’s garbage.
I don’t. He rarely adds anything of value to this site.
He can be very funny.
most of it is crap mixed with a little bit of funny. most of his comments are not related to article, are same right-wing cr*p, same crap about jews, same white is great and black people s*ck cr*p.
Pretty interesting vid.
Interestingly enough brain scanners have become a billion times more cost-effective in the past 15 years and operate in real time.
Soon I think, when they become available, many people will lose jobs in psychiatry.
My comment on Unz post about IQ
“I’ve seeing very little debate here, adequately debated, about non cognitive factors as well qualitative cognitive factors influences due to literal cult to IQ. I always thought “multiple intelligences” more comprehensive than IQ because it at least attemp to reach all human intelectual facets and potentialities even the ones are not directly related to intelligence, in an academic understanding, as in the case of athletic ability. But i agree MI look too exoteric and sloppy, at least to me, and also too “multiple”. I primarily disagree right with the very idea of an existence of multiple intelligences or totally individual domains of capacities. It seems more correct calling them multiple facets of (the same) intelligence. So i decided for myself try to summarize MI firstly grouping all the “intelligences” that look belonging to the same domain, like interpersonal and intrapersonal ones. From this attemp i stablished the following categories: verbal capacities (symbolic-associative: linguistic and mathematical), non verbal capacities (spatial, perceptive and adaptative), emotional capacities (interpersonal and intrapersonal), artistic capacities (symbolic-representative: pictorical, musical and literary), philosofical capacities (moral/existential, rational), scientific capacities (naturalistic), kinestesic capacities and creative capacities. As you know i tried but i failled. So i had a better insight to summarize MI by the 3 big C(apacities): learning, reasoning and perception. Learning skills or the capacity to memorize//learn and or store information; reasoning or the capacity to evaluate information (objective and imparcial way, ideally) and perception or the capacity to produce new information of perceive new one, respectively, chrystallized intelligence, rationality and creativity. All of “multiple intelligences” of MI can fall in any of these broader categories, even athletic ability, if to practice any sports an individual need learn, think and perceive, of course.
Why IQ is good but not exccelent to access all facets of human intelligence??
IQ is like deducting individual’s height by his weight or vice-versa. It’s mostly partial or superficial because it doesnt access the qualitative aspects of human intelligence (rationality, creativity and emotional capacities), only the “quantitative’ aspects. IQ is still superficially better to predict WORKER capacity than a HUMAN one. Individuals with exactly the same psychometric profile can be very different each other due to differences on non cognitive traits, qualitative cognitive traits and also their life’s trajectories. IQ access partial potentialities and more than all, it’s a TEST. A balance weight is not a test. This comparison is far from perfect. IQ is a fictious measurement system with pragmatic goals, because human intelligence is not really as literally tangible as weight. Actually “people with IQ 100”, “120” or “60” dont exist. IQ doesnt measure something cannot be liteally measure but comparison is an indirect way of measurement. IQ compare and rank people. That’s why this over IQ centric debate is missing lots of vital points about human intelligence. Funny enough, liberals has been very favored by IQmeritocratic system in superior education exactly because it overemphasise learning skills over reasoning and perception specially in their selection processes. That’s why many academics are like an elephant on memory capacity but a parrot on reasoning. This profile seems common among the A+ very liberal student.”
Puppy is your dad like Ramaswamy personality wise?
Why do the danes hate trump so much? Is it purely because hes against immigration?
Probably also his political incorrectness, friendliness with Putin, & turning people against the media,
He formely against but during his government seems the immigration rates in USA didnt reduce dramatically. He seems a kind of fake or controlled opposition.
Regular Jew liberals hate him for regular liberal reasons and neocons/deep state/Ziobanksters/globalists hate him because even though he goes with 99% of their agenda they can’t stand anyone they can’t control completely (especially given how powerful he is).
Now Vivek has a similar problem:
Yeah I saw that this morning. Nikki Haley literally said Israel first, instead of America first. I think even normies are starting to think this Israel question is a bit weird.
This vivek buffoon could be ruining it for hindus worldwide. I don’t want the global Jewish rulers taking it out in hindus for viveks comments on Israel.
Some hindus really like to suck muslim d*ck. The biggest film production house in india shows muslims as the best thing since sliced bread.
Having said the above, I doubt vivek will win. I think trump will win the candidacy and then lose to biden the presidency.
Even if for argument sake trump loses debates to vivek, his popularity among conservatives won’t decrease and he will win the candidacy.
Biden will dispute again???
I don’t know Santo.
Conservative Danes LOVE Trump.
Eric, some do and some tolerate.
Ori and the Blind Forest was very tough. Its sequel and Ori and the Will of the Wisps is more forgiving and more fun. Very enjoyable.
I 100% completed Elden Ring and got all the trophies. Someone should give me a medal.
I found a comment by RR on RonUnz’s last post.
He is asking a commentator and read the latest critiques by Rebecca Sear, a pseudoscientist.
I’m thinking he’s an AI.
Hes the most extreme ideological person in the whole comment section. Deep down he believes in HBD.
“He’s the most extreme ideological person in the whole comment section.”
Damn you are delusional.
What’s the argument that Sear is a pseudoscientist? Her critique has (along with many other authors since the early 2000s) has straight demolished Lynn.
Pseudo scientists can use other’s possibly valid argumentations and still being pseudo scientists.
About Lynn, what would be??
That human racial and ethnic groups cognitive ability differences are not mostly caused by environmental or socioeconomical factors??
Even if there are no DIRECT evidences of it there are plenty of INDIRECT evidences, specially real or legitimate patterns (repetitive behaviors or constitutions), that corroborate positively to Heresytarianism.
But again with whom i started to talk?? With you… Erase realism.
So how is she a pseudoscientist? Quote her and explain how it’s pseudoscience.
pp, Did RR recently take an IQ test? I thought he did because he mentioned that he was 140 or something. I just wanted to know because even if he is 140 he seems to lack basic knowledge of brain loops.
As a person who studied A.I. for 23 years, I might not be as high in IQ as RR but I understand that he knows little about cybernetics. We humans as metabolic systems in order not to fall apart input energy and output actions but we do so in such a way as to model our environments such that we understand causality via the fractal loops inside us.
RR banned me so I can only say here that evolution allowed the brain to grow and develop complex 3D loops. This is why we can regulate ourselves and why we modulate our activities. Basically, it is about feedback signals. These tell us when to stop and go. It is why cells release and absorb energy. The brain learns new things so again complex 3D loops that change over time.
Loaded helped me understand something about this today. Intelligence as I told him was the ability to inhibit yourself so that you can take in an entire situation and then make the right decision. To iterate a more profound view is that to make a decision you need to know how things go together to get the result you want. This can be in perception or the front of the brain but in all, we inhibit ourselves to gain an understanding of things to think. This is entirely based on cybernetic theory. So RR again fails to know the source of cognition. Thinking is the frontal lobes’ prediction of what happens and then implementing it.
No matter what RR believes cognition is explained by self-dynamic loops.
I have no idea if RR recently took a test. Where did he claim this?
“What fixes 140 points of IQ, AK?”
He never claimed this was his IQ but I find it odd he used this specific number? I mean I am more schizo than pill thinks I am. I infer things people say in this way quite frequently. I just think RR has more IQ than me so it must be above 123 ? compare my blog to his. He memorizes way more. is that a fair comparison or not? or is it a cognitive profile thing?
He has said he scored 108 on a school IQ test which sounds about right.
It’s higher than 108. I think he only scored that low because of test anxiety. He has a habit of choking.
I actually think 108 is an over-achievement. He is baffled by the simplest of logic. Even after several years of extensive one on one tutoring he still can’t grasp what my 9th grade teacher meant by “if you’re the first branch, and you don’t do anymore branching, then you’re less evolved” I don’t expect him to agree with that wording (many great minds wouldn’t) but he can’t seem to understand the perspective. He would say Mrs K was misreading the tree.
But maybe this is autism rather than low IQ which would also explain his robotic debate style, extreme obsessive repetition, and head way too big for his IQ.
“he still can’t grasp what my 9th grade teacher meant”
I’ve shown for years that that claim is false and more recently I showed how the logic is fallacious (affirming the consequent, assuming it’s true leads to an absurdity) and tortuous. It’s an invalid argument with a few hidden assumptions. I guess Crisp and Cook “can’t grasp” what your 9th grade teacher said either. You can’t even see that the argument is invalid. That you’re still pushing some clearly fallacious idea 30+ years after hearing it with hardly a solid defense of the logic contained in it is telling. There are many explainers on how to read trees, I guess the authors aren’t as enlightened as a woman who taught children.
“maybe this is autism…robotic debate style, extreme obsessive repetition, and head way too but for his IQ.”
How HBD rots the brain. I wonder what it is that disallows you to see how the argument you have “obsessively repeated” is invalid and logically fallacious.
Dude it’s not rocket science. If species A splits into species B and C and species C splits into species D and E then:
1) D is descended from more speciation events than E
2) E is descended from more speciation events than D
3) B is descended from more speciation events than D and E
4) B is descended from fewer speciation events than D and E
5) D, E and B are all descended from the same number of speciation events
(1) If B is descended from fewer speciation events than D and E, then it cannot be the case that D, E and B are all descended from the same number of speciation events (implication from 4).
(2) If D, E and B are all descended from the same number of speciation events, then it cannot be the case that B is descended from fewer speciation events than D and E (implication from 5).
(C) So the combination of both 4 and 5 creates a logical contradiction.
Your argument assumes that the number of speciation events directly correlates with evolutionary advancement. There’s the false dichotomy of “more” and “less evolved.” It assumes a linear and deterministic view of evolution. There’s a composition fallacy (it assumes because D and E share a common ancestor C, that they must have undergone the same number of speciation events). It’s question-begging (it assumes the conclusion by framing the discussion of species being “more” or “less evolved”). It’s a false cause fallacy (it implies a causal relationship between number of speciation events and being “more” or “less evolved”, assuming that more speciation events lead to evolutionary advancement). What you said just shows the weakness in your position, it’s absolutely not valid. See
“Intuitive interpretation of ancestry from trees is likely to lead to errors, especially the common fallacy that a species-poor lineage is more ‘ancestral’ or ‘diverges earlier’ than does its species-rich sister group. Errors occur when trees are read in a one-sided way, which is more commonly done when trees branch asymmetrically.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534704003404
“The order of terminal nodes is meaningless.”
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-008-0035-x
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272152543_The_Tree-Thinking_Challenge
Your views here are so common that there is a ton of work that directly refutes your fallacious reasoning. You should read them. Further, what you said didn’t address the fact that the original formulation is affirming the consequent.
RR, there’s been a miscommunication. I was not saying all 5 conclusions are true.
It was a multiple choice question, and I just wanted you to select the correct conclusion.
Knowing that, please answer again:
If species A splits into species B and C and species C splits into species D and E then:
1) D is descended from more speciation events than E
2) E is descended from more speciation events than D
3) B is descended from more speciation events than D and E
4) B is descended from fewer speciation events than D and E
5) D, E and B are all descended from the same number of speciation events
Your argument assumes that the number of speciation events directly correlates with evolutionary advancement.
more speciation events withinin a given taxon = more evolution. Whether that evolution is an advancement or not is a separate question
There’s the false dichotomy of “more” and “less evolved.” It assumes a linear and deterministic view of evolution.
It depends whether you consider backwards evolution to be evolution. I think you’re getting hung up on the word “evolved” because it’s come to be a metaphor for so much.
There’s a composition fallacy (it assumes because D and E share a common ancestor C, that they must have undergone the same number of speciation events).
Well trees are typically drawn to connect different species so by definition they reflect speciation events.
I think the question is incoherent due to your question-begging assumption about more and less evolved species. Since the placement of terminal nodes on an evolutionary tree is meaningless, and since it’s fallacious to view a species-poor lineage (a lineage with fewer species than other lineages) as more ancestral with earlier divergence, the question doesn’t make sense since it’s operating on your confused misunderstanding of tree-reading. The question’s premise relies on a misleading assumption (in standard, read the correct, tree reading, the number of species doesn’t directly indicate time of divergence). The question ignores branch lengths (different species can have the same number of terminal branches but they could vary in branch length which is an indication of different degrees of genetic change and evolutionary divergence). Ultimately, it’s a loaded question since it assumes that the number of species is directly related to evolutionary advancement, and divergence times of the species, when there are many explainers out there which explain why the view you hold (which is very common!) is fallacious.
“more speciation events within a given taxon = more evolution”
If the claim “more speciation events within a given taxon = more evolution” were valid, then we would consistently observe a direct correlation between the number of speciation events and the extent evolutionary change in all cases, but we don’t since evolutionary rates vary and other factors influence evolution, so your claim isn’t universally valid.
Take these specific examples: The horseshoe crab has a lineage going back hundreds of millions of years with few speciation events but it has undergone evolutionary changes. Consequently, microorganisms could undergo many speciation events and have relatively minor genetic change. Genetic and phenotypic diversity of the cichlid fishes (fishes that have undergone rapid evolutionary change and speciation), but the diversity between them doesn’t solely depend on speciation events, since factors like ecological niche partitioning and sexual selection also play a role in why they are different even though they are relatively young species (a specific claim that Herculano-Houzel made in her 2016 book). Lastly, human evolution has relatively few speciation events but the extent of evolutionary change in our species is vast. Speciation events are of course crucial to evolution, but you’re reading way to much into the abstractness of the evolutionary tree and the position of the terminal nodes which is meaningless.
“It depends on whether you consider backwards evolution evolution.”
Of course it’s evolution, and that would happen due to changes in the current environment of the species. This, of course, challenges the unstated assumption in your view which I espoused earlier.
“trees are typically drawn to connect different species so by definition they reflect speciation events”
Right, phylogenies show historical relationships and not similarities. But the fallacy that I imputed to the view arises from the incorrect inference that a shared common ancestor directly equates to the same number of speciation events among descendants.
I think the question is incoherent due to your question-begging assumption about more and less evolved species.
The question said nothing about more or less evolved.
Since the placement of terminal nodes on an evolutionary tree is meaningless,
The tree I described can be spatially oriented in more than one way.
and since it’s fallacious to view a species-poor lineage (a lineage with fewer species than other lineages) as more ancestral with earlier divergence,
The question doesn’t ask you to comment on which is more ancestral or earlier diverged.
The question’s premise relies on a misleading assumption (in standard, read the correct, tree reading, the number of species doesn’t directly indicate time of divergence).
Again, not asking you to comment on divergence time.
The question ignores branch lengths (different species can have the same number of terminal branches but they could vary in branch length which is an indication of different degrees of genetic change and evolutionary divergence).
The lengths of the branches does not change the answer to the question
Ultimately, it’s a loaded question since it assumes that the number of species is directly related to evolutionary advancement, and divergence times of the species,
Again, the question doesn’t ask you to opine on any of that. It’s just a basic 9th grade biology question to confirm you have a basic grasp of the concept.
So I ask again:
If species A splits into species B and C and species C splits into species D and E then:
1) D is descended from more speciation events than E
2) E is descended from more speciation events than D
3) B is descended from more speciation events than D and E
4) B is descended from fewer speciation events than D and E
5) D, E and B are all descended from the same number of speciation events
“The question said nothing about more or less evolved”
I know that that assumption is hiding in there. Everything I said in my previous comment are assumptions that I know you have.
“The tree I described can be spatially oriented in more than one way”
Yes it can, that’s what “placement of terminal nodes on an evolutionary tree is meaningless” means.
“The question doesn’t ask you to comment on which is more ancestral or earlier diverged.”
You know I’m commenting separately on some of those right?
Everything I commented on is an assumption inherent in the question.
I quite obviously have a basic grasp of the concept—it’s horribly confused as I’ve shown for years. What I wrote is based on the true claim that: terminal nodes are meaningless. You know you commented twice, right? I commented specifically on each point in your second comment since I know what your assumptions are here (and they’re fallacious as I’ve shown) The argument itself isn’t even valid. My logical analysis disproves the concept. Your teacher was confused, just as you are. Read those references. Better yet, write a blog post responding to them.
B is descended from one speciation event (the split of A into B and C), while D and E are descended from two speciation events (the split of C into D and E, and the previous split of A into B and C) so the right answer is (4). What’s the relevance to the overall argument I mounted against you pointing out the confused logic inherent in the argument?
B is descended from one speciation event (the split of A into B and C), while D and E are descended from two speciation events (the split of C into D and E, and the previous split of A into B and C) so the right answer is (4).
Correct! Thank you for answering.
So the issue is not about reading trees, it’s about how we measure evolutionary change.
Within a given genus, I use speciation events as the unit for measuring change because that’s the whole point of identifying a new species. It’s something that is sufficiently different enough to qualify as a new kind. So when you say there can be lots of evolution without speciation, it’s a bit like saying you can drive really far without exceeding one mile. Odometers measure distance just as taxonomists are the arbiters of evolutionary change.
“So the issue is not about reading trees” – it most definitely is; you’re reading them incorrectly and I have attempted in vain to correct your ignorance which derives from that invalid argument. Phylogenetics is one way to measure evolutionary change, but there are many more. Of course, your folly is the fallacious thinking you impute to the place of the nodes on the tree. The references I cited above should help to correct that thinking (they were written to correct the type of fallacious thinking that you espouse about more and less evolved species).
“when you say there can be lots of evolution without speciation”
Are you saying that microevolution isn’t a thing? I’d love to hear the argument for that claim if so.
Species that underwent evolutionary change without speciation include peppered moths, antibody resistance in bacteria, lactase persistence in humans, Darwin’s finches, and industrial melanism in moths. Those are very clear examples of evolution without speciation. These examples and the others I referenced earlier prove my point about what I argued earlier.
The “primitive fallacy” (Omland et al 2008) is inherent not only in your thinking, but in the thinking of evolutionary biologists as well. At the end of the day, this discussion needs to he centered on what you’ve written in the past since you clearly still believe it—as evidenced by the fallacious argument you use using evolutionary trees to try to show it’s true.
it most definitely is; you’re reading them incorrectly
I read them correctly and so does everyone else on this blog.
and I have attempted in vain to correct your ignorance
That’s because you can’t correct your betters.
Of course, your folly is the fallacious thinking you impute to the place of the nodes on the tree.
We both agree that on a tree of different species in a genus, nodes represent a parent species splitting into 2 daughter species. To 99% of the world, evolving from one species to another reflects more evolution than staying the same species. Why is this so hard to grasp?
The references I cited above should help to correct that thinking
There’s nothing to correct, RR.
Are you saying that microevolution isn’t a thing?
I’m saying it’s called micro for a reason.
Species that underwent evolutionary change without speciation include peppered moths, antibody resistance in bacteria, lactase persistence in humans, Darwin’s finches, and industrial melanism in moths. Those are very clear examples of evolution without speciation.
And there are very clear examples of people traveling who never leave their acre, but someone who has walked through three acres has traveled further than someone who has only walked through two. Analogously, a species descended from two species can be considered more evolved than a species descended from only one. That doesn’t mean there can’t be evolution within a species, but by definition within species evolution is too small to create a new species, hence the term “micro evolution”
“I read them correctly and so does everyone else on this blog”
You read them in such a way that “more branches = more evolution” so those who branch more are “more evolved.” that doesn’t make any sense. All species have spent the same time evolving if they’re not extinct.
“you can’t correct your betters”
Again, your view is so entrenched in the thinking of biology students that there are numerous primers on how to read tress correctly. Why do you think that is?
“To 99% of the world, evolving from one species to another reflects more evolution than staying the same species”
What’s the objective, universally applicable criterion for measuring the degree of evolution among species?
“I’m saying it’s called micron for a reason.”
Microevolution is still evolution even though it’s not macro. There’s a distinction for a reason.
“within species evolution is too small to create a new species”
Nothing in this conversation implies that I believe that microevolution can create a new species. My examples show that evolutionary change happens within species without speciation, and so there can be “lots of evolution without speciation.”
You read them in such a way that “more branches = more evolution” so those who branch more are “more evolved.” that doesn’t make any sense.
In trees where each branch is a distinct species, more branches = more speciation events. Transforming from one species to another is what most people mean by evolution, but even if you use a more esoteric definition or a wider variety of trees, you’d be hard-pressed to find one where that wasn’t at least a small positive correlation between more branching and more evolution.
All species have spent the same time evolving if they’re not extinct.
Usain Bolt couldn’t have run further than me. We were running for the same amount of time
Again, your view is so entrenched in the thinking of biology students that there are numerous primers on how to read tress correctly. Why do you think that is?
Because some academics confuse “not necessarily true” with “not true”. For example you could have a branch that never once splits in a million years but undergoes thousands of speciation events via anagenesis. But that’s the exception not the rule, and that never happens in the classic trees where each branch BY DEFINITION is its own species.
And for every primer telling students not to misread trees, there’s an ACTUAL BIOLOGIST speculating what an ancestral life form might be like by looking at the extant life form that branched off early.
What’s the objective, universally applicable criterion for measuring the degree of evolution among species?
Evolution is whatever paleontologists say it is, because they’re the ones who decide whether fossil A is a new taxon or just a variant of an old one.
Microevolution is still evolution even though it’s not macro. There’s a distinction for a reason.
But micro by definition is less than macro so by definition, within species evolution is less. That’s why even creationists will concede the existence of micro-evolution.
“In trees where each branch is a distinct species, more branches = more speciation events.”
A branching point is a divergence event, but this doesn’t justify “more branches = more speciation events = more evolved.”
Developmental plasticity directly refuted the contention of more evolved since individuals within a species can exhibit significant trait variation without speciation events. This isn’t captured by phylogenies. They’re typically modeled on genetic data and they don’t capture developmental differences that arise due to environmental factors during development.
If “more evolved” is solely determined by the number of speciation events (branches) in a phylogeny, then species that exhibit greater developmental plasticity should be considered “more evolved.” But it is empirically observed that some species exhibit significant developmental plasticity which allows them to rapidly change their traits during development in response to environmental variation without undergoing speciation. So since the species with more developmental plasticity aren’t considered “more evolved” based on your criteria, then the assumption that “more evolved” is determined by speciation events is invalid. So the concept of “more evolved” as determined by speciation events or branches isn’t valid since it isn’t supported when considering the significant role of developmental plasticity in adaptation.
“Usain Bolt couldn’t have run further than me. We were running for the same amount of time.”
This analogy assumes that evolution is a linear process akin to running so it isn’t valid. It’s of course an oversimplification in an attempt to try to use the empirical fact that if a species isn’t extinct then it has spent the same time evolving as other species. Thus the analogy is invalid, also due to considerations from developmental plasticity and evo-devo.
“anagenesis”
You know that developmental plasticity can lead to anagenesis right? And developmental plasticity isn’t an exception, it’s a rule. Developmental plasticity can facilitate anagenesis, and since developmental plasticity is ubiquitous in development of not only an individual in a species but a species as a whole, then it is a rule and not an exception. The numerous examples I have given to you speak to that truth.
“Evolution is whatever paleontologists say it is”
What’s the criterion?
“But micro by definition is less than macro so by definition, within species evolution is less”
Nice equivocation. The first part uses “less” to say that micro is a narrower concept than macro due to their definitions. In the second, “less” is used to make a general statement about the extent or magnitude within a species. So you conflated the comparative nature of the first part with the general statement in the second. You incorrectly assume that because microevolution is defined more narrowly than macro, that it implies that within species evolution is somehow “less” significant or substantial than evolution at larger scales.
A branching point is a divergence event, but this doesn’t justify “more branches = more speciation events = more evolved.”
speciation is higly correlated with cladogenesis and on trees where each branch is DEFINED as a species, nodes = speciation.
It’s interesting because Christopher Stringer recently revised the date of our own speciation to 500 kya on the basis of this being the date when we separated from Neanderthals.
Developmental plasticity directly refuted the contention of more evolved since individuals within a species can exhibit significant trait variation without speciation events. This isn’t captured by phylogenies. They’re typically modeled on genetic data and they don’t capture developmental differences that arise due to environmental factors during development.
If an organism is changing its phenotype without changing its genes, that’s not an example of evolution so not sure the relevance
,If “more evolved” is solely determined by the number of speciation events (branches) in a phylogeny, then species that exhibit greater developmental plasticity should be considered “more evolved.”
That’s like saying if you go on steroids and gain 200 lbs you’re a new species. You may be mistaken for one, but you’re not one. Now having said that, more evolved organisms probably do have more developmental plasticity because I believe evolution is progressive, but said plasticity is itself not evolution or speciation.
“Usain Bolt couldn’t have run further than me. We were running for the same amount of time.”
This analogy assumes that evolution is a linear process akin to running so it isn’t valid.
Let’s just say Usain Bolt would get in more steps than me in a given time (as measured by pedometer). This presumes nothing linear as steps can be in any direction
You know that developmental plasticity can lead to anagenesis right?
You know anything can lead to anything right?
“Evolution is whatever paleontologists say it is”
What’s the criterion?
Genetically caused morphological change.
Nice equivocation. The first part uses “less” to say that micro is a narrower concept than macro due to their definitions. In the second, “less” is used to make a general statement about the extent or magnitude within a species. So you conflated the comparative nature of the first part with the general statement in the second. You incorrectly assume that because microevolution is defined more narrowly than macro, that it implies that within species evolution is somehow “less” significant or substantial than evolution at larger scales.
Yawn
(1) If directed mutations play a crucial role in helping organisms adapt to changing environments, then the notion of “more evolved” as a linear hierarchy is invalid.
(2) Directed mutations are known to occur and contribute to a species survivability in an environment undergoing change during development (the concept of evolvability is apt here).
(C) So the concept of “more evolved” as a linear hierarchy is invalid.
A directed mutation is a mutation that occurs due to environmental instability which helps an organism survive in the environment that changed while the individual was developing. DMs, along with developmental plasticity and evo-devo as a whole refute your simplistic thinking.
directed mutation has not been proven and even if it’s true, it only strengthens my views because more directed mutation during population splits because these are times of stress and the emergence of a new species implies some mutations
*speciation is higly correlated with cladogenesis and on trees where each branch is DEFINED as a species, nodes = speciation.”
And now again we circle back to your undefended claim that more branching points means a higher point of evolution. It’s a teleological bent on evolution (although that’s not inherently bad, eg Noble and Noble’s work along with Shapiro’s on the matter). Aren’t you a Darwinist? How do you square away your teleological view with neo-Darwinism? Noble’s teleological argument is valid, but yours isn’t. Here’s your argument:
(1) More branches on a phylogeny indicate more speciation events.
(2) More speciation events imply a higher level of evolutionary advancement.
(C) Thus, more branches on a phylogeny indicate a higher level of evolutionary advancement.
The false premise is (2) since it suggests that more speciation events imply a higher level of evolutionary advancement. It implies a goal-directed aspect to evolution, where the generation of more species is equated with evolutionary progress. Now, I know you have no issue with that since you’re a progressionist, I’m just wondering how you square that up with neo-Darwinism. You’re just reducing evolution to a linear advancement which is outright false (as Gould masterfully dispatched).
“If an organism is changing it’s phenotype without changing it’s genes, that’s not an example of evolution so not sure of the relevance”
What’s the argument that evolution is confined only to genetic change? If evolution encompasses changes in an organism’s phenotype, then changes in an organism’s phenotype, even without changing its genes, are considered examples of evolution. Evolution encompasses changes in an organism’s phenotype, so changes in an organism’s phenotype even without changes in genes are considered examples of evolution. There is nongenetic “soft inheritance” and that directly speaks to your view here. So I think I can correctly assume that you’re a neo-Darwinist.
“That’s like saying if you go on steroids and gain 200 lbs you’re a new species. You may be mistaken for one, but you’re not one. Now having said that, more evolved organisms probably do have more developmental plasticity because I believe evolution is progressive, but said plasticity is itself not evolution or speciation.”
This is merely question-begging. Your analogy hinges on the assumption that phenotypic changes from taking steroids and becoming a new species are comparable situations. But this assumption rests on the premise that the differentiation of species is determined by the number of speciation events or branches in a phylogeny. So it presupposes the idea it’s trying to argue against. It’s mere question-begging (circular reasoning).
“Let’s just say Usain Bolt would get in more steps than me in a given time (as measured by pedometer). This presumes nothing linear as steps can be in any direction”
If it is valid to equate Usain Bolt’s steps measured by a pedometer to differences in the evolutionary histories of species evolving for the same amount of time, then there must be a direct, meaningful correlation between the two. But there is no direct, meaningful correlation between the simple act of counting steps and the complex processes involved in the evolution of species, so it’s not valid to equate Usain Bolt’s steps measured by pedometer to differences in the evolutionary history of species evolving for the same amount of time.
“Genetically caused morphological change”
Of course this is simplistic and doesn’t take into account nongenetic, soft inheritance, disregarding epigenetic modifications, ecological interactions, and developmental plasticity. Your claim merely overlooks a substantial portion of actual mechanisms that lead to the differentiation of individuals within a species AND that mechanisms that lead to the creation of new species (internal mechanisms, too).
“directed mutation has not been proven”
Yes it has. Two mechanisms of DM are transcriptional activation (TA) and supercoiling. TAs can cause changes to single-stranded DNA, and can also cause supercoiling (the addition of more strands on DNA). TA can be caused by depression (a mechanism that occurs due to the absence of some molecule) or induction (the activation of an inactive gene which then gets transcribed). Such changes are possibly through the plasticity of phenotypes during development and ultimately are due to developmental plasticity. These stress-directed mutations can be seen as quasi-Lamarckian. It’s quite clear that directed mutations are a thing and have been proven true.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781790/
“more directed mutation during population splits because there are times of stress and the emergence of a new species implies some mutations.”
Without you providing justification and evidence for this, it’s nothing more than special pleading. Directed mutations do exist and a few mechanisms have been identified that are the catalyst for directed mutations. It’s just an attempt at trying to fit any kind of challenge to your simplistic view into the little box of evolutionary progression, even when the numerous examples I’ve given you attest to the opposite. You are making many fallacious arguments in an attempt to justify and establish your progressionist view with the counterexamples I’m giving, and that just makes your view look that much worse.
RR, we could argue this for another 5 years but at the end of the day it’s an empirical question.
Do you honestly think there’s ZERO correlation between an organisms position on a phylogenic tree and how much it resembles the common ancestor on the tree?
You know that the degree of evolution end resemblance to a common ancestor is multifaceted and can’t be solely determined by an organism’s position on a phylogeny right? You also know that evolutionary processes that I described above are influenced by myriad factors right? You know that organisms can exhibit similar traits due to convergent evolution right? So it’s not valid to assume a direct and strong correlation between and organism’s position on a phylogeny and it’s degree of resemblance to a common ancestor.
Dolphins and ichthyosaurs share similar traits but dolphins are mammals while ichthyosaurs are reptiles that lived millions of years ago. Their convergent morphology demonstrates that common ancestry doesn’t determine resemblance. The Tasmanian and Grey wolf have independently evolved similar body plans and roles in their ecologies and despite different genetics and evolutionary history, they share a physical resemblance due to similar ecological niches. The LCA of bats and birds didn’t have wings but they have wings and they occurred independently showing that the trait emerged independently while the LCA didn’t have wings so it emerged twice independently. These examples show that the degree of resemblance to a common ancestor is not determined by an organism’s position on a phylogeny.
Now of course the assumption of more evolved is hanging out in that question. And it’s of course an oversimplification. It assumes your linear progress model; it assumes a strong correlation; it disregards other evolutionary mechanisms (which I’ve exhaustively explained to you); and it ignores exceptions (some of which I’ve explained above, and there are still more).
You know that the degree of evolution end resemblance to a common ancestor is multifaceted
so let’s simplify by focusing on one easily measured trait. On trees of animals, do you honestly believe there’s a zero correlation between brain size and position on the tree.
Just answer yes or no, please.
Yes.
At every turn in my previous two comments I’ve exhaustively explained to you how you’re wrong using the concept of developmental plasticity. I asked you three questions in my previous response and you didn’t answer them. I’ve pointed out your fallacious logic and reasoning. I’ve given you valid arguments that you have no answer to. I’ve given you numerous examples to show that developmental plasticity can facilitate anagenesis and evolution within species. You haven’t answered my questions nor have you responded to my arguments so now you attempt to chop the argument down to attempt to get rid of devestating examples and positions to your argument (developmental plasticity and the numerous exemples I’ve given you that refute your nonsense).
Going back to the “yes” answer:
There is a correlation, but that doesn’t mean that there is a linear progression and they don’t imply a linear progression. Years ago I used the example of floresiensis and that holds here too. And Terrance Deacon’s work suggests that pseudoprogressive trends in brain size can be explained by bigger whole organisms being selected—this is important because the whole animal is selected, not any one of its individual parts. The correlation isn’t indicative of a linear progression up some evolutionary ladder, either: It’s merely a byproduct of selecting larger animals (the only things that are selected).
“I will argue that it is this remarkable parallelism, and not some progressive selection for increasing intelligence, that is responsible for many pseudoprogressive trends in mammalian brain evolution. Larger whole animals were being selected—not just larger brains—but along with the correlated brain enlargement in each lineage a multitude of parallel secondary internal adaptations followed.”
With your grandstanding, I can only assume that you have no answer to my arguments nor do you have any response to the numerous examples I’ve given you that refute your simplistic view. That’s all it is—a “simple model” which Rushton loved. This all goes back to Rushton and his idiotic and false claim about human races in his retracted 1989 paper. The concept of “more evolved” is false.
I’ll say this again: The papers I referenced above show that your wrong and that you read tress wrong. Your 9th grade teacher was wrong, and you still push the fallacious argument years after, because it’s invalid, assuming it’s true leads to an absurdity, it affirms the consequent, and it assumes a linear progression. At every turn since we’ve began this conversation I’ve pointed out to you your fallacious use of logic, since that’s all that can show that your simplistic view of evolution is true. But it’s refuted by developmental plasticity.
There is a correlation, but that doesn’t mean that there is a linear progression and they don’t imply a linear progression. Years ago I used the example of floresiensis and that holds here too. And Terrance Deacon’s work suggests that pseudoprogressive trends in brain size can be explained by bigger whole organisms being selected—this is important because the whole animal is selected, not any one of its individual parts. The correlation isn’t indicative of a linear progression up some evolutionary ladder, either: It’s merely a byproduct of selecting larger animals (the only things that are selected).
So you admit you were wrong when you said:
You read them in such a way that “more branches = more evolution” so those who branch more are “more evolved.” that doesn’t make any sense. All species have spent the same time evolving if they’re not extinct.
If there’s a correlation between number of nodes an extant life form is descended from and how much its body size has evolved, then more branches is a proxy for more evolution and some life evolves more than others despite having the same amount of time.
So that debate has been settled.
So the next question is whether that evolution was caused by selection IN that direction, or whether there was simply nowhere to go but up (a la Gould’s drunkard walk). Well you answered that too:
bigger whole organisms being selected—this is important because the whole animal is selected, not any one of its individual parts. The correlation isn’t indicative of a linear progression up some evolutionary ladder, either: It’s merely a byproduct of selecting larger animals (the only things that are selected).
So you admit there is selection FOR an increase in a phenotype (and not as Gould claimed, selection against zero phenotype) so you ADMIT there’s a ladder of progress, you just think it’s size and not intelligence.
Haha the first doesn’t follow at all. That’s not me “admitting I’m wrong.” I’ve exhaustively explained how your inferences are false and your argument isn’t sound. The debate is settled, because you’re wrong. You haven’t responded to my argument of yours that is invalid (with P2 being false). The latter claim is a specific interpretation of how to read the tree, and that’s a false interpretation. They are separate issues.
As for the second, the only thing that can be logically stated is that whole organisms are selected. Per Deacon’s argument, it’s not brain size that was selected-for (your last haven for progression), but it was body size and this inference is valid since whole organisms (their developmental systems) and not their traits are selected. There is no contradiction with anything I’ve written at all. You’re pretty bad at inferences.
All this to say that you have absolutely no response to any of the examples I’ve given you. As Mugabe would say: Sad!
P1: Extant animals that are descended from more nodes on an evolutionary tree tend to be bigger than animals descended from fewer nodes
P2: The common ancestor of all animals on most trees tends to be smaller than the extant animals on the tree
C: Extant animals descended descended from more nodes on the tree tend to have evolved more from the common ancestor
Which statement is wrong?
“So you admit there is selection FOR an increase in a phenotype (and not as Gould claimed, selection against zero phenotype) so you ADMIT there’s a ladder of progress, you just think it’s size and not intelligence.”
No I didn’t. It follows from DST thinking that developmental systems are what is selected. So it follows that organisms are what is selected. Draw the inference. Passive trends in complexity (Gould, McShea) suggest that complexity can change without a teleological goal of increasing complexity. Passive trends suggest that there can be a change in complexity without a drive toward that change without implying progress.
“Which statement is wrong”?
Good job using a valid argument (analogical induction).
P1 isn’t true because whales are descended from fewer nodes while they are the largest animals on earth and bats are descended from more nodes and are much smaller in comparison to whales. And of course your invalid assumption using your argument is hiding there. You haven’t contended with ANY of what I wrote to you in the last 2 days (developmental plasticity and stochasticity, parralel evolution, and the complexity of evolutionary processes). Strange!
P1 isn’t true
RR, you just admitted there was a correlation between brain size and position on the tree but you said it was caused by the correlation between body size and position on the tree. Now you deny there’s a correlation even between body size and position on the tree? I can’t debate someone who keeps contradicting himself.
“because whales are descended from fewer nodes while they are the largest animals on earth and bats are descended from more nodes and are much smaller in comparison to whales. And of course your invalid assumption using your argument is hiding there. You haven’t contended with ANY of what I wrote to you in the last 2 days (developmental plasticity and stochasticity, parralel evolution, and the complexity of evolutionary processes). Strange!”
No contradiction at all.
“because whales are descended from fewer nodes while they are the largest animals on earth and bats are descended from more nodes and are much smaller in comparison to whales. And of course your invalid assumption using your argument is hiding there. You haven’t contended with ANY of what I wrote to you in the last 2 days (developmental plasticity and stochasticity, parralel evolution, and the complexity of evolutionary processes). Strange!”
No contradiction at all.
The contradiction is you saying There is a correlation,,,, The correlation isn’t indicative of a linear progression up some evolutionary ladder, either: It’s merely a byproduct of selecting larger animals (the only things that are selected) but then claiming P1 isn’t true, when P1 simply asserted said correlation.
As for whales being descended from fewer nodes on some trees, that just means the correlation is imperfect not zero. As for developmental plasticity, that’s not considered an evolutionary change by mainstream science, but even if it were, it doesn’t debunk the correlation you admitted to before contradicting yourself.
“There is a correlation” – this acknowledges that a correlation exists between certain evolutionary lineages (descendants from more nodes) and size or complexity of the organism.
“The correlation isn’t indicative of a linear progression up some evolutionary ladder” – this clarifies the interpretation of the correlation. There is a correlation, but it doesn’t justify the claim that there is linear advancement or progression. That a correlation exists doesn’t justify the claim that there is a ladder of complexity to evolution.
“It’s merely a byproduct of selecting larger animals (the only things that are selected)” – This suggests an alternative explanation for the correlation. The statement proposes a correlation between more nodes in a lineage and that the larger size is due to selection of the organism (it’s developmental system), and that it’s not due to strict linear progression (your undefended, invalid assumption of more evolved).
So the existence of the correlation itself doesn’t, again, justify your assertion that there is a linear progression. My previous arguments and examples show that you’re wrong and that your pet theory is wrong, to which you had no response and you were then forced to shift gears.
Developmental plasticity is evolutionary change PP… You really need to keep up here with new developments and how the EES WILL replace the neo-Darwinian modern synthesis.
I didn’t contradict myself. Whales and bats show P1 is false. That’s not a contradiction. QED.
this clarifies the interpretation of the correlation.
But when you say P1 is false, you are denying the correlation, not the interpretation. P1 was just an empirical statement:
P1: Extant animals that are descended from more nodes on an evolutionary tree tend to be bigger than animals descended from fewer nodes
So you did contradict yourself but at least you admit the correlation now so me can move on.
Your next point The correlation isn’t indicative of a linear progression up some evolutionary ladder
Who said anything about linear? It’s a progression up a ladder: A progression from small to big up a ladder of nodes.
it’s merely a byproduct of selecting larger animals (the only things that are selected)
How is this any different from people who argue evolution is progressive? The only difference is you’re defining progress as body size, not intelligence, r vs K, or complexity.
Developmental plasticity is evolutionary change PP…
Really? So people getting taller when they move from India to the United States is an evolutionary change in one generation?
“you did contradict yourself”
Nope. There’s a misunderstanding—“P1 is false” means if doesn’t always hold and the examples I gave you—whales and bats—speak against the truth and universality of P1. I’ve been doing nothing but giving you examples for days in the context of phylogenies and developmental plasticity regarding how it refutes your simplistic notion and you had no response so you had to try to shift to a loaded question to try a “gotcha” on me, but it didn’t work.
“Who said anything about linear”
“It’s a progression up a ladder”
I rest my case.
“How is this any different”
It’s different because of the fact that whole organisms (their developmental systems) are selected and the body size is a byproduct of the selection. It’s not “progress.”
“people getting taller”
That’s merely an example of people getting taller after they emigrate due to better conditions and is not in any way, share, or form like developmental plasticity as regards development in the DST sense. Once again, a distinction with a difference. Developmental plasticity is where multiple phenotypes can be generated from a single genotype and that’s due to developmental (phenotypic) plasticity. Now you’re equivocating on developmental plasticity, funny. It’s a form of phenotypic change, but it necessarily may not involve changes that pass down through the generations. It’s not like developmental plasticity as I’ve conceptualized it here throughout this whole conversation to refute your simplistic “more evolved” view. If you need something to cure your ignorance, read West-Eberhard. Are you denying that developmental plasticity is a form of evolutionary change? You have to deny that if you want to keep with your neo-Darwinism, but the EES is the superior theory.
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/developmental-plasticity-and-evolution-9780195122350?cc=us&lang=en&
By the way, changes in gene frequencies follow developmental change so most adaptive evolution is the accommodation of developmental-phenotypic change. What’s the correct inference to draw from that?
Nope. There’s a misunderstanding—“P1 is false” means if doesn’t always hold
It doesn’t have to always hold because P1 said only that it TENDS to hold.
It’s different because of the fact that whole organisms (their developmental systems) are selected and the body size is a byproduct of the selection. It’s not “progress.”
That makes it even more progressive! The whole organism progresses not just one part.
That’s merely an example of people getting taller after they emigrate due to better conditions and is not in any way, share, or form like developmental plasticity as regards development in the DST sense. Once again, a distinction with a difference. Developmental plasticity is where multiple phenotypes can be generated from a single genotype and that’s due to developmental (phenotypic) plasticity.
You’re 5’9″ in America and you’ld be 5’6″ if you were born and raised in India. Same genotype, 2 different phenotypes. How is that not developmental plasticity?
Are you denying that developmental plasticity is a form of evolutionary change?
Dude, you can call it whatever you want. It’s not what the vast majority of biologists mean by evolution because it’s not heritable. Now there are probably many cases where developmental plasticity has been confused for evolution. A good example would be brain size shrinking during the holocene. Hawks argued there was selection for smaller brains but Lynn argued they were shrunk by malnutrition and disease (developmental plasticity) and the Flynn effect is just us recovering our neolithic potential.
You have to deny that if you want to keep with your neo-Darwinism, but the EES is the superior theory.
It doesn’t change the fact that position on the evolutionary tree correlates with how much life has changed from the ancestral form as even you have agreed.
By the way, changes in gene frequencies follow developmental change so most adaptive evolution is the accommodation of developmental-phenotypic change. What’s the correct inference to draw from that?
That changing environments not only create new selection pressures for our genes, but they also create new phenotypes from said genes and those new phenotypes themselves change our relationship to our environment creating new selection pressures.
A good example would be humans exploiting fire. Suddenly we could process meat more efficiently and genes that codes for a small brain would suddenly code for a big brain. That’s developmental plasticity. This intensified selection pressures for brain genes because meat suddenly made those genes more valuable and at the same time, the bigger brains allowed new tools which created further selection pressure for the intelligence to exploit them.
Your hero Herculano-Houzel would stand up and cheer if she read what I just wrote!
Passive trends refute your assumption of “progressiveness” (driven evolution).
P1: Evolution is either passive or driven.
P2: Passive evolution includes stochastic processes, such as genetic drift, developmental plasticity and bodily constraints.
P3: Species often adapt to local environmental conditions.
P4: Parallel evolution demonstrates that recurring patterns can emerge independently.
P5: Evolutionary outcomes are often unpredictable in complex environments.
C: Therefore, the evidence suggests that evolution is driven or inherently progressive, as it encompasses passive processes influenced by chance events and local adaptation.
By the way, Deacon talked about parralelism in his paper. It’s a truism from DST that whole organisms are selected, but this doesn’t in any way suggest that it “makes it even more progressive!”; progress implies drivenness, and that claim was put to bed by McShea in 1994. Island gigantism and dwarfism, along with passive trends, mean that your progression claim (that you’ve been arguing for this whole time) are false. There are valid arguments further up thread that you haven’t contended with at all. There are numerous valid counter examples that you haven’t even attempted countering. I’m not letting you off the hook there.
“How is that not developmental plasticity?”
Different mechanisms and explanations.
“You can call it whatever you want”
My argument for the claim is valid. The EES hinges on that and theoretical considerations from DST. It makes novel predictions. You can’t just reject it. That doesn’t make sense.
“it doesn’t change the fact”
It’s random and passive, not driven.
Regarding the correct inference, you’re wrong. It merely means that genes are followers and not leaders in evolution, since in many cases, developmental change precedes genetic change.
(1) Extant animals that are descended from more nodes on an evolutionary tree tend to be bigger than animals descended from fewer nodes (your initial premise).
(2) There exist cases where extant animals descended from fewer nodes are larger or more complex than those descended from more nodes (counterexamples of bats and whales).
(C1) Thus, either P1 doesn’t consistently hold (not all extant animals descended from more nodes are larger), or it is not a reliable rule (given the counters).
(3) If P1 does not consistently hold true (not all extant animals descended from more nodes are larger), then it is not a reliable rule.
(4) P1 does not consistently hold true.
(C2) P1 is not a reliable rule.
(5) If P1 is not a reliable rule (given the existence of counterexamples), then it is not a valid generalization.
(6) P1 is not a reliable rule.
(C3) So P1 is not a valid generalization.
(6) If P1 isn’t a valid generalization in the context of evolutionary biology, then there must be exceptions to this observed trend.
(7) The existence of passive evolution, as suggested by the inconsistenties in P1, implies that the trends aren’t driven by progressive forces.
(C4) Thus, the presence of passive evolution and exceptions to P1’s trend challenge the notion of a universally progressive model of evolution.
(8) If the presence of passive evolution and exceptions to P1’s trend challenges the notion of a universally progressive model of evolution, then the notion of a universally progressive model of evolution isn’t supported by the evidence, as indicated by passive evolution and exceptions to P1’s trend.
(9) The presence of passive evolution and exceptions to P1’s trend challenge the notion of a universally progressive model of evolution.
(C5) Thus, the notion of a universally progressive model of evolution isn’t supported by the evidence as indicated by passive evolution and exceptions to P1’s trend.
(C1) Thus, either P1 doesn’t consistently hold (not all extant animals descended from more nodes are larger), or it is not a reliable rule (given the counters).
So by that logic Allen’s rule and Bergmann’s rule are not reliable either since they have exceptions. In fact you’d be hard pressed to find a rule in biology that doesn’t have exceptions.
(6) P1 is not a reliable rule.
(C3) So P1 is not a valid generalization.
Generalizations needn’t be 100% reliable. In fact they’re called generalizations precisely because they’re true in general and not necessarily in every case.
(7) The existence of passive evolution, as suggested by the inconsistenties in P1, implies that the trends aren’t driven by progressive forces.
Except we know they are, at least in the case of body size. We know this because if increasing body size were just an artifact of nowhere to go but up, then small organisms would have larger descendants more often than big organisms do because the former has nowhere to go but up while the latter is free to evolve in both directions. But in fact the opposite is true suggesting a driving force towards bigger:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1419823112
We also know from computational methods that natural selection should favor versatility over the long-term:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12368228_A_Simple_Model_of_Unbounded_Evolutionary_Versatility_as_a_Largest-Scale_Trend_in_Organismal_Evolution
challenge the notion of a universally progressive model of evolution.
Of course it’s not universally progressive, but is it progressive in general? I think so.
“doesn’t have exceptions”
Yea because there are no laws in biology.
“true in general”
Look, the bat and whale example I gave are examples of passive, not driven trends.
Regarding the Baker citation, that’s an interesting paper. Is that the basis for the argument you made?
In any case, I think it’s confused. I don’t think it’s valid to reject passiveness (e.g., McShea’s work which shows the “rule” is passive, not driven). If a taxon possesses a potential size range and the ancestral size approaches the lower limit of this range, it will result in a passive inclination for descendants to exceed the size of their ancestors. The taxon in question possesses a potential size range, and the ancestral size range is on the lower end of the range. So there will be a passive tendency for descendants of this taxon to be larger than their predecessors.
I have three examples:
(1) Bluefin tuna are known to have a potential range of size, with some being small and others being massive (think of that TV show Deadliest Catch). So imagine a population of bluefin tuna where the ancestral size is found to be close to the lower end of their size range. So P2 is satisfied because bluefin tuna have a potential size range. So the ancestral size of the ancestors of the tuna were relatively small in comparison to the maximum size of the tuna.
(2) African elephants in some parts of Africa are small, due to ecological constraints and hunting pressures and these smaller-sized ancestors are close to the lower limit of the potential size range of African elephants. Thus, according to P1, there will be a passive tendency for descendants of these elephants to be larger than their smaller-sizes ancestors over time.
(3) Consider galapagos tortoises whom are also known for their large variation in size among the different species and populations on the galapagos islands. So consider a case of galapagos tortoises who have smaller body sizes due to either resource conditions or the conditions of their ecologies. So in this case, the potential size for the ancestors of these tortoises is close to the theoretical limit of their potential size range. Therefore, we can expect a passive tendency for descendants of these tortoises to evolve large body sizes.
And it’s also the same for horses—there is no driven, gradual trend for them, either.
Further, in Stanley’s 1973 study of Cope’s rule from fossil rodents, he observed that body size distributions in these rodents, over time, became bigger while the modal size stayed small. This doesn’t even touch the fact that because there are more small than large mammals, that there would be a passive tendency in large body sizes for mammals. This also doesn’t even touch the methodological issues in determining body size for the rule—mass, length? Nonetheless, Monroe and Bokma’s study showed that while there is a tendency for species to be larger than their ancestors, it was a mere 0.5 percent difference.
Gould coined “Stanley’s rule”, which is an evolution AWAY from small size, thus Cope’s rule is a mere artifact of begging at the left wall. Random (passive) evolution away from small size, not driven trends, explains the increase in body size. So the increase in body size is explained by an increase in variance in body size (passiveness), not drivenness.
Regarding the Turney paper, it’s a mere simple computational model (your favorite) which tries to argue that evolutionary versatility can exist under certain conditions, challenging the claim that “natural selection” can produce large-scale trends even though it’s a local process. It assumes that local selection can produce floabk trends. It assumes that mutation rates can adapt to changing environmental conditions (I don’t think this is necessarily a large leap to assume). It assumes evolutionary versatility is unbounded. It assumes a linear relationship between mutation rates and versatility. It assumes that with sufficient change in environment, mutation rates reach a stable and non-zero value which would then allow evolutionary versatility to continue indefinitely (though he says the model can’t test that). I think all but one of the assumptions is dubious. Nevertheless, directed mutations also throw a wrench into this too. I don’t think this is good evidence and I don’t think evolution is “progressive in general.”
Gould’s argument quite clearly states that it’s a mere statistical artifact and that the trends are passive not driven. When I said you “tucked tail and ran”, I meant that you didn’t address perfectly valid arguments against your view. I spent a lot of time thinking about that and reading to ensure the view I put forth had merit. (I’ll just write an article on this, in any case.) Thanks for your comment. Nice work.
And also let it be known that you stopped the conversation we were having, presumably because you had no answer to my arguments and examples and the fact that you were giving many fallacious arguments—it’s plain for everyone to see.
No I was going to respond to each argument but then I thought it would be more efficient to cut right to the chase:
1) Is there a correlation between the number of nodes on a tree an extant taxon is descended from and its morphological distance from the common ancestor of said tree?
2) Is that correlation caused by evolution pushing life in a certain direction or is just a statistical artifact?(Gould’s drunk walk) In other words there might have been just as many trees with a correlation in the opposite direction were it not for the fact that negative phenotypes are impossible.
Right here is where you dodged, tucked tail and ran. Very telling.
Right here is where you dodged, tucked tail and ran.
Can you be more specific?
Its actually lower than 108 if he really believes this shit he posts. But a bit more if he believes in HBD like he did for 20 years up until 5 years ago.
“He is baffled by the simplest of logic.”
No, he understands your views. He just thinks it’s an oversimplification to use the number of branches on phylogenetic trees to measure evolutionary change when the number doesn’t tell you when morphological change occurs (which is what “evolved” means).
I think the issue on your part is that you tend to equivocate the term “evolved” quite frequently. He’s thinking of morphological change. And there are definitely animals considered different species with very few morphological differences. I also don’t know why you’re trying to pretend this discussion isn’t about the whole “more evolved” argument you guys keep rehashing.
Now, regarding his intelligence, IQ =/= Rationality. We all know this as an “outside observer,” you all seem incredibly irrational to me, but I know you’re all intelligent. Even Philo is probably above average in IQ, even if he isn’t rational enough to see past his obvious bias (or take a fucking shower).
He just thinks it’s an oversimplification to use the number of branches on phylogenetic trees to measure evolutionary change when the number doesn’t tell you when morphological change occurs (which is what “evolved” means).
No he denies it even when every single branch on the tree is a distinct morphological species. He thinks becoming lactose tolerant is just as much evolution as speciation.
So Eric doesnt know what rationality is.
Dont worry. It’s very typical.
Irrationality is the only-human default.
(Non human animals can’t be irrational in the same way humans can’t be flying-deficient. Irrationality preclude insufficient levels of rationality from a very possibility of it)
He may think rationality is a type of personality, like being always emotionally controlled, polite or using academic manerisms, lots of links and quotings.
Appearence…
I can bet almost of predominantly irrational people who think themselves more rational than others dont know how really rational or irrational they are. This lack of self awareness is a hallmark of chronic irrationality.
Well, i think you are like behaving like a RR’s lawyer here, translating his insufferably academicist way of writing, specially because he is a brainless negrophile propagandist.
RR is a text book of sophistry, a perfect example of not to think and or write if you want to reach a rational level of reasoning.
“brainless negrophile propagandist”
Are you OK man?
“text book of sophistry”
Your writing is atrocious (and it’s not just the language barrier) and you clearly don’t read enough. Read more, write less.
HAHAHHAHAHA
From the retarded afrophile guy who uses the most insufferably dumb academicist language in the entire hbd.
After many years in hbd sphere and here in this blog i can say you are the dumbest in the room. Even loaded, he at least use a normal language.
Academicist language was invented by a bunch of pseudo intelectuals to say too much, in pretentious sophisticated way actually to say nothing really important or serious or insightful. Today, learn that obscure way to miscommunicate became compulsory in many fields of human sciences and even beyond. The real intention is to hide their lack of real understanding, real insightfulness, real science or philosophy. Only very irrational people like rr can adopt this “language” even in trivial conversations like this. It’s ALL about pretending being something they are not, real intelectuals.
If rationality is the unbiased use of intelligence, I’m not sure that RR is much more rational than anyone else. Clearly racial differences in IQ and brain size exist, and clearly they are inherited. To the extent that they are not inherited, they are not purely chosen either. No one chose their brain size or their level of curiosity… or whatever chain of events lead to their brain size or level of curiosity, and so on. So you have either determinism or disconnected randomness, regardless of whether we are talking about the cause of physical brains or mental thoughts. Choice only exists to the extent that it is operating within an already existing framework where one can actually weigh options against each other, which requires that the requisite structures already exist, or else it is randomness in the sense that it is simply throwing caution to the wind.
The ability to identify options itself already requires considerable structure (such as information and an information processor).
RR claims to approach things unbiasedly about intelligence, development, and mental behavior but always comes from the perspective of arguing against genetic determinism. I’ve never once seen him argue on the side of inherited mental or physical traits since after his holistic awakening. His bias is against genetic determinism. He doesn’t believe in God and is a dualist, so he tries to link the mental and physical incoherently (you can’t link something if it doesn’t share a common medium which means it must also share structure).
HBDers or IQists are often biased against free will or holistic environmental-gene interactions, but that doesn’t mean those that take the opposite view aren’t simply biased in the other direction. What are the chances that despite not understanding the exact nature of genetic expression or genetic inheritance that every single view one has is against that the idea of genetic determinism, when all evidence of inheritance would seem to show genetics or something very correlated with genetics plays a strong role? HMMMMMMM.
@Lurker
You do not need to be rational to have a high IQ but as you imply RR seems to have an agenda so I am saying he has a subset of IQ that is higher than mine or he would not be so good at propaganda as he is and it is said that you need a high IQ to do that.
I am not keen on tests anymore, I am going to get a genome scan soon to verify my genetic IQ. Soon it will be free when costs go down but I think that metabolism is the real source of IQ. Mitochondria and glucose sequences play a big part.
Mental stress has made my brain work too hard and that may be the reason I am not doing well in life. I spend all my time thinking rather than gaining resources because I have no real purpose. I am the type of person who asks: “what the point is to anything?”
I am trying to raise money to develop an a.i. app so I will get a job soon cleaning floors.
“propaganda” – how many delusional people comment on this blog?
“I am going to get a genome scan soon to verify my genetic IQ. Soon it will be free when costs go down but I think that metabolism is the real source of IQ. Mitochondria and glucose sequences play a big part.”
Why would you waste your money? Sounds like Geary’s theory, which is merely an attempt to co-opt a physiological process to look for “Spearman’s energy” he posited. What is it they say about fools and their money?
I didn’t ban you. The number “140” was random. We know what fixes the 0 point for thermometers and temperature, and the question for IQ is unanswered. Since Jensen, Urbach and Eysenck claimed that IQ tests are like thermometers and IQ is like temperature, this shouldn’t be an issue to answer.
Look at this straight clown Santo. I challenge him to provide evidence for this idiotic claim.
“You are using your mixed baby as a trophy for the altar of dominant ideology today”
Thats not a claim, thats a fact RR. You are so extreme ideologically, you chased a dumpster to prove that you were a great liberal.
Yea it is a claim. Dear God you are delusional. Your ignorant ass doesn’t even ever provide references for your shoddy ass, long-refuted claims (“blacks have higher testosterone”). But this is coming from the guy who outright admitted that he goes a long time without taking a shower. Clown.
“You are so extreme ideologically” – go ahead—prove it.
Blacks have more T levels. Open your eyes dumbass.
Source? Even if you’re right, what are the implications?
The implications are exactly the ones you denounced as ‘stereotypes’ in your article. i.e aggression, crime, rage and barbaric behaviours.
Wrong. Heightened aggression increases T. Hereditarians have causality backward. So where are your references for your claim?
HAHAHA. I can’t believe you believe the opposite. What an idiot.
Because I know about how testosterone is produced in the body and what it does and what raises it.
You obviously dont and should stop being a P.T.
How is testosterone produced in the body?
Your mind is too simple to understand but to a certain extent hitting someone is going to boost your T level, but the ultimate reason why you would hit a random person is if you have high T.
Give me a source that T causes violent behavior and not the reverse. Because there is much data that aggressive behavior increases T. You, along with other HBDers, are the ones who have the cause and effect backwards.
Since you both worship Jews, I’ll let a Jewish professor settle this debate:
(I don’t worship anyone.)
OK if we’re quoting Saplosky here (from his book The Trouble with Testosterone):
“On to the next issue that lessens the primacy of testosterone: What do individual levels of testosterone have to do with aggression? If one person higher testosterone levels than another, or higher levels this week than last, are they more likely to be aggressive?
Initially the answer seemed to be yes, as studies showed correlation between individual differences in testosterone levels and levels of aggression. In a typical study, higher testosterone levels would be observed in those male prisoners with higher rates of aggression. But being aggressive stimulates testosterone secretion; no wonder more aggressive individuals had higher levels. Such studies couldn’t disentangle chickens and eggs.
Thus, a better question is whether differences in testosterone levels among individuals predict who will be aggressive. And among birds, fish, mammals, and especially other primates, the answer is generally no. This has been studied extensively in humans, examining a variety of measures of aggression. And the answer is clear. To quote British endocrinologist John Archer in a definitive 2006 review, “There is a weak and inconsistent association between testosterone levels and aggression in [human] adults, and . . . administration of testosterone to volunteers typically does not increase aggression.” The brain doesn’t pay attention to testosterone levels within the normal range.
[…]
Thus, aggression is typically more about social learning than about testosterone, differing levels of testosterone generally can’t explain why some individuals are more aggressive than others.”
“Okay, suppose you note a correlation between levels of aggression and levels of testosterone among these normal males. This could be because (a) testosterone elevates aggression; (b) aggression elevates testosterone secretion; (c) neither causes the other. There’s a huge bias to assume option a while b is the answer. Study after study has shown that when you examine testosterone when males are first placed together in the social group, testosterone levels predict nothing about who is going to be aggressive. The subsequent behavioral differences drive the hormonal changes, not the other way around.
Because of a strong bias among certain scientists, it has taken do forever to convince them of this point.
[…]
As I said, it takes a lot of work to cure people of that physics envy, and to see interindividual differences in testosterone levels don’t predict subsequent differences in aggressive behavior among individuals. Similarly, fluctuations in testosterone within one individual over time do not predict subsequent changes in the levels of aggression in the one individual—get a hiccup in testosterone secretion one afternoon and that’s not when the guy goes postal.”
Sorry, the first quote is from Behave, the second is from The Trouble with Testosterone.
This doesn’t contradict my claim at all (from The Trouble with Testosterone):
“Later in the essay, Sapolsky discusses a discusses 5 monkeys that were given time to form a hierarchy of 1 through 5. Number 3 can ‘throw his weight’ around with 4 and 5 but treads carefully around 1 and 2. He then states to take the third-ranking monkey and inject him with a ton of testosterone, and that when you check the behavioral data that he’d then be participating in more aggressive actions than before which would imply that the exogenous testosterone causes participation in more aggressive behavior. But it’s way more nuanced than that.”
<em<So even though small fluctuations in the levels of the hormone don’t seem to matter much, testosterone still causes aggression. But that would be wrong. Check out number 3 more closely. Is he now raining aggression and terror on any and all in the group, frothing in an androgenic glaze of indiscriminate violence. Not at all. He’s still judiciously kowtowing to numbers 1 and 2 but has simply become a total bastard to number 4 and 5. This is critical: testosterone isn’t causing aggression, it’s exaggerating the aggression that’s already there.
Nevertheless, even if the claim “blacks have higher testosterone” was true, if wouldn’t mean anything for aggression and crime. Aggression increases T, not the reverse. This is a fact.
This is critical: testosterone isn’t causing aggression, it’s exaggerating the aggression that’s already there.
Splitting hairs
Not at all. That’s a distinction with a difference, one that many fail to take into account. Overall, his whole volume (TTwT) shows that T doesn’t cause aggression, aggression causes Y.
Check out number 3 more closely. Is he now raining aggression and terror on any and all in the group, frothing in an androgenic glaze of indiscriminate violence. Not at all. He’s still judiciously kowtowing to numbers 1 and 2 but has simply become a total bastard to number 4 and 5. This is critical: testosterone isn’t causing aggression, it’s exaggerating the aggression that’s already there.
No one claimed testosterone makes you dumber. Of course you’re not going to pick a fight with those who can kick your ass. But that doesn’t mean you’re not more of a bully.
Sapolsky’s not especially bright.
LMAO. RR has posted this exact example by this professor before. It proves his claim.
In humans, education modulates the methods of which we use to establish social dominance. In the hood, the guy with the highest T is probably going to be the most aggressive. In an office setting, this won’t be the case. The highest T guy will establish dominance in a completely different way.
Correct me if that’s wrong, RR.
Melo, yea that tracks. I know that “philosopher” is trying to say that high T = more aggression and so more crime. So the reality of the matter is that even if we take the highest example of T in blacks (Ross et al, 1988), itnSTILL wouldn’t be the case that T is causing crime and aggression.
“Sapolsky’s not especially bright.”
Um, the quote from his book on the monkeys is what he said in the Short you posted that you tried to show the opposite is true…
I didn’t fully grasp his argument until I read your quote.
Vast majority of violent crimes are commited by males and males have a significant amount of testosterone than women. Testosterone alone doesnt predispose to violent behavior but specially in combination with cortisol it plays an important role on agressivity and other anti social behaviors.
But seems RR believes testosterone hasn’t any effect on agressivity.
“Vast majority of violent crimes are commited by males and males have a significant amount of testosterone than women. Testosterone alone doesnt predispose to violent behavior but specially in combination with cortisol it plays an important role on agressivity and other anti social behaviors.”
Correlation doesn’t imply causation. I wonder how many logical fallacies exist in these comments.
Rretard really believes testosterone hasnt any role on human behavior…
His thinking patterns are entirely fallacious.
There are two types of correlation: paralell and intersectional.
Paralell correlation is when two or more variables are cohabitating the same context but they have little to no inter relation.
Intersectional correlation is when two or more variables are cohabitating the same context and have a legitimate and variable degree of inter relation.
Aggression and T are related, but it’s not T causing aggression like the hereditarian believes—it’s aggression increasing T. This is a fact and you have no response to it. Refer to my article for more. You’re clueless.
Your article i would use to clean my ass.
So for you testosterone IS RELATED WITH “agression”.
O.k.
😉
But because people are different and have different levels of testosterone…
Other classical lack of basic understanding
Agression doesnt come from nothing but from available hormonal constitution of an individual. That’s partly why men tend to display higher levels of agressivity than women.
😉
Rrtard: ” it’s the agression that increases (causes) the levels of testosterone”
Rrtard: “it’s correlation not causation”
So why is specially testosterone which increases when people is hungry and not other hormone??
“Your article i would use to clean my ass.”
It refutes your claim. You’re just averse to reading.
“But because people are different and have different levels of testosterone…”
Cut to the chase and cute a reference that shows that testosterone causes aggression.
“So why is specially testosterone which increases when people is hungry and not other hormone??”
What is this gibberish? Do you even understand what I’m saying? Can you repeat the argument back to me?
Simple questions like that you can’t or dont want to answer why? Because you are fake and only reason PP keep you here… because insufferably dumb people like you is entertaining, not to me. So rather than just answer it you use your sophistry tactics to avoid any real confrontation, just like a good coward.
You even dont know what the word refutation really means. If you are not being well rewarded to play this clown so you are more stupid than i thought, like Carlo Cipolla stupidity definition.
Testosterone contribute to cause or induce some behaviors like enhanced agressivity in the same way cortisol or dopamine or estrogen also induce some specific behaviors.
Any specific behaviors are results of an interaction between AVAILABLE intrinsic features of an organism and environmental conditions.
Doesnt matter if i post links here or not for someone who is never really open to debate things in intellectually honest way. By just arguing with your own words you can’t survive.
But when you say “agression CAUSE the increase of testosterone” you are agreeing that there is a relation between both…
dumb
I’m hungry just like your baby. Would be funny if she grew up and become a hereditarian hahaha
Hungry is a type of angry.
But i know you understood the question. You just dont want to answer because it’s a very good question for… you 🙂
“Testosterone contribute to cause or induce some behaviors like enhanced agressivity in the same way cortisol or dopamine or estrogen also induce some specific behaviors.”
Prove it. Specifically, in the context of this discussion.
“By just arguing with your own words you can’t survive.”
You love repeating this as if it has any meaning but I constantly do so. Especially down below on the TAAO, to which you and “philosopher” has no response, which then verified my prediction.
“But when you say “agression CAUSE the increase of testosterone” you are agreeing that there is a relation between both…”
Yea i never denied there is a relationship. Did you read the above references to see how you’re wrong or not? A increases T, T doesn’t increase A. If you believe the opposite, go ahead and cite just ONE reference for the claim.
I understand it now, the previous reply was gibberish. There is no direct relationship between hunger and T, but IF studies show differences in T increases/decreases which is context-dependent based on diet, exercise, etc.
It’s insane to me for you to think that I have no knowledge in this specific area despited studying it, learning from knowledgeable people on the issue, and writing a few large articles on the issue on the relationship between T and A. But you think I don’t understand the issue, yet you have provided NO contradictory references, because you can’t, because you write too much and read too little while making overreaching claims on issues you quite clearly and obviously don’t understand.
It’s insane to me for you to think that I have no knowledge in this specific area despited studying it, learning from knowledgeable people on the issue, and writing a few large articles on the issue on the relationship between T and A.”
HAHAHAHAHHAHA
“Learning”
Jeeewsus!!
“Noleadgeable people”
Mohammed!!
You are in the category of the most insane individuals, those who have an extremely low self awareness for being incapable to, firstly, learn about your own limits and then start to think based on this primary and necessary understanding… and seems oganically incapable to acquire or develop.
Most of your “learning” is a pseudo knowledge based on pseudo science from the “left” wing true believers infiltrated in the academia and mostly based on a big bias against anything which smells common sense or conservatism, so ANY article or “study” that looks challenging some politically hated consensus or common sense by “left wing” people and you, you jump in.
Most of what you wrote is useless to say at least. You should face the hard facts about yourself specially that you dont have the basic understanding, the most required, for science and for logic-rational thinking, and humbly stop to embarass yourself, but i bet there are deeply personal reasons you spend your days here in this obscure blog and in your shitty blog verborraging your sheer stupidity, and in the capitalistic monotony where the means differ but the end is just one, money… maybe it’s one of the these reasons.
“But you think I don’t understand the issue, yet you have provided NO contradictory references, because you can’t, because you write too much and read too little while making overreaching claims on issues you quite clearly and obviously don’t understand.”
You already agreed that testosterone is related with agression, you are all the time in contradiction.
“I write too much”
Bro.
“I read too little”
The quality of reading is everything. Read your burgeoius radical sophists is not a good one.
It’s not the first time here people found your contradictions or hidden fallacies in your poor writing.
If you are not deeply irrational, you may could debate with honesty but NOT. PP loves problematic people like you just like Oprah also loves. Without you shitting here every day would have less than at least one third of comments.
What do you think about Judith Butler?? Do you think she is a great intelectual??
“Prove it. Specifically, in the context of this discussion.”
I dont need to prove nothing to you. For me, you are a persona non grata. If you dont believe or is not convinced which is absolutely likely, I DONT CARE.
“You love repeating this as if it has any meaning but I constantly do so.”
Really knowledgeable people is totally capable to use normal language in trivial debates, really not you.
Real knowledgeable people tend to avoid academicist language, only pseudos who love to use it to hide their real lack of knowledge, understanding and or insightfulness. This is the basics, being capable to differentiate pseudo science and pseudo philosophy from legitimate ones. Also avoiding to believe in some article just because it fits with your personal beliefs, being capable to accept a fact even or specially when it doesnt corroborates to your belief system. THIS is not for you.
You are from southern italian descent. So any criticism about southern italians you are easily triggered.
You have a mixing race baby, are constantly in mixing race relationships, primarily because you believes human races dont exist. So you started to pick up any study which confirm your beliefs system/life style.
You are self declared on the left wing side. So anything about conservatism and or right wing side you overcriticize and using your pseudo scientists mentors to confirm your belief systems.
Even about your point of views about mind, it can be tracked from your belief system and not based on an impartial and objective thinking/approaching, even because you dont believe in objective truth, right??
I repeating as you do, but i’m right, that’st the difference. And i’m being empathetic with you, but you are a lost case.
“But when you say “agression CAUSE the increase of testosterone” you are agreeing that there is a relation between both…”
Yea i never denied there is a relationship. Did you read the above references to see how you’re wrong or not? A increases T, T doesn’t increase A. If you believe the opposite, go ahead and cite just ONE reference for the claim”
Here i carefully selected some words to claim just like “contribute for” which is not an absolutely direct relation but again, why losting time with you?? Because PP want.
You are always denying it because you believes testosterone hasnt any effect on promoting this specific behavior but then you stupidly believes that just inverting the order of factors will make testosterone looking neutral. But if you agree that agression increases SPECIALLY testosterone, so for you there is a direct relation and in this case is a feedback in which behavior and given hormone promote each other, right?? 😉
Even more gibberish.
“Most of what you wrote is useless to say at least. You should face the hard facts about yourself specially that you dont have the basic understanding, the most required, for science and for logic-rational thinking, and humbly stop to embarass yourself”
If this is true then it should be easy for you to cite just one study that backs tour claim.
“You already agreed that testosterone is related with agression, you are all the time in contradiction.”
That’s not a contradiction. A increases T, T doesn’t increase A. I never said there was no relationship. Go ahead and quote me if you think what I just said is wrong.
“I dont need to prove nothing to you.”
You just said “I can’t back my claim.”
“primarily because you believes human races dont exist”
Go ahead and quote me where I said that I “believe that human races don’t exist.”
“So you started to pick up any study which confirm your beliefs system/life style.”
This is proven wrong based on when I changed my views.
“But if you agree that agression increases SPECIALLY testosterone”
The relationship between the two was never under contention. What WAS under contention is the claim that T causes A, and I’ve definitively shown that A causes increases in T, to which you had no response.
You’re really bad at this. You quite clearly have no knowledge on even how to read these papers, anyway.
Nevertheless, even if blacks have higher levels of testosterone than other races, then this would still not explain racial differences in crime, since heightened aggression explain T increases, high T doesn’t explain heightened aggression. HBDers seem to have cause and effect backwards for this relationship. Injecting individuals with supraphysiological doses of testosterone as high as 200 and 600 mg per week does not cause heightened anger or aggression (Tricker et al, 1996; O’Connor et, 2002). If the hereditarian hypothesis on the relationship between testosterone and aggression were true, then we would see the opposite finding from what Tricker et al and O’Connor et al found. Thus this discussion shows that hereditarians are wrong about racial differences in testosterone and that they are wrong about causality when it comes to the T-aggression relationship. So this argument shows that the hereditarian simplification on the T-aggression relationship is false.
I’ll wait for the *crickets* from you.
RR do you believe jews are (a) very powerful politically and in academia and (b) are different from other races in intelligence?
Extremely stupid people like you are always confusing the abstract with the concrete.
As I said before, there is a feedback relationship between testosterone / hormone and aggressiveness / certain behavior and not that one causes the other and not the other way around,
that’s not possible.
I won’t discuss anything further with an amoeba like you.
I sincerely hope that you pay for the evil you are hapilly contributing.
I’ll post the last comment directed at you, demented.
I wasted a lot of time today reading your rubbish and this is unacceptable.
Philosopher, to the first yea most likely and to the second, if you mean IQ, yea and it’s explained by culture/family background (pushy mothers).
Santo, of course that’s yet another non-response. I’ve shown the what the relationship is, with relevant citations, and then I showed with two citations that the relationship isn’t even there. Nothing to say as usual.
“isn’t even there” regarding T increasing A.
By the way
“I sincerely hope that you pay for the evil you are hapilly contributing.”
Wishing bad on someone for internet comments is… Something. Are you OK man?
There are lots of people who mix raced without any ideological garbage on their backs telling them is an ultimate anti racist woke atitude to do. It’s not your case. You are absolutely devoted to your version of reality or irrational approach of overpersonalizing your perception of it. So it seems very predictable you would embrace it literally soon or later. So you didnt race mixed because you felt a genuine attraction to given black woman but also because your zombie brain said to you it’s a very good thing to do. But i even dont name it as social contagion at all if to being indoctrinated all of us need to have specific suscetibilities for it.
“telling them is an ultimate anti racist woke attitude to do” “because your zombie brain said it’s a very good thing to do”
Yea you’re delusional. You have absolutely no basis for these claims at all.
Ok.
Are you happy having a mixed race, half black baby if you believe raceism is the biggest crime in the world and the best way to fight would be having mixed race kids??
It’s just your opinion.
What the hell? What kind of a question is this? When have I ever asserted that “raceism is the biggest crime in the world and the best way to fight would be having mixed race kids”? Go ahead and quote me—but with your track record of making unevidenced claims and consistently asking to “put things in my own words” (which I have done for years and years), I know you want do what I asked.
I’m happy that I have a son with a woman I love. That’s it.
Damn, the mixed-race, wanna-be white Brazilian is such a self-hater.
You answer my question. Hahaha
Stupid.
I’m almost indistinguisable from a southern european, ignorant.
So if i’m a “mixed race” and i’m against en masse mixing race am i a self hater??
If i was black and was not against racism against whites i would be a self hater too??
If i was black and was AGAINST racism against whites i would be a self hater too??
I did answer it. “almost indistinguishable” isn’t “indistinguishable.” Although you’re probably “white” in Brazil, you’re not “white” in America. Your question is idiotic and makes no sense. Figured that, of course, you can’t provide any evidence for what you impute to me.
If i was not white in “america” you either.
Even if i was not considered white there i’m not dependent on other people ignorant opinions.
Extremists could classify me as white latino, someone who is phenotypically european caucasian and have a romance language as a mother tongue.
Idiotic is your existence.
I mean, you conflrm my assumptions about your ulterior reasons to be a fool.
Erace realis (rr)
“People who are against or cautious about mixing race are extremely racist and thus evil. That’s why i decided to be race blind in my mating but definitively favoring non-white potential partners to prove to society and to myself i’m 100% anti racis”
Italians arrived to America as white. “White Latinos” are white, no need for the “Latino” part. “White” in America and “white” in Brazil aren’t the same things. Keep lying to yourself bro.
“to prove to society and to myself i’m 100% anti racis”
Again, nothing to back this at all. Imputing ridiculous motives to me, what a joke. I don’t favor any kind of woman, I’ve dated many different ethnicities in my life. You’re delusional.
You keep bullshitting because you are extremely dumb. The same failled arguments i already refuted like the FALLACY of conflating ethnicity with race. We already had this debate but your long term memory seems as abstract as your intelligence.
Italians were not considered fully white by the american “elites” of two centuries ago. Because you dont have any quoting available near to you, you wrote this incoerent and ignorant comment.
Brazil racial concepts has been more variable, historically, than american ones but it doesnt mean they are completely different because it depends on region, social class, education or cultural group we are talking about while american way to classify people’s races has been homogeneous.
(Refreshing your stupid brain, again).
From all people i know in entire hbdshphere you are the most indoctrinated of all. I think you should be in a psychiatric treatment, seriously, and not passing as academic you are not and then cheerleading your pseudo scientists everywhere you are using this same pathetic A.I comment patterns.
Mixing race irrealist think because i identified myself as white (correctly) i’m against masse immigration and or mixing race and because he think i’m phenotypically mixed race i’m a self hater. This is a very low level.
Even if i was phenotypically mixed, firstly, i would never identify myself as something i’m not and secondly, being empathetic with people who are not on your own categories or groups is not self hating, but because he hates white people he thinks anyone who is not white and is in the side of white people in this cultural war is a self hater.
Did RR actually say that on his blog? Wow. Thats extreme.
“fallacy of conflating ethnicity and race” – haha you think I don’t know the difference. I said “ethnicity” for a reason, and obviously I’ve dated different races of women.
“Italians were not considered fully white by the american “elites” of two centuries ago” – oh man shut up. You’re totally clueless.
Our findings help resolve the controversy over whether certain U.S. non-Anglo-Saxon European immigrant groups became white in historical America. Our analysis suggests that “becoming white” carries different meanings: change in racial classification, and change in majority/minority status. In terms of the former, “becoming white” for non-Anglo-Saxon European immigrant groups is bogus. Hence, the argument of Eric Arnesen (2001), Aldoph Reed (2001), Barbara Fields (2001), and Thomas Guglielmo (2003) that the Irish, Italians, and Jews were white on arrival in America is vindicated.
https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jpps/vol8/iss1/1/
Note: Guglielmo 2003 is “White on Arrival” about Italians being… White on arrival to the United States.
Brazilian and American race concepts are dissimilar. What is the American race concept?
“A. I comment patterns” – haha you just don’t know how to write and cite references for your claims. Because you don’t read.
“he hates white people” – what are you talking about?
“Did RR actually say that on his blog? Wow. That’s extreme.”
Why don’t you ask me directly? What did I say? I’ll tell you myself if I said it.
This is their problem, RR; they literally can only see the world through a racial lens. That’s why they are incapable of nuance or real intellectual discussion. That’s why I told you it’s pointless trying to argue with them. They will never understand reason because they’re programmed not to.
Philo obviously had something traumatic happen to him involving black people. Maybe he got cucked or something.
Or maybe he got his ass kicked a lot as a kid.
Erich is having a paralel discussion with eRRor about how “they” can’t understand reason…
Seriously???
RR is the less rational person here. Even if Phill say some very silly things, he at least is not really wrong about almost everything while rr is a walking dead brain and if you are not capable to see this, i think you are engaging in very lower rational level because your bias against “racialists”.
RRetard pick up some of his collection of biased links to “refute” something anyone can find in wikipedia. There was a huge animosity to italian immigration, specially from Mezzogiorno, in USA of XIX and early XX. Same about eastern europeans and other southern europeans.
Maybe they were no so wrong…
Fuck your piece of shit.
Your extremely stupid questions as always.
If you dont know the american concept of racial categorization so why are you claiming you know???
Mostly by ancestry and phenotype, with the primacy of whiteness coming from northern europeans, durrrrrrrrrrr.
This piece of italian gargabe think knows more about Brasil than me. He could if he really study things and not just memorize sophistry.
EXTREME INTELECTUAL DISHONESTY.
So why you dont answered my question in Unz post??
Do u believes in objective truth??
Look at how this woketard carcamano barely answer what we write and always use endless biased links to avoid any real confrontation, like a good coward, typical from a woketoid.
“Our findings help resolve the controversy over whether certain U.S. non-Anglo-Saxon European immigrant groups became white in historical America. Our analysis suggests that “becoming white” carries different meanings: change in racial classification, and change in majority/minority status. In terms of the former, “becoming white” for non-Anglo-Saxon European immigrant groups is bogus. Hence, the argument of Eric Arnesen (2001), Aldoph Reed (2001), Barbara Fields (2001), and Thomas Guglielmo (2003) that the Irish, Italians, and Jews were white on arrival in America is vindicated”
How this refute what i said???
And again “OUR ANALYSIS”. Biased links.
They were not considered fully white.
RRetard is so useless he is basically counter arguing white supremacy and hierarchy dominant in that time in which northern europeans were considered the purest white. There was an immigration law favoring northern europeans over other europeans in USA.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/andscape.com/features/white-immigrants-werent-always-considered-white-and-acceptable/amp/
“OUR ANALYSIS” RRetarded comrades infiltrated in academia.
I apologized by my numerous grammatical mistakes specially in these comments above.
“There was a huge animosity to italian immigration”
I don’t deny this. Of course there was, and it was irrational.
“Maybe they were no so wrong…
Fuck your piece of shit.”
Its so funny how you get so bent out of shape over comments on the internet.
“I’d you don’t know the american concept of racial categorization so why are you claiming you know???”
Of course I know how race is conceptualized in America. I’m asking if you know what the American race conception is and how it’s different from the Brazilian race concept (hint: The social construction of race entails that racial categorization isn’t agreed-upon around the world. This is why you could be white in Brazil and not in America. Learn something.
“(P1) If race is a social construct, then racial categories are not fixed and universally agreed-upon.
(P2) If racial categories are not fixed and universally agreed-upon, then different societies can define race differently.
(C1) So if race is a social construct, then different societies can define race differently.
(P3) If different societies can define race differently, then race lacks an inherent and biological basis.
(P4) Different societies do define race differently (observation of diverse racial classifications worldwide).
(C2) Thus, race lacks and inherent and biological basis.
(P5) If race lacks an inherent and biological basis, then race is a social construct.
(P6) Race lacks an inherent and biological basis.
(C3) Therefore, race is a social construct.
Premise 1: The concept of race varies across place and time. For example, we once had the one drop rule, which stated that any amount of “black blood” makes one black irregardless of their appearance or background. But Brazil has a more fluid approach to racial classification, like pardo and mullato. So this shows that racial categories aren’t fixed and universally agreed-upon, since race concepts in the US and Brazil are different. It also shows that race categories can change on the basis of social and cultural context and, in the context of Brazil, the number of slaves that were transported there.
Premise 2: Racial categories were strictly enforced in apartheid South Africa and people were placed into groups based on arbitrary criteria. Though this classification system differs from the caste system in India, where caste distinctions are based on a social hierarchy, not racial characteristics, which shows how different societies have different concepts of identity and social distinctions (how and in what way to structure their societies). So Conclusion 1 then follows: The variability in racial categorization across societies shows that the concept of race is not fixed, but is shaped by societal norms and beliefs.
Premise 3: Jim Crow laws and the one drop rule show how racial categorization can shift depending on the times and what is currently going on in the society in question. The example of Jim Crow laws show that historical context and social norms dictated racial classification and the boundary between races. Again, going back to the example of Brazil is informative to explain the point. The Brazilian racial system encompasses a larger range of racial groups which were influenced by slavery and colonization and the interactions between European, African, and indigenous peoples. So this shows how racial identity can and has been shaped by historical happenstance along with the intermixing or racial and ethnic groups.
Premise 4: As I already explained, Brazil and South Africa recognize a broader range of racial categories due to their historical circumstances and diverse social histories and dynamics. So Conclusion 2 follows, since these examples show that race doesn’t have a fixed, inherent and objective biological basis; it shows that race is shaped by social, historical, and cultural contexts.
Premise 5: So due to the variability in racial categorization historically and today, and the changing of racial boundaries in the past. For instance, Irish and Italian Americans were seen as different races in the 1900s, but over time as they assimilated into American society, racial categories began to blur and they then became part of the white race. Racial categories in Brazil are based on how the person is perceived, which leads to multiple different racial groups. Apartheid South Africa has 4 classifications: White, Black, Colored (mixed race) and Indian. These examples highlight the fact that based on changing social conventions and thought, how race can and does change with the times based on what is currently going on in the society in question. This highlights the fluid nature of racial categories. The argument up until this point has provided evidence for Premise 6, so Conclusion 3 follows: race is a social construct. Varying racial categories in different societies across time and place, the absence of an objective biological basis to race, along with the influence of historical, cultural, and social factors all point to the conclusion that race is a social construct.”
“This Italian piece of garbage think knows more about Brasil than me. He could he of he really study things and not just memorize sophistry.”
You have no idea what I study.
“How this refute what i said???”
You idiot, it shows that Italians, Jews and the Irish arrived as white. This doesn’t mean they weren’t discriminated against, but it does show they weren’t looked at as “not white” in the 1900s. If you read the article I cited, you’d see that they were considered inferior based on their ethnicity, but they were all white and has access to things that nonwhites (blacks) didn’t have access to. They were always legally white and didn’t need to switch to be white. Santo thinks he knows more about American history than me.
“However, with the publication of White on Arrival: Italians, Race, Color, and Power in Chicago, 1890–1945 in 2003, Thomas Guglielmo challenged the concept of inbetweeness, arguing that scholars have failed to “understand the distinctions between race and color.”17 According to Guglielmo, when contrasted with African Americans, Asian Americans, and Mexican Americans whose nonwhiteness systematically excluded them from citizenship and equal rights, Italian immigrants could not be described as anything but white. Thus, “While Italians suffered greatly for their putative racial undesirability as Italians, South Italians, and so forth, they still benefited in countless ways from their privileged color status as whites.” This distinction between race and color, argued Guglielmo, explains how southern Italian immigrants could face racial discrimination upon their arrival but still enjoy privileges due to their whiteness. Guglielmo contends that the notion of racial inbetweeness must be refined in order to account for the fact that “Italians did not need to become white; they always were in numerous, critical ways.”18” – Peter Vellon, A Great Conspiracy Against Our Race: Italian Immigrant Newspapers and the Construction of Whiteness in the Early 20th Century, p 6-7
You can say “I was wrong” based in this information Santo.
Italians, specially from South, tend to be not very honest.. to say few.
If USA wanted to keep itself as an anglo saxon nation, would be natural controlling the number of italians in the country.
“Of course I know how race is conceptualized in America. I’m asking if you know what the American race conception is and how it’s different from the Brazilian race concept (hint: The social construction of race entails that racial categorization isn’t agreed-upon around the world. This is why you could be white in Brazil and not in America. Learn something”
Most of this blablabla is like saying nothing.
Of course i dont know (sarcasm)…
HOW PP CAN ACCEPT THIS GIGANT PIECE OF GARBAGE???
Moderation??
Not just gigantic but useless.
No. I will not read your mental disease, sorry.
Nothing you verborrage will take my attention now.
You are wrong about most of this stuff.
Where you read in my comments i said “they were not considered white??”
I said : ” they were not considered FULLY white by the american “elites” of that time”
I could complete this with “And also by many white ordinary americans”
I chose this word for something…
I also could complete with “And obviously most people there considered irish as white as other northern europeans, but from a lower social status”.
“Italians did not need to become white; they always
were in numerous,
critical ways”
How vague your comrade from Puglia is sounding here??
Your statement “italians and other non northern europeans were (TOTALLY) considered whites right in their arrivals in USA” is just not true.
And the in betweeness was just right if they had some “privileged” for being from Europe but were socially discriminated.
Even about something obviously evident like this historical fact you make this mess. You are a complete disaster as an “intelectual”.
Even today many ignorant americans think hispanics and spaniards or portugueses are the same people.
You said “If i was not white in “america” you either.” and I showed you that they were white upon arrival to the United States.
“I also could complete with “And obviously most people there considered irish as white as other northern europeans, but from a lower social status”.”
I don’t disagree with this.
“Your statement “italians and other non northern europeans were (TOTALLY) considered whites right in their arrivals in USA” is just not true.
And the in betweeness was just right if they had some “privileged” for being from Europe but were socially discriminated.”
It was just irrational Nordic supremacy. They were discriminated against due to their social status and how they looked (different from the average), but generations later and italians are some of the most successful people in America.
It’s just NOT irrational if their primary reason was to keep USA WASP as possible. No country should be forced to accept anyone in their territory.
Early american legislization about immigration was designed exactly to limiting the arrivals and naturalization of non-northern european immigrants.
Nordicism is not totally irrational. Today, the most succesful people in the planet in terms of civilization has been europeans and specially nordics, germans and british. That’s why so many young southern europeans are e/migrating to The Netherlands, Sweden, even UK.
So seems like i know more about american history than you.
And seems you think brazilians and other latin americans categorize people racially ONLY by self identification. I already explained that is not that simple. Do you remember?? I remember what i said and that you thanked me by the explanation….
Of course it was irrational. It was based on falsities. Giving known biased tests to immigrants to ensure they don’t come in due to the current policies by Henry Laughlin. The Nazis modeled their sterilization laws off of Laughlin’s sterilization laws. He cited Goddard’s figures to Congress in 1924 in the date over the immigration act of 1924. So yea, it was irrational as it was based on literal bullshit. Gould also noted all of the conditions the tests were taken in along with how the tests were biased.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/026.html
“Race” in America is conceptually different than race in Brazil. What is the American race concept? Brazilians adopted racial mixing in an attempt to “whiten”. Of those who consider themselves “fully white” in Brazil, 97 percent have paternal European heritage but maternally it’s a mere 37 percent. 61 percent of Brazilians who consider themselves “fully white” have some African ancestry. Appearance, social class, and education can decide what race one is and there are like 12 racial terms used. The Brazilian race concept is in no way like the American race concept, and that’s one solid example of the social construction of race.
https://comparativemigrationstudies.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40878-022-00294-0
“The proximity between categories of the two measures of skin color observed in the correspondence analysis indicates the existence of similarities among them, pointing that both represent the same race/color construct. On the other, the distance between white, brown and black, as well as between the color scale categories, shows their distinctiveness.
Brazilians tend to self-classify their skin color near the center of the color gradient, in agreement with results from other studies that reported the preference of Brazilians for the brown [moreno] category and its association with the idea of a mixed-race nation [6], i.e., neither white nor black.”
https://equityhealthj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-9276-10-35
Many people (politicians) outright changing their race.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/brazil-racial-identity-black-white/2020/11/15/2b7d41d2-21cb-11eb-8672-c281c7a2c96e_story.html
Seems a good idea to write on the differences between Brazilian and American race concepts, because the concept in Brazil is very alien to the concept in America, and it’s influenced by the history of colonialism and the slave trade. And there is much work showing that it’s based on “cor”, which is in no way similar to the American race concept. Stay tuned for my article.
Click to access Paper_RacialAmbiguityBrazil.pdf
So mind telling me the US race concept?
I also remember when you was not totally wokenized, your positive bias about Southern Italians was big because you was easily triggered by any criticism about them and seems you didnt changed.
”Of course it was irrational. It was based on falsities.”
I’m not going to waste my time, after all these years of experience with you, reading your stupid, pedantic litany.
Only in that part, where you are you, I care.
In this case, it is not a question of irrational or not, but of logic, and their logic was:
”We want the USA to continue to be this country whose population is mostly made up of northern European descents”.
Ciao”
Anyway, the south of Italy is a very dysfunctional region, it would be worse if Italy wasn’t part of the EU. And the blame for this dysfunctionality is at the most part of its own population.
”EQUITY…”
SOURC…
I’ve explained this before, but your long-term memory is non-existent.
If you, Brazilian, are white, live in the south of Brazil, within a colony of descendants of European immigrants, your way of classifying people racially is closer to the North American way.
If you, Brazilian, live in a favela, where most people are black and brown, racial classification is more in line with the Latin American way, due to phenotypic gradation and skin color as the primacy of categorization.
If you, Brazilian, have a higher educational level, there is also a greater tendency for your racial classification to be more aligned with the North American way.
If you, Brazilian, show sympathy for the extreme right or, if you are not a lunatic, like you, and seek to analyze the world in an impartial and objective way, then it is more likely that you adopt a most consistent way of racial classification.
The Brazilian/latino way of racial classification is not based only on skin color or self-identification.
This is the biggest difference with the North American way that has prevailed, where self-identification and skin color are not equally considered aiming this goal.
In the US, ancestry has been the most important factor for racial classification, followed by phenotype.
Rr now believes that the vast majority of Brazilians racially classified themselves only by skin color and self-identification.
Brazilian universities generally do not produce exceptional studies in terms of quality and depth.
Especially if they’re done by stupid leftists…
As for my classification, I don’t agree with any of the types.
In terms of ancestry, I am practically 100% Portuguese on my father’s side and much more mestizo on my mother’s side, but not significantly.
In terms of phenotype, the vast majority of people, not just in Brazil, classify me as white, because my phenotype is indistinguishable from a southern European.
Therefore, it makes no sense to classify myself as mestizo/mixed-race.
But I find it interesting that RR believes I’m self-hater for not identifying as a mixed race.
I thought RR believed that pure races don’t exist…
“Anyway, the south of Italy is a very dysfunctional region, it would be worse if Italy wasn’t part of the EU. And the blame for this dysfunctionality is at the most part of its own population.”
You don’t even understand the history of Italy.
“The Brazilian/latino way of racial classification is not based only on skin color or self-identification.”
Right, eduction level and class play a role as I stated above.
You’re basically saying it’s context-dependent. Shocking, that’s the core of my argument that race is a social construct.
And I showed to you that those who claim they are “pure white” have significant nonwhite ancestry. I don’t believe in “pure races” but for one to claim they are X but they have significant ancestry from Y, then they aren’t X. They may be X in one place but not in another. It’s of course a plus for my argument that race is a social construct.
“You don’t even understand the history of Italy.”
Ui
I know verry liddle…
“Right, eduction level and class play a role as I stated above.”
OHO.
“You’re basically saying it’s context-dependent. Shocking, that’s the core of my argument that race is a social construct.”
How people define themselves is variably different than a scientifically based racial classification.
Shockingly dumb.
Vou are not capable to learn the basics. All of the rest is a castle of cards.
“And I showed to you that those who claim they are “pure white” have significant nonwhite ancestry”
Who???
In Brasil??
In Brazil and other Latin American countries most people who identify as white have no significant non white ancestry.
~ 5 to 10% is significant??
“I don’t believe in “pure races” but for one to claim they are X but they have significant ancestry from Y, then they aren’t X.”
So you believe in pure race, sorry, Rtard.
” They may be X in one place but not in another. It’s of course a plus for my argument that race is a social construct”
So sex is also a social construct??
Rtard has very big issues with
Dealing with the truth no matter what
Understanding the nuances of given reality.
Dona Clotilde da Silva think her pardo niece is white because lighter skin color.
The same way she believes Cleopatra was black because the queen of Egypt was born in África…
That low level, my boi.
““And I showed to you that those who claim they are “pure white” have significant nonwhite ancestry”
Who???
In Brasil??
In Brazil and other Latin American countries most people who identify as white have no significant non white ancestry.”
Yea so you’re ignorant to the genetic data that I stated in a comment above. Figures.
“So you believe in pure race, sorry, Rtard.”
Nothing I’ve ever written should make one believe that I believe in pure races—go ahead and quote me.
The reality is that race is a social construct and it’s proven by looking at race concepts around the world.
People who identified as white in Brazil tend to have like ~90% or more of european ancestry, pardo: ~70% white, black: ~50% or less of european.
It is a social construct that racial ancestry can be tracked by genetic analycis????
A reasonable and smart people, not you, can answer this question correctly.
Rrtard seems doesnt know how to avoid self contradicting and then he always denies what he said, even if unintentionally. That’s why PP keep him here. The same way Oprah still does to increase her audience.
Fine I’ll cite the reference for you in a bit, but I know that citations have no effect on your gibberish. This is borne out in genetic data.
“It is a social construct that racial ancestry can be tracked by genetic analycis????”
What is the American race concept? This comment here shows me that you don’t understand my (sound) argument since you haven’t pointed out an error in my reasoning.
Even if there were no statistical differences in behavior and intelligence between racial and ethnic groups, physical-phenotypic differences would remain, because, a priori, what corroborates for the existence of human races, or well-demarcated phenotypic variations among human populations, is not whether they are more influential or impactful in other aspects, such as behavior, but their very existence.
The very existence of human beings with different racial phenotypes is not a concept of a given nationality, it is a universal fact that only complete idiots like you could deny.
Even if there is some randomness of identity by race in mixed-race majority countries, this randomness still seems to show patterns that are in line with variations in characteristics between racial groups, such as variation in skin color.
For race to be just a social construct, a completely black person in racial phenotype would be considered white or would identify as such, and vice versa.
We’re talking about the basics of logical-rational thinking that some mistakenly call ”common sense” that you’ve replaced with whatever research or line of thought within academia that supposedly challenges certain consensuses such as the role of male hormones in promoting behaviors typically found in men.
“between racial and ethnic groups, physical-phenotypic differences would remain, because, a priori, what corroborates for the existence of human races, or well-demarcated phenotypic variations among human populations, is not whether they are more influential or impactful in other aspects, such as behavior, but their very existence.”
Thanks for the information man… It’s not like the theory of race I push (Spencer’s OMB race theory) doesn’t say that… I’m a pluralist about race, and this allows me to make that social construct argument, since there are contexts and different times in different countries where multiple different race concepts can be used.
True or false RR – you want to identify as a black man.
True or false—you don’t take showers and you can’t hold down a job.
So you admit you want to be a black man. Incredible.
What a clown you are.
Extremely classist…
Well, at least he doesn’t have a shitty job like your and doesn’t pretend to be a pseudo academic.
If rr is a fitness coach, then why doesn’t he look fit?
LMAO. Damn.
RR isn’t taking any prisoners today.
He is a sociopath who is using current system to favor himself. He and his comrades should be expelled mercilessly from academia. They are the horses who are in the top of a building. People dont understand how horses could be capable to do this.
“He is a sociopath who using current system to favor himself.”
What the hell does this mean?
“He and his comrades mercilessly expelled from academia”
Why do you care so much about America? Worry about your own country. Your the definition of “hater” and it’s been like that for years.
I have a job doing what I love and I get paid very well for it. That’s not a “shitty job.” Wonder what your job is.
Because i live in a continent called América????
What is the point or logic of this another stupid question???
So if i’m not statean i should be only interested on my country affairs???
[redacted by pp 2023-09-02 because someone needs to put an end to this feud before you guys end up ruining your weekend!]
“I have a job doing what I love and I get paid very well for it. ”
If this job is being a pseudo social scientist… it’s may explain a lot…
You love embarassing yourself and not giving notice.
There’s something wrong with you if you believe I get paid to write these comments. Keep proving to me how delusional you are.
His job is a fitness trainer lol. This guy is totally out of his depth here intellectually.
Obviously not.
His poor customers…
You behave like a pseudo scientist woke from ingsocial sciences who was infiltrated in hbd sphere exactly to attack heresytarians and also someone who need to do this to survive, his payment.
Because nobody knows who is who here, you could be anything, even a dane.
Great you are doing well, but are you helping people in need???? Like at least 20% of your money???
Or are you just another extremely hypocrite “liberal”???
lmao yea you’re delusional. I don’t get fucking paid to comment on the internet.
Working at the university…
Does he work at a university??? WTF This guy is fucking retarded. The only reason he got a job with a uni is that he agrees with the danes. This actually greatly reinforces my theory that anyone that agrees with the danes gets hired to brainwash kids at uni.
I don’t work at a university you dolt.
Prove.
santo and sometimes pill, you both are being unnecessarily mean to rr just because he is refuting hbd. he is giving proper citations for things he claims and you both should do the same.
On which planet??
TRRoll often refutes himself.
I’m realizing you’re a supposed progressivist…
The planet where you didn’t respond to my argument on how testosterone doesn’t cause or influence aggression because you’re ignorant of physiology—this planet.
Name, they can’t give citations for their claims because they’re ignorant and they’re ignorant because they don’t read.
wow! banned by peepee AGAIN!
santo, I believe in solid science proof. Say…if it is proven beyond a doubt that earth is flat or evolution didn’t happen then my stance would be to believe it.
if that is progressivist….then i guess i am.
His citations are propaganda dumbass.
Name,
You said it’s not true great majority of the poorest countries are nearly 100% blacks.
Says the guy who can’t ever back his claims. Classic. This is why I put you with loaded on the bottom of people to discuss things with.
santo dear, i didnt say that.
When I first started commenting here, RR wasn’t as deranged and twisted as he is now. I never thought RR would ever lower himself and have a black baby….but here we are.
Pill is the weirdest person I know. Hardcore racist yet watches the young Turks religiously lol.
So you are saying you would have no issues with having a black baby?
LOL, he said RR was deranged and twisted after saying all that horrific shit about black people.
God, I hope he’s just a troll.
No youre a troll. You are basically a sock puppet for the JIDF.
Yeah the Young Turks is good tv. Cenk’s rants and analysis of American politics is correct. Unfortunately on the issue of race he just doesn’t get it. Yesterday he openly he said he doesn’t understand why mainstream media is so obsessed with Israel. I was almost shouting at the screen the answer. He is so blinded by danish liberalism that he can’t compute that races of man are different beyond skin colour.
But TYT is miles better than any other political media. Anything on the right is garbage.
First he said the media was attacking Vivek because he’s an outsider. That’s only half-true (they probably resent all the interviews he gives to internet media); bu they’re also attacking him because he’s too pro-Trump & not pro-Israel enough Then Cenk can’t understand why the media is pro-Israel. Or maybe he does understand but can’t figure out a politically correct way to say it.
It’s funny how all these youtube shows mock CNN for being elite propaganda, but they’re not much better and in some ways they’re worse because they pretend to be subversive but just end up regurgitating the same Chomsky analysis of financial interests explaining everything (with no reference to ethnic interests of HBD). Meanwhile conservative internet media mindlessly blames everything on minorities (blacks, hispanics, gays) except for the one minority that has actual power.
they’re so much worse in many ways. they act as gatekeepers and lull people into thinking that they’re edgy and well informed. same with ben shapiro types on the right.
The chomsky critique isnt completely wrong. But when you talk about US media, then basically you are talking about danes and they don’t care about the profit motive. The media is not like an other industry in a democracy so these libertarians are fucking retarded on that issue. Cenk ended up saying the reason the media likes Israel is because the arms dealers make money sending aid to Israel.
A lot of liberals feel it is morally repugnant to question jews. They have been conditioned all their lives to avoid even thinking about jews. [redacted by pp, 2023-09-02]
Liberals find it repugnant to spread stereotypes about any minority. And Cenk probably also has a lot of Jewish fans who agree that America is too pro-Israel but would be deeply offended if he blamed this on Jews, especially the ones in media since that has become such a trope.
As the brilliant late Jerry Springer said, the lesson of WWII is we should criticize people for what they do, not for what they are.
Most libs are dumb enough to dont understand the nuances of stereotyping people and they stereotype a lot any category of people who disagree with them at the point of caricature.
Puppy has probably considered adopting a black baby. That would be the ultimate status symbol for him.
talking about the mind by anatomizing the brain is either mentally retarded or autistic or both.
how many times do i have to say it?
ANAL PHILOSOPHY IS NOT PHILOSOPHY!
IT’S 12 YEAR OLD GIRLS TALKING ABOUT CUTE BOYS.
SAD.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8sNiAgEKGo&ab_channel=TheMemoryOfAllThat
but at least we can agree arthur russell has all the best breaks yet to be culturally appropriated/exploited by rappers. genius who died from anal pleasure in 1992.
“and there’s and there’s and there’s no end in sight…|
Your comment is awaiting moderation. This is a preview; your comment will be visible after it has been approved.
September 1, 2023 at 8:13 pm
rr: why is anatomizing the brain mentally retarded or autistic or both? what’s your argument?
mugabe: [mezcal kicking in] rr…there is nothing i can say that by itself can lead you out of the wilderness…to see the promised land…to get to it…
there’s a limit to science and arguments. do you know that? do you know what that limit is?
rr: just tell me how i can play checkers better.
mugabe: rr. i’m playing chess. read heidegger. read the upanishads. stop being so INCREDIBLY ARROGANT!
Peeps love, r u a cat person or dog person?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/music/richard-lynn-evolutionary-psychologist-who-declared-his-belief-in-the-benefits-of-eugenics-obituary/ar-AA1g29lf?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=1b07244f02da4cc7a4909d18e68aa8a4&ei=11
Yeah Lynn is dead. Interesting he spent his whole professional life in Ireland. Obviously the danes would have banned him from America but perhaps the danes don’t control UK academia as tightly.
Melo and RR are basically 2 guys that walked off the street into a Mensa gathering and started bloviating about their dumbass opinions to people much more intelligent hahaha.
LOL, you’re so outclassed on this blog.
In fairness to RR and Melo, neither have autism.
In fairness to Pill, he doesn’t have cancer.
I think you should ban RR Puppy. He doesn’t believe in evolution. No christian forum would allow an atheist to post freely on their forum so we shouldn’t allow a low IQ idiot to post anti-evolutionary theory here.
“He doesn’t believe in evolution.”
Yes I do. I hold to a DST extended evolutionary synthesis view.
Whats that mean? Basically from everything youve said, you dont believe in evolution.
Quote me.
RR just speak frankly, you dont believe in evolution. You don’t even believe in genetics. We know all that. Stop walking back your ‘theories’. You are the dumbest person here. I used to think Marsha must have been wrong to say it, but now I realise what a total doofus you are.
Can you quote me or not?
Lol, he can’t quote you.
Too easy.
I know he can’t. I enjoy watching him dodge the questions when he makes his idiotic claims.
He says it literally every thread. In this thread alone he says branching off doesn’t prove evolution. I can literally just control F his name and he says something anti-evolution.
Haha damn you are clueless.
He lets your dumbass post here, so I don’t know why he wouldn’t let RR.
Pumpkin Person only me and illuminati cat are the only middle class readera of your blog. Always has been juzt uz 2. we are millienials.
Ok, well I think you meant to say working class because nobody brags about being middle class unless youre comparing yourself to elites. Nobody here is an elite.
If he means working class, he’s definitely wrong. Pretty sure RR and I are(or were) working class. We’re also millennials. Isn’t Loaded rich?
Is there even a middle class anymore?
Loaded is upper middle class. His parents are healthcare scientists. Anyone on a wage isn’t rich.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/03/native-tribe-upper-sioux-agency-us-dakota-war
^^
The only reperations I would support.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/27/jonty-bravery-tate-modern-not-considered-risk
Wow. Read this case Puppy. Is this person autistic or schiz? He sounds fucking loopers. But the professional say hes autistic. But why would he act like this? He sounds crazy imo.
He’s autistic. This is what I mean. You don’t know what autism is, so you get confused by cases like this.
That said, he was also diagnosed without disorders, which probably contributed to his violent tendencies.
I knew a woman who was raped by her autistic son. Violent outbursts are not out of the ball bark for autists.
with other disorders***
But, but, but he picked a fight with a 6-year-old and not with the Rock so he’s not aggressive Sapolsky might say.
10000% Sapolsky (dane) is saying this stupid shit to ‘prove’ blacks are peaceful law abiding citizens.
”White supremacists are responsible for .001% of all murders each year. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting statistics for 2021, Black people are responsible for 60% of all murders in the U.S., and the majority of their victims are other Blacks. Those are the many, many Black lives that absolutely do not matter to the media.”
The media doesn’t ‘care’ about blacks because danes don’t care about blacks other than as a bludgeon to beat gentiles over the head with. They know gentiles have more empathy than the other races so its easy to copy paste the word ‘slavery’ and ‘police brutality’ into every article. Danes are masters of knowing their opponents. They invented the field of psychology actually.
why do danes want to beat gentiles over the head?
Its a subversion tactic and the point is to make gentiles worship minorities.
Why do they want gentiles to worship minorities?
Because danes are a minority that rule everyone. Duh.
They’re not as powerful as you think. They can’t even take down a severely autistic man:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/elon-musk-blames-adl-lost-revenue-says-anti-semitism-kind-rcna103292
The danes will win. The own the courts. And Elon is not ‘severly autistic’ LOL. Wow. Your social judgement is basically even worse than anime.
Well I’m exaggerating obviously. I just find him a freak. Hope Zuckerberg obliterates him if they ever have a cage match
They are not absolutely powerful but they are still very powerful, specially today.
phil, when danes are already a minority ruling over gentiles why do they want to beat gentiles over the head?
They are cruel rulers. Even the mongols ruled the chinese with more empathy.
that is not an answer. why are they cruel?
The more interesting question is: why do blacks commit more crime? Biological theories (testosterone, AR gene, MAOA) are bunk. So how can we explain it? The Unnever-Gabbidon theory of African American offending (TAAO)—where blacks’ experience of racial discrimination and stereotypes increases criminal offenses—has empirical support. To understand black crime,we need to understand the black American experience. The theory not only explains African American criminal offending, it makes predictions which were borne out in independent research.
Two kinds of racial injustice highlighted by the theory—racial discrimination and pejorative stereotyping—have empirical support. Blacks are more likely to express anger, exhibit low self-control and become depressed if they believe the racist stereotype that they’re violent. It’s also been studied whether or not a sense of racial injustice are related to offending when controlling for low self control.
The data show that there is a racialized worldview shared by blacks, and that a majority of blacks believe that their fate rests on what generally happens to black people in America. Around 38 percent of blacks report being discriminated against and most blacks are aware of the stereotype of them as violent. Racial discrimination and the belief in the racist stereotype that blacks are more violent are significant predictors of black arrests. It’s been shown that the more blacks are discriminated against and the more they believe that blacks are violent, the more likely they are to be arrested. Unnever and Gabbidon also theorized that the aforementioned isn’t just related to criminal offending but also to substance and alcohol abuse. Unnever and Gabbidon also hypothesized that racial injustices are related to crime since they increase the likelihood of experiencing negative emotions like anger and depression. It’s been experimentally demonstrated that blacks who perceive racial discrimination and who believe the racist stereotype that blacks are more violent express less self-control. The negative emotions from racial discrimination predict the likelihood of committing crime and similar behavior. It’s been shown that blacks who have less self-control, who are angrier and are depressed have a higher liklihood of offending. Further, while controlling for self-control, anger and depression and other variables, racial discrimination predicts arrests and substance and alcohol abuse. Lastly the experience of being black in a racialized society predicts offending, even after controlling for other measures. Thus, it is ruled out that the reason why blacks are arrested more and perceive more racial injustice is due to low self-control.
So given the unique experiences of blacks in America, there needs to be a special, race-centric theory on explaining black American offending.
So the predictions of the theory are: Racial discrimination as a contributing factor; a strong racial identity could be a protective factor while a weak racial identity would be associated with a higher likelihood of engaging in criminal activity; blacks who feel socially marginalized would turn to crime as a response to their disadvantaged social position; poverty, education and neighborhood conditions play a significant role in black American offending rates, and that these factors interact with racial identity and discrimination which then influence criminal behavior; and lastly it predicts that the criminal justice system’s response to black American offenders could be influenced by their racial identity and social perceptions which could then potentially lead to disparities in treatment compared to other racial groups.
Ultimately, the unique experiences of black Americans explain why they commit more crime.
I could say a lot more on this but I’ll wait for responses. And I’ll make a prediction of my own: Santo and “philosopher” will hardly have anything to say about the successful novel predictions generated by the theory. (References available upon request.)
I read the first 2 sentences and burst out laughing.
I burst out laughing because my prediction came to pass.
GOD
NOOÓÓOOOOOOOOO
PP is lauguing…
Again, my prediction came true.
TL;DR: It’s White people’s fault that Blacks kill White people (and each other).
Except with the same “discrimination” and “racial identity” black females do not commit as much violent crime as black males.
Other races would not commit that amount of violent crime given the same reputation. You even wrote about how East Asians used to be viewed as similar to blacks in the 1800s. As more tribal, unevolved, aggressive, etc. yet they’ve never had the level violent crime that is evident in all majority African countries in any country they’ve been a significant population.
Nevermind the reason why blacks have gotten this well-lasting reputation for aggression in the first place, which is their inherited phenotype.
Yes everyone understands that races are more than inherited genetics and specific histories matter… that doesn’t mean that inherited phenotype is not having a great impact on levels of violence by that phenotype.
Maybe you’ll discover a specific historical circumstance that causes East Asians to be the most violent race and also have an average IQ of 80, but it doesn’t appear to have happened on Earth in the past or present. Why do males take physically dominant roles in nearly every society? Why are most societies patriarchal in the sense that the top positions of power are usually taken by men? Why are they the most violent and involved in wars?
Is it “Guns Germs and Steel” or does it have to do something with the way the inherited phenotypical differences between males and females interact with the environment and each other throughout any feasible society on Earth?
Who knows? Let’s just blame Whitey. It’s RRational!
I appreciate the philosophical exercises necessary to make these kinds of arguments, but they’re obviously biased against hereditarianism.
Which is fine, as there are holes in hereditarianism, physicalism, and IQism (having something to do with not understanding the mind-body interaction, genetic-environment interaction, and the ultimate causal mechanism behind the mental or physical, and others I guess) but don’t pretend you understand the true causes of behavior and development any better than hereditarians or IQists.
“black females do not commit ad much violent crime as black males”
Right, although black females are locked up at lower rates than black males, black females are locked up at almost 3 times the rate compared to white females. Though Caldwell et al 2004 concluded that “experience with racial discrimination was the strongest risk factor for young adult violent behavior, which highlights the significance of race-relations as a critical social context for understanding violent behavior as a response to oppression.” And positive ethnic-racial socialization buffers the effects of weak school bonds on adolescent substance abuse and criminal offending for black males but not females.
When it comes to Asians, you need to think of the substantial differences in their experiences when compared to black Americans. Asians were never enslaved (working on the railroad wasn’t slavery) and they had their own schools. The point is, perceptions changed in the 40s for the Chinese but changed for the Japanese. Though TAAO doesn’t conflict with that since TAAO is a race-specific theory.
“their inherited phenotype”
What do you mean by this? And GGS is just a bad book that’s been taken apart by many people, even anti-hereditarians.
Thanks for your comment and actually (somewhat) interacting with what I wrote. But the fact of the matter is, Unnever and Gabbidon’s theory has substantial empirical support since the publication of their book. And I would say it’s rational to state why blacks commit more crime is due in substantial part to the hypotheses and theory put forth by Unnever and Gabbidon. I’m not aware of even one of their hypotheses being false, only that there is more to the story than what they initially hypothesized using their theory.
So due to the substantial empirical support, and due to the fact that hereditarian explanations fail, it’s only rational to accept the Unnever-Gabbidon theory of African American criminal offending.
If a theory makes 5 predictions based on hypotheses and they all come to pass, it’s only rational to accept the theory until further evidence comes out, right? That’s how it is with the TAAO (I’m still counting the number of predictions that were verified and this will be in my article, I’m not saying it’s only 5 predictions that was just an example). I don’t see how one can rationally reject the theory when it has passed empirical muster and that there is strong empirical support for the proposed model from numerous different authors based on numerous different datasets.
“I’m not aware of even one of their hypotheses being false, only that there is more to the story than what they initially hypothesized using their theory.”
That is the problem here, as the “more to the story” could be inherited propensities to react to one’s view of their own racial reputation with violence. This is unfalsiable as it is based on possibly unrelated events such as historical treatment or perceived stereotypes vs. current rate of violence, given a lack of a point of comparison (no control), and suffers from the exact same argument against evolutionary theories for specific traits being selected as a “just-so story”.
“Though TAAO doesn’t conflict with that since TAAO is a race-specific theory.”
What part is race specific? Doesn’t that mean it’s useless as a predictive mechanism because there is no point of comparison? The whole argument of propensity to violence is based on races having different propensities. No hereditarian is going to deny that experience and one’s own self-valuation can affect one’s propensity to violence. Saying “blacks commit more violence than they would have if they were not poor” is not under contention, it is whether they do it more than other races with other variables being equal.
“unfalsifiable”
Huh? If their predictions don’t come to pass then the predictions are false and eventually the theory would fall and be considered a failure. But the fact that it keeps garnering empirical support from different authors and datasets is very telling to the scientific status of the TAAO.
“no control”
That’s irrelevant since the TAAO is race-specific and focused on explaining criminal activity in the black American community. Thus, in this context, the absence of a control group isn’t relevant. That’s a common mistake to make though, even from journal reviewers.
“just-so story”
A just-so story is an ad hoc hypothesis and a hypothesis is ad hoc if it cannot be independently verified, then a hypothesis that makes predictions which can be independently verified are not just-so stories. The TAAO makes predictions which can be independently verified so TAAO isn’t a just-so story.
The TAAO is race-specific since it focuses on explaining criminality in the black community and only the black community by lookin at their lived experiences and historical injustices and discrimination, racial discrimination and stereotypes, the contemporary racial context, and the role of cultural factors within the black community like influence of the family, neighborhood and community dynamics in shaping individual behavior and offending patterns.
What you’re saying would have merit if Unnever and Gabbidon formulated the theory to be a general theory to explain crime in all American racial contexts. If the TAAO were a kind of a racial strain theory then it could possibly be an attempt at generalization and so you could then criticize “no control groups”, but since TAAO isn’t a general criminological theory, then that’s irrelevant and TAAO is only to explain black crime using the black American experience. They even make this explicit.
“Finally, we agreed that the basic assumption of our book is that the African American experience does not generalize to other races (e.g., whites, Asians, Native Americans) or to other ethnicities (e.g., Hispanics). That is, we stipulate that the African American experience is peerless and that it can only explain black offending.”
Poor white and east asian people are less likely to commit crimes or violent acts than poor black people.
The TAAO is race-specific.
I think the gap is mainly due to higher rates of single-motherhood in American blacks. This, obviously, has to do with the mass incarceration problem in this country, which ties back to historical racism.
Here is an excellent article on the matter. Pumpkin, you’d like this, too (assuming you haven’t already read it) because it has a lot of statistical mumbo-jumbo going on.
Yea, TAAO acknowledges family dynamics and single motherhood is a family structure since it recognizes that growing up in a single parent household can influence a person’s access to support, role models, and resources which could lead to criminal activity. It also intersects with economic disparities since TAAO considers economic disadvantage as a risk factor for criminal behavior. And yea Melo, what you wrote at the end is what TAAO explains.
And mass incarceration is because blacks commit 60% of all violent crimes despite being 13% of the population you fucking clown. Melo, stick to the carpentry and leave the adults alone.
Okay RR,
From what you said, the point of the TAAO is that blacks are more likely to commit violent acts given X (in this case the experience of negative racial stereotypes and discrimination). Does anyone dispute this? But that does not mean their higher levels of T, or some other racial trait, does not make them more likely to respond to any given threat, such as discrimination, with violence.
The problem with this theory in a practical sense is that you can’t control people’s thoughts, and there is no telling what other perceptions could trigger.
It’s unfalsifiable because you cannot isolate what triggers blacks committing less crimes. Also, you think there is an objective measure of whether discrimination or stereotypes are less prevalent in society or someone’s experience? Doesn’t that go against your whole idea of the mind being immeasurable?
“A just-so story is an ad hoc hypothesis and a hypothesis is ad hoc if it cannot be independently verified, then a hypothesis that makes predictions which can be independently verified are not just-so stories. The TAAO makes predictions which can be independently verified so TAAO isn’t a just-so story.”
These predictions cannot be independently verified because you can’t measure levels of stereotypes or discrimination, and you cannot isolate them from other factors that also impact amounts of violence. What prediction has it made that can be solely attributed to its hypothesis?
“But that doesn’t mean their higher levels of T, or some other racial trait, does not make them more likely to response to any given threat, such as discrimination, with violence.”
That’s an empirical question and you need empirical evidence to make that claim. In any case, the relationship between T and aggression is known, and aggression increases T, not the reverse. Nevermind the fact that more recent, better quality studies show a small to no difference in T between the races. So you can’t look there. What other “racial traits” do you have in mind, then?
“It’s unfalsifiable because you can’t isolate what triggers blacks committing less crimes”
This has been studied and positive ethnic-racial socialization buffers the effect, so a strong case of racial identity will buffer it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9473348/
“Doesn’t that go against your whole idea of the mind being immeasurable?”
No, I don’t think there’s a contradiction. In any case there are implicit bias tests, discrimination audits and content analysis of the media which can shed light on bias and discrimination and stereotypes. Nevertheless, it’s clear that such biases do exist and that they do have physiological effects on the body.
“What prediction has it made that can be solely attributed to its hypothesis?”
Sure here’s one prediction, how the prediction follows from TAAO and the references to support it.
Black Americans with a stronger sense of racial identity are less likely to engage in criminal behavior than black Americans with a weak sense of racial identity. How does this prediction follow from the theory? TAAO suggests that a strong racial identity can act as a protective factor against criminal involvement. Those with a stronger sense of racial identity may be less likely to engage in criminal behavior as a way to cope with racial discrimination and societal marginalization. (Gaston and Doherty, 2018; Scott and Seal, 2019)
What does “independent verification” mean to you in this context?
At the end of the day, Lurker, predictions from the TAAO were generated, they were then subsequently tested by other authors with different datasets, and the predictions then came to pass. That’s a literal hallmark of a scientific theory—to generate testable novel predictions that then come to pass when under scrutiny. The literature on not only the TAAO but the basis for the TAAO has considerable empirical support. If the TAAO were false, there wouldn’t be such considerable empirical support. But there is. So the TAAO isn’t false, it is therefore true.
>And mass incarceration is because blacks commit 60% of all violent crimes
A lot of it has to do with drug crimes. This perpetuates the cycle of boys being raised without fathers and finding their manhood in the senseless violence that is gangbanging. It started with institutional and historic racism.
>leave the adults alone.
Adults know how to take showers. You don’t have the capacity to contend with me or RR in a debate.
The percent of blacks currently incarcerated is at 38 percent. Regarding the percentage of blacks locked up for drug arrests, see
“Black people comprise 13 percent of the U.S. population,9 and are consistently documented by the U.S. government to use drugs at similar rates to people of other races.10 But Black people comprise 30 percent of those arrested for drug law violations11 – and nearly 40 percent of those incarcerated in state or federal prison for drug law violations.12”
Click to access DPA_Fact_Sheet_Drug_War_Mass_Incarceration_and_Race_June2015.pdf
“Nationwide, blacks comprise 62 percent of drug offenders admitted to state prison. In seven states, blacks constitute between 80 and 90 percent of all people sent to prison on drug charges.
Nationwide, black men are sent to state prison on drug charges at 13 times the rate of white men.
Two out of five blacks sent to prison are convicted of drug offenses, compared to one in four whites.”
https://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/drugs/war/key-facts.htm
Where do you 2 clowns think racism comes from? All the races of man have similar feeling towards blacks for a reason. People look at them and think ‘primitive’ ‘dangerous’ etc.
Aesthetics don’t lie. You 2 should stick to the day jobs…fitness trainer and woodworking.
People look at them and think ‘primitive’ ‘dangerous’ etc
So you admit people are racist against them yet you can’t imagine how this would result in them being wrongfully incriminated.
Aesthetics don’t lie.
Aesthetics is a good starting point but if you always judge a book by its cover, you’re an idiot.
There is some good work on this question, and to ameliorate racial discrimination, a good education on the reality of human genetics and race significantly reduces racial bias/discrimination (racism).
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/sce.21506
So Puppy finally reveals his colours and joins the clown brigade. Aesthetics gets you 90% of the way. I would guess about 5% of blacks are wrongfully jailed.
No I believe there are genetic differences in criminality, but this leads to racist stereotypes which when combined with innate racism and poverty, leads to blacks being disproportionately wrongfully convicted.
Racist stereotypes dont cause crime dumbass. Thats is the dumbest thing you have ever said. Literally a 5 year old has better social intelligence than this. So embarrassing.
Didn’t say racist stereotypes cause crime, I said they cause innocent black people to be convicted of crimes.
You lack the working memory to hold two opposing thoughts. A group can be both more criminal and also more wrongfully convicted
“No I believe there are genetic differences in criminality, but this leads to racist stereotypes which when combined with innate racism and poverty, leads to blacks being disproportionately wrongfully convicted.”
^Seems like one good reason for some form of de facto segregation or separation (which of course we already have to large degree, just like segregation between IQ).
Or you wait for Kalergi Plan near-complete race mixing but there will always be castes, location or heritage-based classes, as well as increasing understanding of genetic differences anyway regardless of outer appearance.
Do you know the name is the book where this plan was articulated, isn’t it “Paneuropa”? Would you say that the EU was what his vision eventually became for a united Europe? Do you have access to an English language version? Do you have the quote in which it was articulated with the surrounding context?
You are literally so brainwashed by the danes you literally believe police officers walk around point at blacks and randomly throw them in jail for no goddamn reason. Are you insane? That didn’t even happen under Jim Crow.
No, I don’t believe police are the problem. I think it’s more often non-Nordic white women falsely accusing black men of raping them or accusing black women of stealing etc.
Are you literally so racist that you can’t believe that blacks are wrongfully convicted of crimes they didn’t commit? See the below. I await your concise analysis of the issue.
Click to access Race%20Report%20Preview.pdf
Also, I suspect black people also falsely accuse other black people of crime
“I believe there are genetic differences in criminality”
Can you elaborate?
You know Puppy I was actually thinking about the reaction of women to blacks the other day. In school we were all forced to read To Kill a Mockingbird because the rulers of the West, the danes demanded gentiles get sensitivity training at age 13. Whatever, anyway the premise of the story is a white trash women falsely accusing a black man of rape.
Do you want to know the truth about blacks and rape?
The raping of white women by blacks is actually severely UNDER reported. White women have been raped and never say anything because of how embarrassing it was and they don’t know who the assailant was or even that they might be called a racist. There was actually an epidemic of rape in the 70s and 80s. It was basically unsafe for a woman to walk around at night in New York, Chicago and LA.
Don’t elaborate for RR. He is angry you know the truth and wants to copy and paste a few jewish articles for you to ‘reasses’ yourself.
3/6 authors of the report RR just posted about wrongful convictions are jews. Therefore I stopped reading.
What a worldview you have that you can just disregard something that shows you’re wrong by looking at someone’s ethnicity.
LOL, Philo completely turned on Pumpkin simply because he said something reasonable.
Seriously Philly, did you get raped by a black guy or something?
You get a lot of danes with these really contrarian and weird theories that can only be explained by the fact that they are pushing a social agenda. They are simply too intelligent to not get the deal with blacks and so on.
I bet if you tied Stephen Jay Gould to a chair and interrogated him forcefully, he would eventually admit that he personally believes HBD but just doesn’t want to justify nazis.
I agree that Gould was motivated by ethnic interests but also having verbal IQ > math IQ which allows one to talk themselves into irrational ideas.
Sapolsky is probably more honest than Gould but strikes me as being perhaps a bit autistic. His otherwise high IQ might also be dragged down a bit by his shortness genes.
Gould was forthcoming with his biases, but they weren’t due to “ethnic interests.” Gould was right and his book is a masterclass at refuting hereditarianism and I know of no other book that so masterfully weaves the history of craniometry with the history of IQ. Gould was right about Morton.
I think jewish high functioning pathological lie lies on their evolutionary foundations and because their specialization mostly as a merchant… you know. Not necessarily selection for high technical intelligence aka IQ per si but because the positive selection for merchant psychological type, good to read and understand people and to convince or blackmail them.
Theres no such thing of having such a high VIQ that you confuse yourself. Either Saprosky is an idiot or he has autism or he has a social agenda i.e. ‘proving’ blacks aren’t violent. Its the latter.
Shutup RR. Go fuck yourself.
Keep showing your ignorance, “philosopher.”
Meanwhile on RR’s blog he bans anyone that believes in evolution. Just saying Puppy, you need to reasses what to do with this reprehensible troll.
I’m going to watch Sound Of Freedom which was approved by St. mel gibson who did a rewrite of the script.
Love to see Lynn’s data get smashed by many people.
Hahaha you actually accidentally make yourself look stupid showing this dataset.
How?
Notice the way all Mel Gibsons friends got blacklisted from Hollywood as well – Jim Cavaziel, Vince Vaughn, Jodie Foster etc.
I saw Sound of Freedom and its a 10/10. It is truly a memorable and very worthy movie.
Your taste in movies is prole and unsophisticated. And Gibson had nothing to do with that movie you dupe.
I’m watching Wings of Desire for the fourth or fifth time. I recommend it, it’s a beautiful movie.
LOL you watch womens movies. Anyway the movie is riveting and the story is dark but great.
Also Mel is the executive producer and script writer.
No he is not the producer or writer. That’s just a conspiracy theory.
Didn’t one of the guys who funded that documentary get charged with child kidnapping?
His name is in the fucking credits! LOL
Basically because Mel financed the movie and produced it, he will make millions from it because they movie made an enormous profit despite the entire danish media trying to (a) at first, ignore it then (b) thrashing the movie.
The Danes loved the movie because it deflects from Epstein being a zion agent to the more general problem of child trafficking. Mel’s name is not mentioned in the wiki article except as someone who endorsed it.
The danes despised the movie puppy. Basically every mainstream media outlet trashed the movie in its review. Frankly, I don’t even think the reviewers watched it. I read some of the reviews and they are so weird. They wanted to bury this thing and they failed.
If you look on rotten tomatoes, it has basically a perfect audience score which I’ve never seen before and a bad critic score.
I kept wondering why the danes hated an anti-child sex trafficking movie so much and honestly I don’t get it beyond maybe Epstein and Pizzagate.
At the end of the movie his name comes up literally as the 3rd or 4th name as ‘executive producer’.
Phil is right. Very little positive views about this movie in the jewish media and the hidden motivations.
“I kept wondering why the danes hated an anti-child sex trafficking movie”
Because the people funding it are anti-semites.
Biggest crime in this century, hold a non absolutely positive opinion about janes.
Peeps, I asked you if you were a cat or dog person and you didn’t answer. I asked you your date of birth ( without the year) and you didn’t tell. I asked you to atleast tell me your zodiac sign then, and you didn’t tell. Nobody’s going to use that info to sling mud on your comments or logic here. If they do…you can always take them apart.
Anyways, it is your choice whether you want to tell us the above or not.
And by the way, blacks didn’t bury people before europeans came and showed them how to do it to prevent cholera.
They literally just dumped the bodies in the jungle or whatever.
But europeans were not also the Kings of health-knowledge for hundred, maybe thousand of years ago.
Lol. This reminds me of a convo I had with a white nationalist back in the day. He claimed that Europeans were the ones who showed Africans how to use bows and arrows, and when I corrected him with evidence pointing to the use of such weapons by around 100kya he went on an unhinged rant.
Similar scenario now. Africans have been burying their dead for about 80k years but that doesn’t stop this gullible moron from believing the opposite.
As we’ve discussed, Richard Klein also claims the bow and arrow was invented in Europe and he’s no HBDer. In fact he believes intelligence stopped evolving right before humans left Africa. I think the oldest bows were found in Europe but this doesn’t prove much since bows don’t preserve well. Some claim arrow heads existed in Africa 70 kya but Klein thinks they’re too big to be arrow heads but obviously others disagree. Apparently the old bow and arrow theory is an idea that goes in and out of fashion.
But if the bow and arrow was invented in Africa before modern humans left, why didn’t the Australian aboriginals have it and why did it take so long for the Native Americans to get it?
Blacks didn’t even invent the wheel. People from the stone age invented the wheel lol. I don’t even know if blacks invented fire before europeans.
Which people invented the wheel? And by “invented”, I mean”independent” without outside influence. More than likely, the wheel was only independently created in Mesopotamia and China and spread out from there.
The Maya didn’t use the wheel since it wasn’t conducive to their cobbled stone roads, but they knew of it since they used it on children’s toys. And they did all of this isolated from other civilizations. (Though I don’t doubt that they had inspiration from the other pre-Olmec civilizations.)
Correct.
You should do an article on the origin of the bow and arrow but only if you’re honestly looking for the truth and not trying to debunk HBD
Sounds good to me. I’ll publish it here.
sounds good
Tell me why this comment banned.
too mean spirited
“As we’ve discussed, Richard Klein also claims the bow and arrow was invented in Europe and he’s no HBDer.”
This doesn’t mean anything to me. I don’t disregard someone’s analysis based on whether they’re an HBDer or not. If his views are right, they’re right.
“Some claim arrow heads existed in Africa 70 kya but Klein thinks they’re too big to be arrow heads but obviously others disagree. ”
And no offense, Pumpkin, but his opinion is irrelevant to me too. It doesn’t make sense because a lot of criticisms seem to be about how small they are. Either way, TCSA analysis, XRF analysis, and site-wide residual interpretation have basically confirmed that bows and arrows have been in use for at least 70,000 years. Shit has changed.
But if you need RR to write you a 4000-word blog post to demonstrate what you would have already known had you just listened to me in the first place, then be my guest.
Here, RR, these links might give you a place to start:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352409X20302686
https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1016/j.quascirev.2020.106295
“why didn’t the Australian aboriginals have it and why did it take so long for the Native Americans to get it?”
I don’t know. It wouldn’t be the first time that technology was lost, but I don’t need to explain that for my original assertion to be true.
Thanks for the references Melo. I’ll be looking to you to see if what I wrote has merit and fits the views in the literature m
“Thanks for the references Melo. I’ll be looking to you to see if what I wrote has merit and fits the views in the literature m”
If it’s as well-researched and thought out as most of your articles are, then I’m sure it’ll be fine. I’m just expressing my frustration with Pumpkin’s stubbornness. It’s so antithetical to how science is supposed to operate.
What stubbornness? LOL! All I said is that some scientists think the bow and arrow was invented in Europe and others think it was invented in Africa. The sources you cite seem to be from the University of Johannesburg so they might have a slightly different take than Western scientists, which is not to say they’re wrong. The Western scientists could be wrong.
Obviously a 3rd rate african university is going to claim for political reasons blacks were capable of inventing bows and arrows. Some of these freaks even claim blacks were behind the eygptian civilisation. Melo is brainded and out of his depth here.
Stop. The white researchers from that Uni came to their conclusion because the evidence they’ve reviewed and the analysis they’ve performed supports said conclusion. It has absolutely nothing to do with their location.
This is what I mean by your “stubbornness.” Jesus himself could come back from the dead right now and say, “Pumpkinperson, you’re wrong, and here’s the proof,” and you would still spew some ad hoc bullshit to explain away inconsistencies in your theories. Or, in this case, just claim the interpretation of the evidence is simply a matter of opinion and not the most logical deduction from the evidence available to us.
As time has passed, more and more evidence has surfaced that behavioral modernity occurred far earlier than we thought.
Jesus himself could come back from the dead right now and say, “Pumpkinperson, you’re wrong, and here’s the proof,” and you would still spew some ad hoc bullshit to explain away inconsistencies in your theories. Or, in this case, just claim the interpretation of the evidence is simply a matter of opinion and not the most logical deduction from the evidence available to us.
False. If they find a bow anywhere in the World more than 50 K years old or even a drawing of a bow and arrow more than 50 K years old I will believe the bow was invented in Africa 70 kya.
It just seems strange to me that an invention as important as the bow & arrow could have been invented that long ago but everyone who migrated to North America, South America, and most of Oceania mysteriously forgot how to use this revolutionary weapon.
So if indeed it is that old, then a) it’s not that important since several continents of humans forgot all about it, or b) maybe there was dysgenic selection for people migrating to the Americas and Australia which actually makes sense because the megafauna there would be unadapted to human types and thus be easy to hunt.
phil, sigh* fire is not an invention. is water an invention?
The control of fire is a knowledge, a technique.
They may be white but the uni was run by blacks and there would have been intense pressure from the establishment to pretend blacks could invent bows and arrows.
Yes fire is an invention Name, dumbass.
“If they find a bow anywhere in the World more than 50 K years old or even a drawing of a bow and arrow more than 50 K years old I will believe the bow was invented in Africa 70 kya.”
Oh wow, you have such a rigorous standard for evidence, don’t you? That’s funny.
Well, you are going to be waiting for a while. The oldest bow fragments are nearly 20k.
“So if indeed it is that old, then a) it’s not that important since several continents of humans forgot all about it, or b) maybe there was dysgenic selection for people migrating to the Americas and Australia which actually makes sense because the megafauna there would be unadapted to human types and thus be easy to hunt.”
Native Americans did have bows and arrows. It’s literally just Australia and Oceania that didn’t. The bow and arrow is essential from a historical perspective, but you have to remember it’s just a tool that served specific purposes. It’s highly likely, that Australoids didn’t need it because they were hunting megafauna. RR even posted an article supporting this theory on your newest post. It would be best if you read it.
“They may be white but the uni was run by blacks and there would have been intense pressure from the establishment to pretend blacks could invent bows and arrows.”
LOL, you are such a fucking retard.
Pill the two biggest id*ots on this site were you and mug. now that mug has left you are the biggest idiot here. and you are proving it regularly.
I was reading an article about Sound of Freedom and how there is a massive market for christian movies that danish hollywood understandably ignores.
Think about it. If the libertarians were correct that the movie business was about profit, why don’t we see more massive blockbusters like The Passion or Sound of Freedom?
I’m not religious at all but this is another weird outcome of danish media control. They basically turn down hundreds of millions just to prevent people worshipping Jesus, who is a real jew not a hybrid ashkenazim like they are.
Well the whole point of money is buy what you want so if you have to sacrifice what you want to make money, what’s the point?
there is nothing weird. they are wary of people becoming too religious and attack them. remember the middle ages? dont u actually know this or are u pretending that u dont and/or it never happened?
Despite danes inventing christianity, they rejected it because basically it was too socialist?
Mugabe feel free to opine on this as the resident theologian.
It would be very interesting reading about how the direct descendants of the ancient hebrews – mizrahi and sephardics are different in terms of IQ or personality from their ashkenazi cousins.
You banning Mugabes comments? He said you banned him.
He’s delusional. I haven’t banned him at all.